Posted on 01/16/2004 8:44:09 PM PST by Deport Billary
(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...
The Democrats stance on the United Nations and our sovereignty is a major difference
Hmmmm, seems it wasn't a Democrat President that called for this nation of states to rejoin UNESCO was it in 2002? And wasn't it UNESCO that three months ago stated in the UN Population Fund's State of the World Population 2003 report that 'Governments should make abortion legal, safe, and affordable'? Thought so
|
No thanks. I'd rather see those illegals get registered, and the beauty of Bush's plan is that he provides an incentive such that the illegals will *volunteer* to be registered in the first place. No, that's just a recapitulation of The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty |
Who cares? Don't vote for him.
What a useless fellowship you and your pals are enjoying here. Men acting like little children. Taking your ball and going home.
Go home already.
There's no measure of virtue, no basis of respect, and no love lost for the loudmouthed freeloaders. Who wants to work with selfish dead enders? Nobody gives a flying freep what your grievences are. Present a politically viable alternative. Somebody you can elect, in place of George W Bush, to achieve all the things you demand. I'm listening. Operators are standing by.
You can't. You guys are clowns.
|
Texasforever: You thought so the other day when it suited your purpose. You posted your own thread decrying it. Howlin: ROFLMAO. Ain't that the truth.
|
The key is to get the Illegals to leave our country on their own initiative."
Of course, this is precisely what Bush's new immigration plan *does*, except of course that it accomplishes this key goal in a non-obvious manner (hence, unnecessary and hostile reaction to said plan).
For instance, Bush's plan offers a carrot/reward to illegals. If they register with the federal government, then they get a blue card, can't be hassled by INS raids, can get a bank account, can transfer money back to their relatives without paying outrageous bribes, become eligible for tax refunds (some of their payroll taxes are refundable), can return to their home countries on vacations without fearing yet another illegal border crossing, and they become immune to the deportation blackmail scams of illegal employers as well as other illegals.
But Bush's carrot/reward to illegals comes with a catch or two. For one thing, they have to *register* with our government to get that reward. Registration changes everything, too. Our status quo *without* registering illegals is that our government doesn't know, institutionally, where all 8 million illegals live and work.
However, once they register for Bush's reward/carrot, poof, we suddenly know who they are, where they live, and who they work for. Now the INS can track them and the IRS can tax them. Like I said, *registration* changes everything.
And there's more...
Bush's plan requires them to voluntarily return to their home countries after three years in order to apply for additional time here in the U.S.
After investing 3 years of their lives into Bush's new plan, few illegals will be willing to risk losing it all. Rather than forfeit their legal right to live and work here, as well as lose their refundable taxes, most illegals will opt to return back to their home countries in order to be able to apply for more legal time here.
But by returning to their home countries voluntarily, they have just done what would take an army of law enforcement to otherwise do by force: they will have deported themselves.
Considering that the 8 million illegals are a larger problem in size/scope than the relocations by force of 6 million Jews in Europe during WW2, this accomplishment of convincing illegals to self-deport themselves voluntarily is not insignificant.
In fact, it is brilliant.
President Bush's plan, once it is finally understood by most radio talk show hosts, will one day be lauded for delivering on precisely your above demands for convincing illegals to go home on their own.
You've presented an impressive reformation proposal to our current immigration mess. I agree with everything in concept but I think your concept has ZERO political chance of ever being implemented. It's not realistic. I support the President's proposal, because I think it is the only realistic plan to get 8-12 million currently resident illegals "regularized". On the books. It's Tough to swallow, but sometimes life is tough to swallow when you are fixing profound eff ups from the past. I'll accept it.
Let's just accept the reality of 8-12 million illegal trespassers here, working living and moving among us. You see it. I see it. Bush sees it. None of us like it. Bush presented a plan.
You don't like his plan. What I want to know, from you, is what your POLITICAL gameplan is at this point to get your 18 point plan implemented. Assume George W. Bush and whomever comes out of the RAT primary don't read Free Republic.
What are you, after all these years ... doing POLITICALLY to get the problem solved. Hell, if you find the Yellow Brick Road on this mess, I'll follow you. Until, and unless, you provide a politically viable alternative to present to CONGRESS, and a game plan to win introduction of that plan, I'll just consider the plan you've constructed, and all the dialogue and bitching surrounding it a charade.
