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 ...
What part of the vigilante remarks are you not comprehending?
The fact that he did not come and out and say point-blank, "I DESPISE THE MINUTEMEN," does not mean that he agrees-either tacitly or explicitly-with their primary goal, i.e. to exert some sort of control over our So. border.
Bush and Fox are of one mind on this subject.
There is no daylight between them.
Period, end of sentence.
President Bush denounced "vigilantism" in the presence of Vincente Fox, who specifically singled out the Minutemen.
If he did not believe that the Minutemen were vigilantes, then he could have clarified those remarks, which he chose not to do.
To infer from his statement anything other than a condemnation of the Minutemen Project is not only illogical, but utterly absurd.
What over "vigilantes" was he denouncing?
Um.....we just got our taxes done, and believe me, this hispanic and her husband will be paying more than our fair share, which is why I vote Republican.
So what Fox says has anything to do with what Bush says?
I denounce vigilante actions,friend, but I wholly support what the minuteman project is all about and what it is they are doing. If you ask me if I support or oppose the minuteman project and I say to you that I oppose vigilantes, am I saying the minutemen are vigilantes? NOPE. You might take it that way, but that is not what I said at all.
If he believed that minutemen were vigilantes he could have clarified his remarks, which he chose not to do. I can play that game too!!!!
You admitted in your last post that W never said the minutmen were vigilantes. That is proper because he never ever said that. Now you are saying that even though he didn't say it he really did say it?????? Sheesh.
You ask what vigilantes he was referring to. Ok lets go that direction. Has there ever been an example given? Nope. W did spell out what he considers vigilante...and those would be actions that are outside of the mission statement of the minutemen. That would include arrest and detention of Illegal border jumpers. The minutemen do not engage in such a thing.
Being that ACTIONS have shown that the minutemen are not doing what Bush considers vigilante he was not talking about them when he posed his opposition to vigilantes.
W does not pussy foot around when he aims to denounce something. He is direct and to the point. Ask John Kerry about that. Ask Saddam Hussein about that. Ask "imagonnajihad" about that (ahmedenijad).
I stand firm in my defense of W on this point. He never said that the minutemen were vigilantes. I do this because he never said such a thing.
What a person implies or means is open for debate. I have no problem with that. I do take issue when claims are made that a statement was made when it never was made to begin with.
I would say that the best way to solve this is to have our 'beloved' MSM ask a yes or no question. Are the minutemen vigilantes?
Funny how that never has happened eh? You know why? I do. They know he will say NO. He decribed vigilantes as folks that take the law into their own hands and they also know that the minutemen are not doing anything of that nature.
This was a non news fabrication from the very begining.
I didn't think it would be necessary to break it into legal & illegal hispanics.......BTW I have hispanic blood in my family tree, pay more than a fair of taxes by owning a business and I highly resent these communist inspired change agents from La Raza, Mecha, etc.......and if you think these Repub. socialists are doing you any favors you're very mistaken.
Double quotes around the link plus /> at the end.
One need only look at the hispanic rich border counties in Texas- SOLID BLUE.
Bush might as well be Fox's marionette, since everything that Bush says on this issue is a reflection of Fox's opinion.
There is no distance between them-not even a crack of daylight-when it comes to this subject.
And there is no substantive, tangible distinction between Bush implying that the Minutemen are vigilantes and him repeating the phrase "The Minutemen are vigilantes."
This semantical hairsplitting does not do anything to resolve the essential question at issue, i.e. why our president won't uphold his Constitutional duty to enforce the law of the land and protect our borders from invasion and penetration.
Bill Richardson made it explicitly clear where he stood on the Minutemen issue, declaring that while he disagreed with the actions they were taking he commended them for their concern about our So. border-which is as porous as a sieve-and applauded their civic spirit.
Bush, on the other hand, has made it explicitly clear that he disagrees with all-not just some-of the values espoused by the Minutemen, and has no intention of helping border state governors to address this problem head-on.
Welcome to Free Republic
This issue is becoming an additional litmus test for whether a GOP candidate is worthy of my vote along with the abortion issue.
Pro-life + No amnesty/No Guestworker/Seal the border is the only GOP candidate that will get my vote.
So you are saying that When Bush spoke last week and said that border enforcment hs got to be part of a 'comprehensive bill", not to mention that it hs to come first, that he was just outright lying? Are you saying that Fox is in lockstep with enforcing the border?????
Care to try again on that note?
I cannot wait to throw this one back at you in the future, it will be most exciting.
You just claimed that there is no difference between what someone says you imply and what what words you actually say. You are in effect saying that what a person means is irrelevent because you know better what they meant than they did when they said what it is they said.
"And there is no substantive, tangible distinction between Bush implying that the Minutemen are vigilantes and him repeating the phrase "The Minutemen are vigilantes."
If all you have is implication why would you (or anyone else) try to to claim more than implication by saying he said something he did not say? That says alot about your position.
I stand with you in asking why W will not enforce our laws, further (if the excuse is that the laws are to conflicting to administer equally and justly) why the congress will not take on their contitutional duty to forge the law in a way that can be administered equally.
Bush bashing on this issue is worthless when it becomes simply that...Bush Bashing. Others hold responsibility in this issue as well, those being present and past congresses and present and past presidents.
Bill Richardson cannot even remember if he was drafted by a baseball team or not....ha ha... I don't trust a word he says. WHat exactly does he disagree with about their actions? Should I say he is calling them vigilantes? By your own logic in this post I should....but see I won't claim he said something he did not say.
WHat will you have W do for governors in border states? BYW I am in Illinois and we are fourth on the list in illegal population so do you require help for this govenor also?
Shall he send more money? OOOPS that is congress. Shall he pass a new superceding law? OOOPS thats congress. Shall he issue an executive order? OOOOPS... then he would be called a dictator bypassing the will of the rightful lawmaking branch CONGRESS.
What will you have W do for the govenors? I would really like to know.
People keep saying this, but I haven't seen anything to back it up other than a few personal anecdotes. Did I miss something? (likely with the hundreds of immigration threads that have blossomed on FR) Anybody here have something more concrete?
As for the illegals voting, that's obviously not the concern. But many hispanic citizens -- legal voters -- see themselves as having cultural ties with the illegals, and basically vote as if they are illegals themselves. So that's how an "anti-illegal" stance can hurt at the polls. But the thing is that we've already lost that vote, and aren't going to get it back. The Dems have that ground, and won't give it back.
So if its votes that matter, the smart thing to do is run in the other direction. Not necessarily being punitive, but at least clearly being more restrictive than the Dems. There's really no downside.
Well, that settles it. Time to deport in mass right now.
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.