Both R's and D's have their open borders components.
The real split is between the elites of both parties and normal people.
Until one party or the other can bring it's coalition together on an approach that is acceptable to voters, it's going to be more of the same-ol-same-ol. All that will pass until then are meaningless measures designed to convince voters something is happening while making sure everything stays as-is.
Talk about "leading"!
No, the Democrats are going to take advantage of the immigration situation to try to divide and conquer.
The headline should be...Republicans Allow Democrats to Divide and Conquer With Immigration to Appease Them.
(and with such Pollyanna efforts of the Pubs will get trounced yet again)
Congressman Steve King is someone who gets it. He has for a very long time. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't have the Sensenbrenner bill sitting there right now as the representation of the will of the People's House.
Representative King was just interviewed on a local talk radio station. He was quite impressive.
Thomas Sowell
At least someone in Congress understands.
The height of hubris is believing that new immigrants will vote GOP. If the president thinks he can buy future votes for the GOP, he's sadly mistaken. One only needs to look at those counties bordering Mexico in the last election- solid blue. If he is successful with his quasi-amnesty (guest worker) program the GOP will stay in control, but this country won't be worth living in. If he's not successful and reason wins the day, the libs may come to power anyway due to all of the votes they've already bought and this country won't be worth living in 20 years earlier. Bottom line- Time to get out of Dodge. The republic is lost.
This is exactly why history has shown that democracies fail. The poor vote to take wealth away from the rich, the rich move elsewhere, the country falls into ruin because there's no one left to pay the bills, end of story.
Democrats Use Every Issue to Divide and Conquer! They used 911, Welstone's death, Hurricanes, race and class. Why is immigration any different?
Fact: The GOP is in control NOT the dems. The GOP has control of all 3 branches. If the GOP does not fix our border problems, then they and NOT the democrats will be held resposible for their failure.
http://jednet207.tripod.com/PoliticalLinks.html
The democrats will then allow amnesty and push to legalise all illegals that cross the border. In other words, cross the border and you are rewarded with instant citizenship, under the Dim's plan.
APPENDIX C: VIEWS OF ECONOMISTS AND OTHER SOCIAL SCIENTISTS TOWARD IMMIGRATION
Stephen Moore, Rita J. Simon, and Julian L. Simon
There is agreement among economists that immigration has had, and has now, a positive effect upon the economic condition of the United States. We surveyed those persons who have been president of the American Economic Association, as well as those who have members of the President's Council of Economic Advisors. In answer to the question "On balance, what effect has twentieth century immigration had on the nation's economic growth?", 81 percent answered "Very favorable" and 19 percent answered "Slightly favorable". (Complete data may be found at the end of this Appendix.) None of these top economists said that immigration was "slightly" or "very unfavorable," or felt that he or she did not know enough to answer. This extraordinary consensus belies the public picture of the economic profession as being on both sides of all important matters.
The top economists also are willing to extend their backward assessment into a forward-looking policy judgement. When asked "What level of immigration would have the most favorable impact on the U. S. standard of living?", 56 percent said "more", 33 percent said "same number", and none said "fewer". Only 11 percent said "don't know".
It is instructive to compare the views of persons who are not experts in economic affairs. To the latter question about the level of immigration that would be most favorable for the standard of living, a similar high-level panel of other social scientists -- sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists, psychologists, and historians -- responded less favorably. Only 31 percent said that more immigrants would be most favorable. It is also startling to find that even though these non-economist social scientists have no expert knowledge of the matter, only 4 percent were unwilling to hazard a judgment and hence said "don't know", an even smaller proportion than the 11 percent among economists. Perhaps the lack of reluctance of such non-experts to express their views on this technical subject outside their fields of special knowledge helps explain why the subject of immigration is as controversial as it is.
For further comparison, consider the polls of the general public (discussed in Appendix B) asking a fairly similar question, not about the economic effects of immigration, but the more general "Would you like to see the number of immigrants allowed to enter our country increase, decline, or do you think we are letting in about the right number now?" It cannot be known whether the general public response is mainly based on non- economic or economic factors. But to the extent that economic factors enter in, the reaction of the general public is much more negative, and much less positive, than the assessment of top economists.
How should we interpret other social scientists giving more positive responses to these economic questions than other Americans -- even if less positive than economists? One possibility is that the general pattern of higher education being more associated with a positive view of immigration is being displayed here. Another possibility: World-class tenured professors have relatively little to fear from immigrant job competition. But these are speculations rather than facts.)
We also asked economists about the economic effect of illegal immigration: The question was: " What impact does illegal immigration in its current magnitude have on the U.S. economy?" An astonishing 74 percent of the top economists said that "Illegals have a positive impact". Eleven percent said "neutral impact", and 11 percent said "negative impact", with 4 percent "don't know". This is indeed a striking degree of consensus.
This consensus view about illegals held by top economists certainly is at variance with the point of view expressed by most columnists, editorial writers, and television commentators. And the consensus view of economists is quite different from the view held by other top social scientists. Fifty one percent of the other social scientists said "negative impact" about the economic effect of illegals, with only 7 percent "don't know"; it is likely that the general public is even more negative toward illegals. One can only wonder what motivates this view of economic effects of illegals on the part of others than economists. And I marvel at the lack of uncertainty indicated by the small proportion of non-economists who do not feel qualified to answer.
The discrepancy between the view expressed by the economists and that expressed by the other social scientists and by the lay public fits with a general pattern in which laypersons are more worried by many phenomena than are real experts; nuclear power is a striking example. (See Cohen, _____.) At a meeting of world- class experts on agriculture, minerals, oil, forests, soil erosion, and a variety of related natural resource topics, geographer Fraser Hart observed at the end of the day: "All of us are optimistic about our own subjects, but pessimistic about everyone else's," a clear indication of the negative bias on the part of less-informed persons that pervades discussion of resources and demographic movements.
When we asked the non-economist social scientists about the non-economic effects of immigrants, a subject on which they have professional expertise, their judgements are of a different sort. n answer to "What effect has twentieth century immigration into the United States had on the nation's social fabric", 47 percent said "very favorable", 24 percent said "slightly favorable", 13 percent said "slightly unfavorable", and 9 percent said "very unfavorable", with 7 percent "don't know". And in answer to "What effect has twentieth century immigration into the United States had on the nation's culture?" 59 percent said "very favorable", 27 percent said "slightly favorable", 7 percent said "slightly unfavorable", and 2 percent said "very unfavorable", with 5 percent "don't know".
These assessments by non-economic social scientists of immigration's non-economic effects are quite positive. And here it would seem that -- even though such terms as "culture" and "social fabric" may well mean very different things to different people -- the social scientists have this expert advice to give to the American public, derived from their scholarly work: Lay aside your worries (and claims) about conflict and social tension outweighing the positive social-cultural effects of immigration.
So to sum up: If the best economists understand their subject, immigrants -- including illegal immigrants – benefit the economy; they find no economic reason to try not to admit more immigrants, or to prevent the entry of the sort of workers that illegals are, or to get rid of them. This directly contradicts the economic arguments that are given by such organizations as FAIR and THE ENVIRONMENTAL FUND which lobby against immigration, as well as the arguments of the labor union and of such legislators as Senator Alan Simpson. But the voices of such well-respected mainstream economists reported by journalists, who tend to rely instead upon politicians and interest-group advocates for their print stories and television interviews. And the views of the top economists are seldom heard in the current Congressional debate on immigration. ~ Source (Appendix C)
There has been a growing divide in the liberal republic party and the conservative base; this is necessary and will continue as the liberals invade the once conservative party and join wiht the left wing liberals in hating and destroying America's laws and sovereignty.
The conservative base is not like the dem base and will fight the lib pubs by not voting for lib pubs or by abandoning the liberal pubs political movement. The pubs are as dispicable as the libs.
I am a conservative and despise the lying and manipulating of the liberal dem and pub politicians and voters.s
The Republican base is indeed split - between the voters and the elected "representatives".
I hate to say it but it's not a Republican or Democrat issue.. it's an American issue.. people from both parties want a resoultion.
But politics is a reality. You have Senator Clinton calling Republicans racist even for the tepid little bill before the Senate now.
Political suicide is a reality.. since the Republicans have the power they have the pressure to bear. Democrats might secretly want it done but they can sit back and let the Republicans take all the heat.. they get voted in and then not change anything.
It's a sad sad game.
of course they will....
as with the Ports fiasco, the right will allow itself to be played like a fiddle too.
And the only people benefitting will be the Democrats.
Democrats Will Use Immigration to Divide and Conquer.
Sorry, no dice.
This is a gop problem.