Posted on 01/12/2004 7:46:07 AM PST by kellynla
If George Bush’s amnesty for between 8 million and 14 million illegal aliens is enacted, you can kiss the old America goodbye.
Consider what the president is saying with his amnesty. He is telling us that he cannot or will not do his constitutional duty to defend the states from invasion. He is saying that he simply cannot or will not protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. He is saying he will no longer send illegal aliens back.
Not long ago, this would have produced calls for impeachment and cries that, “If Bush won’t enforce our laws, let’s elect a president who will.”
By offering amnesty and residency to millions who broke in line, broke our laws and broke into our country, Bush is not only rewarding wholesale criminality, he proposes to legalize it.
His amnesty will send this message to the world: the candy store is open, and the Americans cannot protect it. Now is the time to bust in.
As there must be billions of people willing to come and work for a fraction of our minimum wage—and exploit our social safety net—the number who could come under the Bush guest-worker program is almost infinite.
Imagine a car wash that employs 40 African-American, Latino, and white working-class folks at $8 an hour each. A new car wash down the street opens up, offering 40 new jobs at $5.15 an hour. No Americans apply. Under Bush’s proposal, that employer would be free to go to Asia, Africa, and Latin America, round up workers, and bring them in.
The new car wash with its foreign workers then drives the old car wash with its American workers out of business. Taxpayers are then forced to subsidize the newly unemployed—and pay for the medical care, food stamps, rent supplements, welfare, and schooling of all the new immigrants and their families, provide legal services when they get in trouble and pay for more cops to police their neighborhoods.
And every child born of a guest worker would, under our 14th Amendment, become an American citizen, automatically entitled to all the benefits of citizenship. Meanwhile, Bush’s amnesty will do nothing to halt the illegal invasion that continues to this hour. If you would know what America’s social, cultural, and fiscal future will look like, take a ride through Los Angeles, capital of Mexifornia.
But why did President Bush pick now to propose as explosive an idea as amnesty, when it seemed he was holding a winning hand on the issues of taxes, national security, the economy, and gay marriages?
One sees here the cynical ploy of “Boy Genius” Karl Rove. With the filing deadlines for the Republican primaries having passed and no GOP opponent, with no Third Party challenger from the Right, and with Dean the likely Democratic nominee, Rove knows conservatives are boxed in. In the old cliché, “The conservatives have nowhere else to go.”
So Rove is executing an “apertura a sinistra,” an opening to the Left, pandering to Hispanics and Mexican President Vicente Fox, to whom Bush is to pay a visit.
But Rove may be too clever for the president’s good. For there is no hard evidence that Hispanics, other than those militants who detest Republicans, are demanding amnesty. And with Bush’s spending on foreign aid soaring, his deficits rising, and the White House refusing to veto a single spending bill, Rove & Co. may have stretched conservative loyalty to the breaking point.
For some conservatives, this amnesty will snap it. They may just get on their hind legs and fight, for huge majorities have repeatedly registered opposition to any amnesty for illegal aliens. How is the president helped by a bloody battle with his political base in an election year?
Half a century ago, Dwight Eisenhower, informed there were a million illegals in the United States, most of them from Mexico, ordered them sent back. The project was called “Operation Wetback.”
Ike was a strong president. But in George W. Bush, we have a leader unwilling to pay the political price of doing his duty and enforcing the immigration laws of his country because he fears the reaction from the media elite and Mexican-Americans.
When it comes to standing up to truly powerful ethnic lobbies—the Hispanic Lobby, the Cuban-American Lobby, the Israeli Lobby—Bush wilts and folds every time. Nor is it a healthy sign for the future of our republic when its president offers an amnesty to law-breakers, rather than doing his painful duty to protect his country from what has now become an unstoppable foreign invasion.
The real threats to America’s survival do not come from the Sunni Triangle. They come from within, and unfortunately we have a president who either does not understand them or will not look them in the face.
We have an expansionist history. In Polk's time we stopped where we did because we didn't want the burden of a large Mexican population. We seem to have less of a choice today.
Millions killed? Who's in "fantasy land" now? LOL ... If it were to come to conflict, I'd hire the mexican immigrants, even illegals, and train them as a military border force ... fight fire with fire! Heck it's working in Iraq like a charm.
This whole concept of mass deportation is a strawman IMHO. Enforce verifiable documentation. Make the employers stop hiring illegals, with the threat of fines over their heads. Over time, the market for illegal labor will end and the 'magnet' for illegal immigration will cease to operate.
Too bad.
To your neighborhood.
I'm very curious about your reaction to the article I linked in post #33. It left me with the impression that the documentation system wasn't working and couldn't work...which is why I proposed a language test.
Regardless, language proficiency is much more important than documentation for the health of our society and a language test kills two birds with one stone; legality and proficiency.
Actually, it was successful for its time. The problem was much less in that decade than today. But it was superceded by other policies that went in a different direction. What intervened historically was the end of the Bracero program *and* the 1965 Immigration Law, a law that opened the floodgates to 3rd world immigration.
Our current out-of-control immigration situation is proof that the 1965 Immigration Law was and is a complete fiasco and should be repealed and overturned . Another disaster thanks to Ted Kennedy. We are still suffering from the consequences of the 1965 immigration law, which dicriminates against European immigration in favor of 3rd world immigration (eg the diversity visa program), which allows for "chain migration" of extended families, whether or not they have employment prospects waiting for them (often not, which is one reason why immigrants have much HIGHER RATES of being on welfare and using social services than native-born Americans).
Illegal immigration is tied in with this form of legal immigration because amnesties of various forms have in effect let whole extended families in due to the amnesty of a single person. This creates further incentive for illegal immigration because there is always the hope that one amnesty or 'anchor baby' will get the whole family in.
If we change the legal immigration law to restrict family sponsorship to nucelar fmailies only, it would go a long way to reducing the incentives for illegal immigration.
As a Cubs fan, I'm willing to tolerate such "wait-till-next-year" naivete in sports, but not in politics. Spend a year or two in Washington and you'll change your tune.
Bush's actions of late generally endanger the advance of conservatism. You can't win in the wake of a termed-out incumbent from your own party by repudiating the incumbent. Stevenson tried it in 1952 and got trounced. Gore sort of tried it in 2000, and it might have contributed to his loss.
Once you create new entitlements and such, there's no going back, or else you just look like a liar. Your ideology is irretrievably lost.
You wanna know how I feel about this issue?
Why don't you read some of my posts from last week on some of the daily threads like A FEW of FR's Finest; FR Canteen or America The Right Way among others.
If you want I can look up the post nos and days they were posted.
BUT I am NO ostrich AND I don't stick my head in the sand as you suggested. And Just because I don't agree with everything YOU or anybody that has the nerve to ping me just to tell me they are not voting in the next election. Doesn't mean I am ignoring issues. I just hate one-issue voters.
So why don't you jusr get over the fact that not everyone is going to agree with you! Now leave me alone! don't ping me to any more Immigration threads! I won't go!
You can't have stable expansion unless you're willing to kill/subdue the current occupants of Mexico and colonize it with English speaking Yankee governors and ubermenchen, and loyal legions (not hired local mercanaries) to maintain the new piece.
Are you willing to pay the price?
A worst-case - but not unlikely - scenario.
Assuming your documentation/enforcement system worked...what would you do about a destabilized Mexico, about American lives and possession under attack in that country?
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.