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.
Uh bouy . .
I ran operations that fed up to 1,000 people in one sitting, 3,000 in an afternoon. Plus, I've run various food service operations in different parts of the world.
I always viewed the health inspector as my friend. If my kitchen produced food poisoning, my cooks would take some of the heat, by I would take most of it.
And word of mouth travels like greased lightning when it come to somebody being food poisened - BOTTOM LINE is lost business and revenue.
Not sure if I could consider the NIS boys as necesarily "friends" as I would a health inspector.
The restaurant/bar business can be hell. So can being a president. But a polititian - they come from hell.
ABSOLUTLY RIGHT !!!! This needs to be repeated and often.
However, there is no reason to allow criminals to continue their illegal operation. The INS just needs to get a warrant when inspecting a business. When a business is illegally employing lots of criminal aliens there is generally plenty of probable cause, so getting a warrant to inspect their records and ID their employees is no big deal.
Nor is it a violation of anyone’s rights to park marked INS cars and vans outside the criminal business. When the illegal aliens show up for work and see uniformed INS agents and marked INS vehicles, most of them will turn around and leave. A few days of this will put a real dent in the criminal employer’s productivity.
We don’t have to trash what’s left of the Bill of Rights to solve this problem. All we need is an administration that believes in the rule of law.
Defend this stance with open border's. National Security takes a backseat with this proposal, and yet you support it wholeheartedly. You are all over the place. Any argument in a pinch, huh!? How many islamonuts have infiltrated our borders with these Illegals flooding across? How many more are to come with the new millions? Where's that National Security now? Spare me. Blackbird.
We should have done that when the first time the Mexican army crossed our border and attacked our citizens. Clinton let them get away with it and so did Bush.
We have a hostile cesspool on our southern border. Their army attacks us inside our borders and we do nothing except kiss their ass. They sided with Saddam in the U.N. and this president ignored it. His “you’re either with us or against us” crap is very selective. It looks like it only applies to countries that compete with his father’s business interests.
We can send our military to Liberia to take sides in a civil war that has nothing what so ever to do with our interests, or with us, but we can’t protect American citizens inside our own borders from attacks from a foreign military.
But what the hell, the president is a Republican and almost as popular as Clinton was, so let’s forget all this. The important thing is he can win an election and he is a Republican. Everything else is unimportant.
Maybe you should reign back all that pent up anger your bucking and stop biting the heads of fellow posters off merely because they don't share your world view on certain issues, particularly this one. Just because we're all FReepers doesn't mean we all have to think alike
Maybe you should spend some time contemplating how wrong you are instead of attempting to psychoanalyse your fellow FReepers. You made a statement, I countered with at least anecdotal evidence that you are wrong, who got angry? Learn Spanish and fear for your Job, your Family, and your Country. That would be productive. If we don't shoot this down NOW, I'm the least of your worries. Blackbird.
This is not the first call I've gotten on this - I've had several.
Each one are up in arms over utter disgust, disbelief, and awe.
Each are Republicans who have voted party line an average of forty to fifty years.
Each agree on one thing: Bush lost a minimum of 10% of his support in one fell swoop. In one day he has successfully manged to do the near impossible - alienate at least 25% of ALL Republicans.
Hell hath no fury like a Republican scorned.
8. Later this month President Bush will give his State of the Union Address to the nation. What topic are you most interested in hearing the president talk about during his speech? (OPEN ENDED)
The economy/jobs 35% Iraq 17 Terrorism 10 Health Care 4 Medicare/
prescription Drugs4 Education 3 Immigration/
illegal aliens2 Social Security 2 Taxes 2 Budget Deficit 1 Other 5 None 6 Not sure 9
After hearing President Bush's speech, do you approve of his immigration reform plan?
Yes
415 votes - 22%
No
1,234 votes - 65%
Undecided
237 votes - 12%
1,886 votes total; you voted "No"
Please explain which 'hostile military' the illegal aliens belong to."
Have you found THE loophole for hordes of invaders to infiltrate the United States of America?
Do you mean to say that an invading "hostile military" can only be regarded as such if they are wearing fatigues and carrying arms?
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.