Posted on 02/26/2004 11:34:03 AM PST by Hildy
I will likely vote for Marin. I know alot of folks here rail against the immigration stance of President Bush and Rosario Marin. But don't forget that it was just this issue and Prop 187 that sent Wilson and the Republicans to the dustbin of Golden State politics for nearly a decade. Marin is a fresh face with a compelling story. The Empowerment of a conservative latina would help us in the state and nationally.
|
That settles it.
Go Marin Go
Have you been right yet?
Then you should just support Boxer, she has the best chance to win, and we sure like to vote for a winner.
Have you been right yet?
|
Vote for whomever you choose. That's your free choice.
But if you help Marin become a candidate in November you have done a grave disservice to the conservative cause and to California.
Marin is, in her core principals, a strong supporter of the rights of Mexican nationals in California and the US in general. Her enthusiastic advocacy led to her unexpected and premature departure from Treasury, not because the administration didn't support her general posture, but because she refused to honor an agreed upon time table.
Today the consequences of illegal immigration and the presence of alien nationals in California is the root cause of California economic woes. Too little productive people trying to support too many unproductive, entitled people.
Casting a vote for Marin may well be perceived as pragmatic but the damage rendered to our state if Marin is elected will far out way the damage that even Boxer would inflict upon us. When push comes to shove a Democrat, even a liberal Democrat, will bend to the will of the majority. A single issue ideologue like Marin will not. She will sulk or quit, as she did at Treasury, but she will not bend.
She supported NAFTA. Howard did not.
Howard wants to eliminate the financial incentive for people entering our country illegally. He wants Enforcement of existing laws.
Our President is not protecting our boarders. This is the largest chink in our so call armor of "National Security". Our legislators are not protecting our boarders.
Tom Tancredo has endorsed Howard. He came to California to speak at a rally for Howard. Howard is cultivating relationships with existing lawmakers to begin to fix the actual problem.
I don't see your girl doing the same thing.
I listened to the show, and you can, too, here.
It was the 2/24, the day before yesterday.
I also posted a transcript on another thread.
I got the complete opposite feeling about Marin's opinion on the President's proposed amnesty. She did not oppose it.
While she blamed Mexico for the problems and insisted that they need to stop letting their unemployed come here, she couldn't answer Roger Hedgecock's question about why the Mexican government would stop it, when the practice is financially beneficial to Mexico.
Obviously, Mexico is the primary source of our illegal aliens, but other poor countries in Central America and Asia also send us illegal aliens, many through the Mexican border. Mexico is sovereign, so their reforms are not really up to our Senators to impose. Also, it would be morally wrong to ask the Mexican government to prevent their people from leaving Mexico. It would be better to focus on preventing aliens from entering or staying illegally in the US -- and, that is the responsibility of the US only.
Roger: Alright, let me get back to an issue, and I want to start, uh, with you, Toni Casey. President Bush has proposed an immigration reform which, I think, is fairly called amnesty. He has promised protections at the border which have not materialized. A lot of Republicans in this area and across the nation are very upset at the lack of the Bush administration's ability -- especially after 9-11 -- to control our nation's borders. Your position.
Casey: Well, again, I have come out very strongly, as much as I love my President, against the ways, uh, equates to amnesty. But, I do have a solution. What we do need is a guaranteed job employer base for a specified time that will allow the worker to go home to his or her family and that does not allow the worker to bring his or her family with him.
So, let's talk about border control. You know, with San Diego, since the President annouced his plan, there's been a 15% increase in fraudulent documentation -- just what was predicted because of the President's plan. Uh, President Fox is promoting it as amnesty in Mexico.
We need tighter border control with cooperation between your local, your state, and your county and your federal agencies. Right now, you've got local ordinances ordinaces that prohibit that. They need to be challenged, and they need to be changed, because you've got to have that cooperation so that if you're not here legally, you go home.
Roger: Rosario Marin, your position on the, ah, immigrant proposal by, uh, George Bush.
Marin: Well, it was even a legislative proposal, Roger. What he has is a, uh, principles, guide principles, uh, for a reform. Clearly, our immigration policies have failed us. When you have four, up to fourteen million people, ah, that are in the country illegally, we need to reform the system.
What I would, ah, ah, request and demand that any legislative proposal that comes to our, for, for, uh, reforming our, our system, ah, has to include two things. One, a very, uh, strong enforcement component. What would we do, should people break the law. And, it has to be very clear. And, we have to have the resources to enforce that. We may have enforcement procedures right now, but we don't have the resources allocated to do that. Therefore, they're null and void. In addition, we need to have a very es- specific component about providing resources to secure our borders. And that's on here, on the ground, and on the scene.
But, no amound of federal re, um, immigration reform this side of the border will be sufficient, so long as Mexico doesn't, um, uh, ah, have their act together. We receive, we are the recipient of Mexico's unemployment line. We cannot afford that. And, I think we need to be able to say, we will reform our immigration policies if you are willing to reform your economic and your tax policies.
Roger: Why should they do anything of the kind, since they get thirteen billion dollars a year in remittances from Mexicans, from Mexicans who are in the United States, making it the biggest single source of revenue for the whole country?
Marin: Because we can no longer...
Roger: Yeah, but why would they change? Question: Why would they change if they're making money on the deal?
Marin: Because we need to make sure that we are no longer the repository of Mexico's unemployment line.
