Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Amnesty For Republicans (Don Feder To GOP: We are Are Conservatives, Hear Us Roar Alert)
Frontpagemag.com ^ | 04/07/06 | Don Feder

Posted on 04/07/2006 3:10:22 AM PDT by goldstategop

The Senate has reached a “compromise” on illegal immigration. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (who, by his conduct here, just lost the ’08 nomination) called it a “huge breakthrough” – a moral collapse would be more like it.

Did anyone ask the American people – who have time and again expressed their anger, frustration and outrage over our porous borders – whether they want a compromise on illegal immigration, on an amnesty for an estimated 12 million criminal aliens?

When asked about compromises on the more contentious issues facing the Supreme Court, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia responded: How you can reach a compromise between what the Constitution really means and what judicial activists want it to mean?

How do you split the difference between reality and fantasy – between truth and lies?

The same applies to illegal immigration.

In fact, the deal that Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid worked out with Republicans like Arlen Specter, Mel Martinez, Chuck Hagel and John McCain (the quintessential un-Republican) is no compromise at all – but a blanket amnesty for border-jumpers, whether they came seven years ago or 7 minutes ago. To claim otherwise is an insult to our intelligence.

At their press conference announcing this rape of our national identity, McCain, Specter, Reid et al. couldn’t even refer to the objects of their beneficence as illegal aliens. They were undocumented workers – the weaseliest of weasel words. Sure, and the man who breaks into my house is an uninvited guest.

Perhaps the most hilarious comments at the press conference came from stand-up comic and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV), who spoke of all the undocumented workers employed by Las Vegas casino-hotels, as maids, dishwashers, etc, and how much the industry has come to rely on their (cheap) labor.

Does he think the average American actually cares about the labor costs, hence the profit-margin, of Caesar’s Palace or the MGM Grand? (Gosh, whatever would we do without a gaming industry?) If they don’t want to pay an American wage and fill those jobs with American workers, why should I care about their bottom-line?

Reid sang a different tune (which sounded more like “The Star-Spangled Banner” than “The Bonaparte’s Retreat”) in 1993, when he observed: “Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs. …Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes. … These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world. Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally.”

What changed for Reid in the interim isn’t the reality of illegal immigration, but the rise of the lawbreakers’ lobby in his home state, combined with his becoming the Senate leader of the party of plunder and shameless pandering.

That master of politico-babble, Ted Kennedy, called the compromise “tough and fair,” which is like saying Chappaquiddick was a shinning example of responsible drinking and safe driving.

That the bill Kennedy helped to craft is an amnesty is indisputable. If an uninvited guest can prove he’s been here more than 5 years (from the effective date of January 7, 2004), he need do nothing to remain but pay a fine. The dictionary defines amnesty as “an act of forgiveness for past offenses, especially to a class of persons as a whole.”

By definition, coming to America illegally is “an offense.” Calling it a “guest-worker program” (another sniveling euphemism) doesn’t alter the fact that the compromise legislation will allow the criminals to remain here indefinitely, while escaping punishment – hence “an act of forgiveness for past offenses.” Enter national politics, and words suddenly lose any semblance of meaning.

The Great Compromise purports to be forgiveness for past offenses for some trespassers. Actually, it’s a blanket amnesty for all 12 million-plus illegals in the United States. As noted above, immigration criminals who’ve been here more than five years get a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Those who’ve resided here illegally for 2 to 5 years (from 2004) must go to one of 16 designated ports of entry and declare themselves -- as if this means anything. Then they are issued a temporary visa (that isn’t temporary at all), after which they can go home and continue their hostile occupation of American territory, and eventually apply for citizenship under the provisions of the measure.

Where the bill sorta gets tough (but only in theory) is on those who’ve been here less than two years. They are expected to depart forthwith. If they stay and are caught once, it’s a misdemeanor. Twice and it’s a felony.

How hard is it to forge a 1040-form, or a pay stub or a utility bill or a bank statement proving that Jose, who arrived here today, has been an illegal resident of the U.S. since 1999? About as hard as it is to stuff ballot boxes in Cook County.

The Senate compromise is touted as a problem-solving measure. (“Oh dear us,” its proponents wail, “We must do something to regularize all of the undocumented workers.”)

If it becomes law, it will be a major step toward solving the vexing problem of America’s national identity. Soon, we won’t have one any more.

Like the amnesties of the 1980s and the 1990s, it will result in another surge of illegal immigration. Build it, and they will come.

And those who come will have no interest in learning our language and customs, or identifying with our history and heritage. They won’t be Mexican-Americans or Haitian-Americans or hyphenated-whatevers (which would be bad enough), but Mexicans, Haitians or whatevers who happen to reside in the United States.

