Posted on 04/04/2006 7:42:56 AM PDT by SmithL
Washington -- California history haunts the Republican civil war raging over immigration that is scheduled to come to a head Friday in a Senate vote.
In 1994, California's Republican Gov. Pete Wilson won a tight re-election race by backing a popular anti-illegal-immigrant measure known as Proposition 187, and he lost his party's grasp on the nation's biggest political prize by alienating Hispanic voters.
The alarm now gripping many in the party, not least the White House, is that history could repeat itself in the teetering red states on which GOP victories depend: Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and others with fast-growing Latino populations.
Washington has its own version of Prop. 187, known as the Sensenbrenner bill after its author, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. It passed the House in December and would, among other things, make illegal immigrants felons and build a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.
This week Senate Republicans -- including at least four potential presidential hopefuls, evenly split on the issue -- may decide whether to allow that measure to represent the party's position on immigration or to embrace a bipartisan Senate bill that takes the opposite approach, offering an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants the chance to obtain permanent U.S. residence and allowing upwards of 400,000 more to do so each year under a guest worker plan.
"This is a defining moment for the Republican Party," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who supports the Senate bill, said over the weekend. "If our answer to the fastest-growing demographic in this country is that 'We want to make felons of your grandparents, and we want to put people in jail who are helping your neighbors and people related to you,' then we're going to suffer mightily."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
BLAH BLAH BLAH.
I am commenting on what I see as the political reality, not what I want. But you're getting as bad as the Democrats yourself. In response to legitimate and long-standing concerns of the base about illegal immigration, all you can do is shriek and point at the Democrats.
And what have the Democrats been doing the last two elections? Shrieking at the GOP. And losing. So that is what awaits the GOP if they fail to stand for something and instead just say the other guys would be worse.
The answer is simple for the GOP. Stand for core principles and listen to the base. It will not be the fault of the base if the GOP fails to listen to us on this issue. But folks like you will blame the victim yet again.
I know.....me too but we both forgot he's a politician and his lips were moving......shame on us.
You see in other people what you mostly fail to see in yourself.
While W did say he was against vigilanties(in response to a question about the minutemen) he never directly called the minuteman project or its members vigilantes.
W is opposed to people taking ACTIONS that they are not qualified to take. Arresting these folks would be what I think he said he is opposed to. W is not against the First ammendment and that is all the minutemen are doing. Excercising those rights.
Saying that W called the minutemen vigilantes is a spin and nothing more. Unless of course you can produce a quote where he directly called the minutemen vigilantes I suggest you should retract the claim you made. If you do so I will be happy to retract my statement.
I really hate defending W on this because it is too much like defending his overall position on this issue. I do so because I believe it to be right to stand against the spin and for the truth. I think the truth is that he ducked the question on the minutemen and just about everyone pertaining to that issue.
There is no need to stretch what he said to dissent his actions towards illegal immigration. You only hurt your own cause when you stretch the truth into something that it is not. W never said "minutemen are vigilantes" that I have seen. Care to show me something I have not seen?
More blah blah blah.
The GOP leadership has been told for years that amnesty was the line in the sand. And that line will not be moved by attempts to change the meaning of the word amnesty. This is not an irrational or xenophobic position - the Reagan amnesty made matters worse, not better.
Even Fred Thompson last night on Hannity and Colmes, who supports some kind of guest worker program, says border security has to come first - or else we'll just have this problem again in a few years. Quit blaming the base for stating the obvious - blame Bush and some of the GOP leadership for being unable or unwilling to realize what should be obvious.
While the various waves of European settlers, from the late 1780s through World War I--and even up until 1965--regardless of where in Europe, they originated, came primarily to embrace the unique American ethnicity reflected in the acceptance of certain cultural norms by the Anglo-Saxon, Scots-Irish, Dutch and Huguenot, etc., settler stocks, which had rallied to the Revolution; the Third World immigration flow since then has other norms, which however admirable in their own sphere, have already impacted many urban areas in a direction very different indeed from our traditional perspectives.