Roger: Alright, Howard Kaloogian, Yes or No on the President's proposal?
Kaloogian: No. And, and as Rosario started out and as I'm sure Bill will get to, ah, they say that there isn't enough flesh on the proposal yet for them to know whether or not they support it, but the President (interrupted by someone, probably Marin, saying "no, no") the President has said, here is my plan, this is enough information, I'd like Americans to support it. Look, since, there, there are two major problems with it. First, it's mechanically flawed, and, second, it's morally wrong.
It's mechanically flawed, because it doesn't address the source of the problem, only the symptoms of the problem. If you've got a pipe that burst in your bathroom, and, the first thing you've got to do is turn the water flow to that pipe off. But, this plan reaches for the paper towels while flood into our county continues. And, so, it's mechanically flawed. It'll never work.
But, it's morally wrong, because we're a nation of immigrants. My father immigrated to this country. On my mother's side, her parents immigrated to this country. We're an entire nation of people who at one point stood in line and waited our turn. And, we have a very generous system of immigration. We shouldn't have to apologize to ask people to come to this country according to our laws.
Roger: Bill Jones, what do you think about the President's proposal.
Jones: I oppose amnesty. And, the fact of the matter is, this is not in the bill form. If it was in the bill form in its current manner, uh, the, which it's not, then I would oppose it. The two issues that we need to look at in California is making sure that we have a situation where the borders are protected.
I think Howard is right, that you cannot argue for an amnesty in- program when we tried this back in the 80's and it did not work. Uh, we've got the same problem again. We have to be, make sure that the solution is a California-centric solution with no amnesty, the borders are in fact protected, which the federal government has not followed through and done, and the dollars that come back from Washington need to come back to make up for the losses that we sustain from the more than a million illegal immigrants that come into to California each year.
The reason why this issue is so critical is because there's probably thirty or forty other states that don't see this as a big problem. So, when you talk about a national, uh, solution, it's really those of us on the cutting edge, which is California, that deal with this every day.
So, it's fine to go back to Mexico and encourage them to do a better job economically, but at the end of the day, we're going to have the, uh, the Senator from California is going to have to have a California-centric solution that's based on no amnesty, to protect the borders, and, in fact, pay for the cause before we go further on any of the other issues that are outlined in this, uh, proposal. I'd oppose the proposal by the President.
KSFO with Melanie Morgan
KFBK with Tom Sullivan
At the CRP Convention (2/21/04)
An interview with the LA Times:
Marin is the only one of the candidates to support Bush's immigrant guest-worker plan, which has been criticized by some Republicans as a faulty "amnesty" policy. Latinos, on the other hand, criticize Marin for being blindly loyal to the president.
With the Contra Costa Times
Believes President Bush's proposal for a three-year temporary worker system for undocumented immigrants is a good starting point, but says it must include a strong enforcement mechanism, Mexico should assist with securing the border, and lawmakers must dedicate adequate resources for border security.
I can continue...
And Herschenson barely lost.
If you think there isn't an enormous pile of material Bill Jones can have used against him, I have news for you. After Bawbawa gets done with him on $4 million in cotton subsidies, his big play into a bankrupt ethanol producer followed by a quick silo fire, and his role in a $70 million dollar lawsuit over water that the government wants "to protect the environment," what do you think his chances are?
Funny, she said she supported the President's plan...
|
| Kaloogian was the ONLY candidate to come out against the "amnesty on the installment plan" proposal. Jones was going to study it to death. Marin and Casey were supportive of the President's plan.
|
Fong was about as appealing as a cold artichoke. On top of that, he doomed his own campaign by hopping on board the pro-gay, pro-abortion bandwagon.
So, in short, I don't buy these excuses you list. Especially since Boxer was facing dropping approval ratings and the Democrats were still reeling from the Lewinsky scandal. Fong ran a campaign of being "just as Liberal" as Boxer and that allowed Boxer to widen her lead.
And now we're supposed to believe that doing the same thing now is going to yield different results? Sorry, I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.
So someone isn't pro-life if they believe in exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother?
That's kicking a lot of good people in the teeth.
While my beliefs on the issue are those of the Catholic Church, it's counterproductive when people like you (impeach98 and tatoochick) attack those pro-lifers who you don't agree with 100%.
Kaloogian refuses to argue for getting rid of Roe v. Wade -- are you going to say HE isn't pro-life next???? Actually, I can't find where he's ever taken a stand on rape, incest, and life of the mother.
You're still repeating that nonsense?? Does the truth mean nothing to you?
She resigned to run for the United States Senate.
In a time where we have rogue leftist judges legislating from the bench, you damn well better have some "hard and fast" standards when going through the appointment process.
Jones is a squish. He always has been. He always will be.
I prefer that my candidates have a backbone.
They are facts.
Especially since Boxer was facing dropping approval ratings and the Democrats were still reeling from the Lewinsky scandal.
You can argue that '98 was not a Democrat-friendly year if you want to, but you would be Wrong. That's the year Schumer beat D'Amato, John Edwards beat Faircloth . . . Boxer has run in Democrat-friendly years both times on the ballot. Unfortunately California is more liberal/Democrat now.
Fong ran a campaign of being "just as Liberal" as Boxer and that allowed Boxer to widen her lead.
That's just not true.
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.