They and their children, and perhaps their grandchildren, won’t assimilate but be a solvent, eroding our identity as a people, year after year, decade after decade – until, eventually, America comes to be comprised of disparate national groups residing in what used to be a nation. (In less than 20 years, earlier waves that washed over our southern border have made Spanish our unofficial second language.)

Consider the words of Ronald F. Maxwell (writer/director of “Gettysburg” and “Gods And Generals”) commenting in The Washington Times:

“What is happening on the southern border is unprecedented. Not only in our own history, but in the history of the world. No country at any time, anywhere, has sustained the influx of tens of millions of foreigners across its borders … This is invasion masquerading as immigration. It may already be too late to avoid a future annexation of the Southwest by Mexico or the evolution of a Mexican-dominated satellite state.” If not, the Senate compromise will seal our fate.

That congressional Democrats favor lawbreaking and national suicide is unsurprising. They are, after all, the party of the alien and the alienated – the marginal, the misfit and the criminal.

But Republicans? Some are groveling before the illegal-immigrant lobby, whilst pursuing the mirage of an Hispanic Republican vote. Others pray in the direction of Wall Street. (Corporate America wants cheap immigrant labor, and damn the social costs -- crime, welfare and national disintegration.)

In the above-quoted commentary, Maxwell addresses these words to George W. Bush: “Mr. President, this is a time for candor. Your immigration policy is viewed as captive to the cheap labor – big business lobby and inimical to the survival of our country.” And so it is.

If Republicans lose either or both Houses of Congress this year, blame on the immigration-sellout of the McCains, Specters and Hegels.

GOP strategists think Middle Americans have no place else to go in November. We don’t have to go anywhere – just stay comfortably at home.

But that will be only the beginning. The Whig Party committed suicide by refusing to take a stand on slavery. Instead, it sought accommodations with evil, like the Compromise of 1850.

Republicans are emulating their pusillanimous predecessors. The party’s conservative base – its very essence – is furious with this unpardonable betrayal.

If this gift to illegal aliens becomes law, there will be no amnesty for the Republican Party.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Mexico; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conservatives; donfeder; feder; frontpagemag; gop; hearusroar; illegalimmigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: DH
Compromise. That's the word that has done us in. True leaders never compromise. If you are strong, you win. If you are weak, you lose.

The problem with that logic is that the status quo is unacceptable. If our failure to compromise at all means that no bill gets passed, that's a homerun for the liberals. They want us to refuse to compromise because it preserves a status quo that benefits them.

"True leaders never compromise" is a ridiculous mantra. Go back to 2001. Dubya wanted a $1.5T tax cut, but the Dems and RINO's didn't want anything over $1.1T. So he compromised and settled for the $1.3T. But according to you, he should have "refused to compromise", even if that meant no tax cut at all. Evidently, in your book, no tax cut is better than a $1.3T tax cut.

61 posted on 04/07/2006 11:00:29 AM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: America's Resolve

If you don't think there is a difference between the two parties, then you must not think there is a difference between their approaches to national defense and it won't matter to you if Carl Levin, Richard Durbin, Ted Kennedy and the like are overseeing our military, intelligence, and national security law enforcement.


62 posted on 04/07/2006 11:03:42 AM PDT by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I think it's not necessarily that the republicans are going for the illegal vote, but that every time the population of the US ratchets up another notch, our representation is watered down a little more. It may be BECAUSE of the illegals that they consider each voter to be of such little consequence that they can successfully ignore the popular will. More people means less representation for us, more power for Congress.


63 posted on 04/07/2006 11:11:25 AM PDT by Flavius Josephus (War today is always cheaper than war tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: David Isaac
America may be history.

If the USA goes belly up it won't be the end of the world. Maybe it would be for the best. The government can't be stopped now, it's too big. It needs to collapse just like the Soviet Union did, and then maybe we can rebuild from the ashes. At the least maybe we can put together a few truly sovereign conservative States out of the wreckage.

64 posted on 04/07/2006 11:15:31 AM PDT by Flavius Josephus (War today is always cheaper than war tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead

"Go back to 2001. Dubya wanted a $1.5T tax cut, but the Dems and RINO's didn't want anything over $1.1T..."

Let's see if I got this right. Dubya is a Republican. RINOs are Republicans. Democrats are Democrats. I believe that's correct.

Now, back to a strong leader concept. Without fail, the Democrats walk in "lock step" on any matter their leader requests it. Any time they are in power they get their way 100%...no compromise.

Dubya and his Republicans could not stick together even if you made them jump into a pool of super glue. What's the difference? Weak leader who compromises and never uses a veto?