I'm sure you've met with Boxer and Feinstein? Your House Rep? Who is spearheading your 18 point plan into Legislative Realboyland?
You better be working on that aspect, and not just spamming FR with your initiatives, however valid they may be. (And most are) Is it writing in Tom Tancredo for President in 2004? Is that the elegant solution here?
How are you solving your political challenge? Specifically? Enough tales of f'ng woe already. We know the problem. What's your POLITICAL action plan. We know your Free Republic "thinktank" LOL solution. I want to know which elected official is going to make your dreams come true. Names. You've had two and a half years. Thanks.
| The key is to get the Illegals to leave our country on their own initiative." Of course, this is precisely what Bush's new immigration plan *does*, except of course that it accomplishes this key goal in a non-obvious manner (hence, unnecessary and hostile reaction to said plan).
|
Southack has put together an excellent list of conservative achievements by the Bush administration.
If I may, Southack, I'd like to take your list, reorganize it a bit by categories such as "Defense and Foreign Policy," "Abortion and Traditional Values," "Environment and Energy Policy," and so on. It would make the list a bit easier to read. I'll add the HTML, and email it to you for continued use. Perhaps M2C can send it to his ping list so that we can all have it handy as ammunition when needed.
What do you all think of this approach? (I won't be able to get back on my PC until late today, but am pleased that further discusson on this is in your capable hands.)
Like you, I won't be able to be on FR much this weekend. I actually have a life, and it tends to take over a bit on weekends when my time is spent running errand, painting the house, doing yard work, and whatnot. But, to quote our Governor, "I'll be back" later to check in.
But, I have to admit that after a day of high emotion and rejoicing earlier in the day, I was in no mood for the bashing going on in this thread later in the evening. And by the time I posted my comments, it was after 1:00 a.m. on the Left Coast, and I'll admit to a degree of crankiness.
One of the difficulties with conservativism becoming what I believe is now the dominant perspective in American politics is that with its success has come a myriad of shades or nuances. We see it here on FR all the time. Back in the 1950s (I've read about it ;-), there was pretty much only one brand of conservatism -- you know, Robert Taft, and that was about it. But true conservatism amounted to only about 20% of the electorate. I'm sure the ivory tower debates back then were ubiquitious. But the reality of politics is that you put together majorities in a patch-work manner. There is no one-shade of conservativism today, but manny shades -- that's the "price" or the reality of becoming a majority. Which is why it is absolutely moronic to insist that all conservatives adhere to a rigid set of positions. Some of the purists on FR, if they had their way, would drive conservatism back to the 20% level of the 1940s and '50s. If we want conservatism to be the leading edge of American politics, we need to give a little, and recognize that the governing majority will always be around right/center on the political spectrum, which means that particularly in national elections, the absolute best that philosophical conservatives should expect is a candidate who runs around 65% "pure." In other words, a guy like GW Bush.
I find that those who have real experience in practical electoral politics understand this; the naysaying ivory tower snipers do not. We're in an election year, and I don't care whether or not one thinks Bush is dead wrong on immigration; the point is he's right on a lot of issues. And the real choice this year is between George W. Bush, and a "Mad How"-ard Dean, "Corporal Klinger" Clark, "F-in'" Kerry, or, God forbid, the Beast. Contemplating voting for the Libertarian, or the Constitution Party, is the political equivalent of playing with yourself. In case nobody noticed, we're still at war with terrorists; crazies are working on developing The Bomb; the Democrats are committed to raising taxes; the judiciary is on the brink of being lost to the left forever. Rather than tear down this President, we should all be considering and talking about what it is we AGREE with this President on, and considering ways to promote his re-election. It's January 2004, people! The election is about 10 months away. It was fine a year ago to participate in picky debates about "who's a RINO, who's not a RINO," but now we're rounding the final turn, and we need to unite on keeping the Incarnation of Evil (the Dems) not only out of power, but give them a licking which will consign them to the ash heap of history.
Your entire post # 653 is right on the money. I have only highlighted the portion for WKB to see. I love the name yall have given Weasley! It's a keeper and so dang funny, 'cause it's true.
This is a false statement. Why do you lie to yourself and others ?
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.