Posted on 05/14/2006 1:29:30 PM PDT by LS
Yeah, although Sheriff Joe Arpaio has a LAW in Az that makes it a felony to conspire to break immigration laws. Not all states have that. They should.
Unfortunately, everyone, the Boston.com story is missing one key ingredient.
It is flat out wrong as to the reason Tom Osborne lost.
Immigration was not the issue that decided this election. It was Osborne's lack of record (for the 3rd District), his support of getting rid of small school districts (3rd and 1st Districts), and lastly, his support of the Omaha Public Schools against the other four school districts in the county in their attempts to steal schools and children after the other districts put up the bond money to build those schools.
Add to that the brilliant campaign manager that Dave Heineman hired (Carlos Castillo), and that's what decided this election.
Remember, folks...we're the state of Hagel. We have a lot of corporations supporting Hagel because of the meat packing industry, who has a lot of illegal workers. By the way, Hagel supported HEINEMAN, and not Osborne.
The state tuition issue was not the only one on the ballot, and contributed only slightly towards the election...especially since those people who it would persuade to support Heineman were far outnumbered by the 5000 Democrats who switched parties to vote for Osborne for the primary.
That's right...5k change parties to support Osborne STRICTLY for the school issue...including Warren Buffett.
Lastly, for those who still think the immigration issue was key in the governor's race...how come the wishy-washy Republican WON the Senate race handily, while the anti-illegal immigrant candidates were trounced?
You may be right! I am coming from the position that a "split" Republican vote will elect Democraps. Whereas you are saying that if "Closed Border Republicans" are running "Open Border Republicans" will vote for the "Closed" position candidate. I know I would. What I don't want is another Clinton. Perot got us a Clinton in '92 and '96 by spliting the Conservative vote.
Do you support the CFR call for an integrated North America?
Interesting thread. Thanks to all contributors.
I can't imagine the vote. Would it go something like, "YES! YES! THE SAME TUITION FOR ALL! NO MATTER IF YOUR HERE LEGALLY OR NOT! *What the hey, I'm not payin' for it."
I think a TRUE guest worker program would work with the public.
GUEST MEANS GUEST. No "earned citizenship" code for amnesty.
have two year contracts where the person MUST return home after the two years in order to be eligible for future visa applications.
I don't know what "integrated" means. As I said in earlier posts, walls will not keep out "people". The Mayflower Pilgrims were illegal, the westward moving Pioneers were illegal. People will always move.
Possibly because he is a teacher.
Good, if depressing, information.
After our youngest child reached school age, my wife decided to go back to college and finish her degree. When I was stationed in New Mexico and again in Alabama, she had to pay out-of-state tuition. I didn't complain; we retained voting residency in Ohio so it seemed reasonable to be treated as out-of-staters, despite the fact I was stationed there in the presumed interests of national defense.
It really burns me to hear of people who want to allow illegals to get away with in-state tuition, when my wife had to pay out-of-state tuition.
I'm trying to visualize the scenario. The applicant goes to the college registrar and says, "I'm in the US illegally. I want in-state tuition." And instead of calling the cops and having the guy deported, the college registers him and charges only in-state tuition. Only in America?
I know, Joe. I was THRILLED when UCSB waived my out-of-state tuition. Heck, today it's automatically waived for "out of country" people. And they say we Americans ain't tolerant!
If the Republicans in Congress will find, rent, steal a spine and come out hard against illegals demanding deportation, and demanding the border being secured they would find that the strong vocal support by 3 out of 5 Americans would easily drown out the frothing liberal minority calling the racists. But many pubs are so scared of being called racists that don't seem to understand that most Americans are sick of the border pharce and want it to be dealt with, and will support them strongly if they will just do so. Most Americans know good and well that being anti-illegal immigrant isn't even close to being racist. That's just the typical accusation from liberals to any Conservative deciding to make tough decisions, the liberals of course being the real racists.
Amen! Scream if from the hilltops. That's the truth right there. The central most important truth of this whole thing. The democrats are counting on the Republicans not having the spine to take them to the mat on this, because they know MOST Americans would support tough border control and deportation of all illegals and no amnesty. This is the Republcians to lose. The democrats know they're on the losing issue on this, they're only hope is that the Republicans will wuss out and not have a spine. If the Republicans would just stand up and fight they'd win. The pubs in Congress just need to have a spine just once and do this. The democrats would lose this November and every November if the pubs in Congress would just have the brass to stand and fight for once.
I agree. Your guy, Cornyn, has done a pretty good job. But I've e-mailed, written, and called DeWine, and while I don't see movement yet, I know he is getting some heat.
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.