65 posted on 04/07/2006 11:16:44 AM PDT by DH (The government writes no bill that does not line the pockets of special interests.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil
Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it.
I didn't originate the term, but if you add religion to nation, state, or race, it would seem to me to fit. I take it that you believe that there is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim.
66 posted on 04/07/2006 11:20:55 AM PDT by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: America's Resolve

Ditto


67 posted on 04/07/2006 11:21:12 AM PDT by capecodconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DH
Dubya and his Republicans could not stick together even if you made them jump into a pool of super glue. What's the difference?

RINO's who are not conservatives and will not vote that way. If there were 55 conservative votes in the Senate, you'd have a point. There aren't.

Weak leader who compromises and never uses a veto?

So let me get this straight. Bush should have been a "strong leader", by refusing to compromise on the $1.5T. And he should have vetoed the $1.3M because it wasn't $1.5M. By the Senate passing a $1.3T tax cut, the Dems and RINO's can legitimately claim they passed a large tax cut bill. Then they point to Bush's veto as depriving the American people of that tax cut.

So not only do we not get a tax cut, but we've strengthened those who fought for the smallest cut possible. Wonderful.

68 posted on 04/07/2006 11:25:36 AM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ekwd

I posted this earlier today, but I'll try again. George Bush signed McCain-Feingold [in violation of the 1st Amendment]; he pushed for and signed the Prescription Drug bill,which will bankrupt the country; he's done nothing about illegal immigration; and he's allowed the size of reach of government to grow.

We thought we elected a conservative.

What is the real difference between the above and what any Democrat would have done in the last 6 years?


69 posted on 04/07/2006 11:28:00 AM PDT by capecodconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Republicans continue to maddeningly behave like the minority party. They continue to kowtow to Kennedy et al like abused stepchildren!

Will someone tell me why our elected representatives are swayed more by the actions and opinions of those who did not and cannot vote them into office than the desires of those they "represent" and the laws they have sworn to uphold and defend, "so help you God"?

I'm absolutely sick of our party's spineless self-subjugation to the screeching enemies of our nation, both citizen and non-citizen alike.

70 posted on 04/07/2006 11:37:18 AM PDT by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: capecodconservative
Do the tax cuts, judicial appointments, and aggressive pursuit of the war not count?
71 posted on 04/07/2006 11:43:47 AM PDT by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
Democrats are united by one central principle- more government. Republicans have no such unifying principle, at least since the end of the Cold War. By some people's definition, Ronald Reagan, with his "big tent" philosophy would not have been a real Republican.
72 posted on 04/07/2006 11:48:32 AM PDT by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ekwd
We always accuse liberals of living this ivory towered existence that doesn't face reality. I'm starting to think a whole lot of conservatives who refuse to recognize political realities aren't any better on that score.

The goal has to be to get the best deal we can as long as it is better than the status quo. Even if its not the perfect deal.

73 posted on 04/07/2006 11:51:29 AM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ekwd

The tax cuts would count if I didn't believe we're merely awaiting a huge tax increase down the road when the bills come due. The key, I think, is to downsize government so that the reason for any tax increases are lacking.

I do give the president provisional credit for Justices Roberts and Alito; I think the jury is still out until we have a major case, but at least I'm hopeful on this issue.

Aggressive pursuit of the war? Again, I say two in the turban for Abdul and Co., but no nation-building. If Iraqis, Afghans etc. want a democracy let them fight for it. We did.


74 posted on 04/07/2006 11:53:22 AM PDT by capecodconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
Yes sir.
BTW, I am retired from the Air Force, but two grandsons of my closest living relative are in the Marines. I am very afraid that we are on the verge of wasting their sacrifices.
75 posted on 04/07/2006 11:54:23 AM PDT by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

There are definitely parallels.


76 posted on 04/07/2006 11:56:56 AM PDT by TAdams8591
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: backhoe

There are definitely parallels.


77 posted on 04/07/2006 11:56:58 AM PDT by TAdams8591
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: capecodconservative
I'm a supply sider and believe the tax cuts have increased revenues. As far as the war goes, if we cut and run as we did in Vietnam, we can expect the same results- hostile regimes.
78 posted on 04/07/2006 11:58:29 AM PDT by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; Travis McGee
If Republicans lose either or both Houses of Congress this year,

Didn't most of the Republicans in the House vote for border security only? They are all up for reelection this year. Only a few Republican Senators are, but I seem to read that Republicans are for amnesty. Doesn't the House count at all?

79 posted on 04/07/2006 12:01:50 PM PDT by Freee-dame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George_Bailey; America's Resolve
Constitution party for me. Screw the republicrats.

There's no way I'll ever vote Republican again no matter what (even if it means Hillary gets elected. I'm no longer under the delusion that I'd be better off with a nominal Republican than with Hillary).

Uh, if you're not happy with RINO Republicans, then oppose them in the primary and vote for more conservatives ones. Why would you penalize truly conservative Republican voices in Congress by never voting for any other Republican?

80 posted on 04/07/2006 12:02:54 PM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson