Posted on 01/08/2004 3:34:13 PM PST by kellynla
I am beginning to think John McCain actually won the presidency in 2000.
Conservatives were relieved when the Straight Talk Express petered out during the 2000 primary season. John McCain, although tough on national security and runaway spending, was hardly a conservative on major issues such as campaign finance, healthcare reform and immigration.
Yet this is exactly where we find President Bush today (except unlike McCain, Bush doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with runaway spending). Last year President George Bush signed the McCain-Feingold bill into law, which is one of the worst assaults on political speech this country has ever seen. When conservatives (and many liberals) howled, the President’s advisers whispered that they believed the Supreme Court would “clean up” the more onerous parts of the bill which dictates the types of political ads that can air before a general election or primary contest. Of course the Supreme Court rubber stamped the entire thing and so the result is less, not more political speech in the U.S.
And now President Bush charges across the landscape to rescue us from our “unfair” and “broken” immigration system by rewarding people who came here illegally with the promise of legal status. This proposal essentially mirrors the immigration legislation sponsored by—you got it—Sen. McCain. Under the Bush/McCain plan, anyone outside the U.S. who wants to come into the country would only need to show proof of a “job offer” in order to get an initial three-year work permit that would be renewable for an unspecified period. Such temporary workers could also bring family members here. What prevents these people from staying on beyond their time premitted for "temporary" work? As it stands now, there seems to be no limit on the immigration —temporary or permanent— allowed under this plan. And as for the claim that this would be a big boon to the American economy? Illegal immigration costs taxpayers $20 billion each year, in extra education, healthcare, welfare, and prison costs. Today thirty-four percent of Mexicans legally in the U.S., and 25 percent of Mexicans illegally here are welfare.
How are those costs diminished under the Bush plan?
Most bewildering is the Administration idea that this plan is necessary for homeland security reasons. On the contrary, it would not be surprising if some would-be terrorists are among the millions of illegals who will become “documented” under the Bush plan. As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) charged, "Guest worker programs and gradual amnesty provide cover for terrorists."
It’s easy to understand why Vicente Fox, McCain, big business, and La Raza are happy this week—but what’s in this new proposal for working class American families? How about those immigrants who a lot of time and money to comply with our immigration laws?
The real answer is absolutely nothing. The only reasonable prediction is that wages for a wide range of jobs will be kept artificially depressed by outside workers—now with “legal status” will work for peanuts. “I have worked construction for 30 years as a truck driver (18-wheeler),” wrote one of my listeners, “And every year my pay has gone down because Mexicans are flooding the trucking industry…."
When Bill Clinton says we live in an “increasingly borderless world,” we’re not surprised. It’s the usual globaloney blather. But when a Republican president advocates a policy that will make our borders effectively meaningless, we should be outraged.
With his approval numbers high, President Bush has made a devil’s bargain with business and Hispanic groups. Elites from both parties are ignoring the view of a strong majority of Americans that we need to stop illegal immigration, not high-five it.
Another listener wonders: “What happened to the ‘party of principle’? More like the party of pandering. Considering the massive numbers involved, this amnesty being floated really is Pandora's Box, once opened cannot be closed.”
President Bush has now done the equivalent of posting a sign at the border: “Help Wanted for $5.15/hour.”
Conservatives are right to be disappointed in President Bush. We are right to ignore the Administration’s promise that this time, non-amnesty amnesty will be good for the American people. Our citizenship and legal residence should be reserved for people who love this country enough that breaking her laws—whether at the border or on the street—is out of the question. The next time I hear from his Administration that it is doing all it can to protect our homeland, secure our borders, and increase our standard of living, I will laugh.
Now I know the definition of “compassionate conservative:” a person who campaigns as a conservative, then sells out key conservative principles.
BINGO!
Well, for starters, how about NOT rewarding criminal behavior. What you subsidize, you get more of.
Secondly, I don't buy the argument that we don't have the resources to go after millions of illegals. We've found our way clear to increase the federal budget by 23% since 2001, exploding spending in every area except immigration and border security. Adding 1047 border patrol agents over a three-year period ain't gonna cut it -- we can do a lot better than that.
Finally, how about imposing some really strict penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants, and then enforcing those penalties? I think this is something we're going to do under the amnesty plan, but why do we have to wait for that? If it's good later, why wouldn't it be good right now?
Which post are you referring to?
It's not just resources--it's civil liberties. Do you want checkpoints every 50 miles so you can show your papers to a surly "border guard?"
We've found our way clear to increase the federal budget by 23% since 2001, exploding spending in every area except immigration and border security. Adding 1047 border patrol agents over a three-year period ain't gonna cut it - we can do a lot better than that.
Uh-huh. Define "a lot." BE SPECIFIC. WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO?
I get extremely annoyed with proposals that say "well, uh, do SOMETHING."
As for the employers: "Probable cause," and mens rea. Those four words make it damn near impossible to enforce harsh penalties.
What's ironic is that your attitude is pure DU. Anyone who disagrees with the babble of rhetoric over there is immediately accused of being a "rightie"....
Now, grab a pencil and take this down... Conservatives really CAN dislike another conservative while still sharing the same political principles... just amazing, aint it?!?Perfect example of this is an abortion clinic bomber. While we may share exactly the same preferences in legislative policy and political platforms, I have no respect for someone who implements these political values in such a moronic and counterproductive manner.
Another perfect example? Conservatives who vote third party while our national security hangs in the balance...
What? And pissoff the chamber of commerce? How will the countryclubs survive without illegals? Eh? Answer that?
Yep. The last time that happend, Clinton won the White House in 1992 and 1996.
BTW, it is very telling that many of those cheering Bush's plan on this thread are spending most of their time in ad hominem attacks and shrill "who will pick the lettuce and clean the toilets?" rhetoric. (That is so very 1980s. Catch up, people. These days it's "who will build our houses and run our restaurants, stores, and fast food franchises?")
Uh-huh. So, you're now spending gazillions of dollars AND doing so for extremely intrusive law enforcement not based on probable cause.
And how about posting Guard units along the borders? Why hasn't the military been guarding our borders all along?
Posse Comitatus Act.
Handled nicely, good job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.