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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
Ditto
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
There are definitely parallels.
There are definitely parallels.
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?
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?
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.