If we do not stand up for our own value system--which is much more complex than simply a work ethic, or a desire to better one's lot, economically--we are going to wake up, sooner, rather than later--in a land that has gone beyond the point recognizable by those wedded to the American tradition. We cannot afford to listen to the voices of defeat in a battle that has not even been joined by most Americans, who have been lulled to sleep by the propagandists in the centers of Leftwing Academia, and among the sycophants in the mass media, who look to Leftwing Academia for guidance.
It is a shame, that Lindsay Graham has abandoned the traditional devotion to principle, that so long characterized his State's political leadership, to embrace this current version of political "pragmatism." But that will not sanctify it in the slightest.
William Flax
True!
I doubt if its quelled their undying support for all things "W". Its probably just kind of hard to come up with some spin for how the whole "We love Illegals" thing is actually "good" for us.
They haven't for a long time now. Perhaps this November when many of us are anywhere but the polling booths they might begin to get the message.
I know you heard him say that word, I also know you heard the question be about the minutemen.
I think that what bush said was directed as a warning. A warning not to take action other than their stated goals.
What you refer to (times you heard) I recall clearly, partly because it was ran as a soundbite over and over and over and over. I offer you heard the same statement over and over and over.
Did W say he opposed the minutemen? No
Did W say he opposed the minuteman's mission statement? No
Did W say that minutemen were vigilantes? No
Did W answer how he feels about vigilantes when asked about the minutemen? Yes
Just like W never stated that Saddam was responsible for 911, W never stated that the minutemen were vigilantes. Of course the MSM will have you think he said both of those things. Sad to say many think he did say both things when he never did.
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
...
If only President Bush were supportive of the rank-and-file agents -- and my question, first question, has the President given any reconsideration to his reference to the Minutemen as vigilantes?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, we have great appreciation for the job that our Border Patrol does day in and day out. They work very hard to enforce our borders and to protect the American people and make sure that our borders are secure. So we greatly appreciate the job that they are doing.
And second of all, I mean, I think that we've been over this now two or three times, Les, and I think the President's views were made known and I've expressed what our views are, as well.
Two weeks ago, President Bush, who supports a guest worker program (search) that would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the United States, called the Minutemen "vigilantes."
"I am against vigilantes in the United States of America; I am for enforcing law in rational ways," Bush said during a press briefing with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.
Yes, he did. He was at a press conference with Vincente Fox and was asked about private groups patrolling the border, and that is when he responded with his "vigilantes" quote.
Now, you can pretend all you want that because "vigilantes" and "Minutemen" were not in the same paragraph, that Bush really wasn't talking about them, despite the context of the comment. It's your right to fool yourself. Just realize you aren't fooling anyone else.
YES, this does happen and is very common.
(though this does upset the paper tiger euro EUrocrats as they attempt to supplant the dollar)
HOWEVER, the BIG difference is that the ones who send money back as AMERICAN immigrants are making their lives in the USA while keeping their roots active.
Often those people will maintain a summer home or vaction home in the old country. I know a few people who do exactly that.
However, go back to LIVE in the old country? NO WAY.
Reference isn't stated. That is exactly what I said it was. He was asked about minutemen and he answered about vigilantes.
Flase premise to say he referred to them as vigilantes. Pull up a quote where he did so. You cannot. All you have is inuendo, implication and reading into what he actually said while assigning ones own meaning to it.
That,friend, is exactly what Chris Mathews does when he says that W said Saddam was responsible for 911 and that removing him was about retribution for 911. This is simply not the case. Just like the whole vigilante deal.
W did not call the minutemen vigilantes. If you can post where he said such a thing...then lets see it.
You can post that someone said he said that all you want to dirtboy. But the truth is he never said such a thing.
Your quote is on the money. Has he ever accused the minutemen of doing any enforcing? Has he said any of their actions are improper to date?
Nope.
Saying he called the minutemen vigilantes simply isn't true.
Some people took it that way, but that is not what he said.
Like I said, it's your right to fool yourself. Just don't be surprised when the rest of us don't go along.
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.