Whenever "illegal" is left out of such a statement, it calls into question the veracity of the columnist.
This is not about being anti-immigration - it is about being anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. And not repeating the mistakes of Reagan's amnesty.
ping
Personally I don't think Kristol and Broder represent "intelligentsia" but regardless since they get paid to sit around and do nothing but yap their mouths they might get the hint if Cannon of Utah loses next month. Even then though I'm not sure. Their support for illegal immigration seems to have nothing to do with what anybody else thinks.
Patronizing left wing piece - how typical.
It ain't all that quiet - head down to a blue-collar bar any evening.
Kinda says it all, right?
If such a bill were a "benefit" to Bush, then what party do he and the RINO front represent?
Just Say no To Shamnesty
Deporting twenty or thirty million people is quite a project especially if any attempt is to be made to "separate the sheep from the goats" or to keep the deportees alive. Do the math.
A national ID and internal passport system would be needed with tough enough systems to control counterfeiting. This means dossiers on everyone.
Don't get me wrong. I think that deportation is necessary and therefore be done right now since it will be much harder later. If you want an historical analog to our current situation I suggest the Roman Empire.
Republicans should understand that if there is a signing ceremony with President Bush, John McCain and Ted Kennedy on a compromise immigration bill that the Washington Post and New York Times praise, the GOP can kiss control of Congress good-bye.
I don't agree with his "solution", but that much of his analisys is true. The House Pubs better get the message.
It's only a suprise if you were among the ELITE John.
From the Republican standpoint, the core of the argument over the next few weeks (and in this fall's election) needs to be the seriousness of stopping the illegal flow over the border, not about a pathway to citizenship. If Republicans make a pathway to citizenship the primary issue, they are making a serious mistake because this comes across to the Hispanic community as mean-spirited and anti-immigrant.
Except that a large minority of the community stands WITH pro-enforcement/no amnesty forces John. Let me just say right now that someone that didn't have a clue that foreigners invading our streets in an illegal protest under Mexican flags to demand the rights of U.S. citizens would lead to the backlash that surrounds the Senate and the President doesn't have the RIGHT to expect anyone to take his advice seriously. You admit to having been clueless.
Leadership has to be provided by congressional Republicans because President Bush simply does not have credibility on the border enforcement issue.
Neither do you, and if House Republicans support amnesty neither wil they.
Republicans should understand that if there is a signing ceremony with President Bush, John McCain and Ted Kennedy on a compromise immigration bill that the Washington Post and New York Times praise, the GOP can kiss control of Congress good-bye.
You think? If that signing presentation doesn't include Sessions, J.D. and Tancredo I'll guarentee loss of control of Congress.
The illegal immigration issue is poised to be a huge factor in this fall's elections,
No thanks to your efforts. The American people are the ones that have forced this issue to be an elective one rather then one politicians sneak amnesty through in May out of the public's eye by November.
and if Republicans play it right over the next few weeks they could lay the groundwork for turning around their prospects this November.
Sure, they could, but not if they embrace your "comprehensive" proposals. BTW, anyone told you that word has become a running joke?
And if they frame the issue around border security and halting illegality and not a pathway to citizenship, they can do so without hurting their long-term electoral prospects that demand a GOP that is competitive within the Hispanic community.
The GOP is doing just fine with legal Hispanics that resent illegals jumping ahead of their friends and family that have applied to come here legally. they are doing just fine with legal Hispanics that work hard and resent the poor of mexico coming over to steal their jobs or depreciate their property values.
Forget Johnny. Amnesty will be rebutted whether you like it or not, as will strengthened borders be a part of the campaign by the American people. Perhaps you'd be better occupied advising the illegals not to spit on our flag and demand rewards for having done so.
The OBL never sleeps. Let them get anywhere near "crafting" such a compromise, and it will be riddled with loopholes and goodies for illegals. The BOHICA will only be delayed slightly, but BOHICA it will be.
As Rush says, they are the newist victim group. (Perfect marriage for the democratic party).
You have to be real careful with this:
"There is a quiet rage building among average middle class folks on the illegal immigration issue, and if the Republican leadership doesn't take control of the problem very soon they will allow the more extremist wings of the anti-immigration debate to become the face of the Republican party on immigration. That would be a disaster for GOP hopes to grow their new found majority in the years to come."
This newfound majority is doomed to be a newfound minority if the party does not start doing and saying what the overwhelming majority of both the party and the country wants, an end to the invasion.
I really, truly believe that a big chunk of the republican Senate (and it goes without saying the democrat senate) are bought and paid for by a tiny minority of check writing cheap labor doners. These are the country club folk who can afford to go to the elbow rubbing fund raisers in DC and at home and are the folk the elected folk spend their time with. The elected folk and a lot of the elite commentator class on both sides are absolutely out of touch with the normal citizens who actually cast those votes the elected officials take for granted.
Now and again the chasm between those elites and the folk back home gets too wide to bridge. When that happens, the elites fall, and generally in big numbers.
"does not poison GOP relations with the growing Hispanic community for 2008 and beyond"
Right out of the gate this guy's analysis is wrong. You couldn't pander to the Hispanics enough to just gain as many Hispanic votes as would be required to replace white (and black) votes that will be lost if the invasion is not stopped and the lawbreakers sent home. Hispanic immigrants, legal and illegal, are disproportionately on the welfare dole more than U.S. citizens. Hispanics are a natural Dim constituency (though, admittedly, not in the same proportion as blacks).
If Republicans want to avoid an electoral disaster, they will get tough on the border and immigration and tell Hispanics that Hispanics have to obey the law like everyone else. The only votes Republicans will lose are those they would be destined to lose anyway.
THE QUISLING RIGHT
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
What is wrong with American conservatism? Hardly anything at all. From tax to immigration to judicial philosophy, conservatives are beginning to set the agenda of public debate. Whole stretches of popular culture are objectively conservative—talk radio and the blogosphere, for example.
While there is no dispute as to which tradition belong "The Incredibles" and "The Passion of the Christ," I would venture that "South Park" and "The Simpsons" are also conservative-cum-libertarian. They lampoon liberal elites and regularly slaughter the sacred cows of political correctness, diversity, multiculturalism, and radical environmentalism.
"There is now in this country a conservative movement—and I include libertarians in this movement—more passionate and agreed in substance on what needs to be done than I can recall. All that is wrong with [American] conservatism is that it lacks a conservative party. The problem with the [Republican Party] and its associated media is that its function has been less to advance conservative interests than to neutralize conservative opinion"—a function evinced by the Bush immigration betrayal.
The thesis above belongs, almost to the word, to my good friend, the illustrious Sean Gabb, Director of Communications at the Libertarian Alliance of Britain. The object of his calculated contempt, voiced in a speech given at The Royal Society of Arts, however, was the British Conservative Party. Considering that the Republican Party is every bit as corrupt, incompetent, tyrannical, and treacherous, I’ve substituted "American" for "British" and "Republican Party" for "Conservative Party."
As far as political representation goes, American conservatives and libertarians find themselves in the same pickle as their English cousins, who’ve been led into an ideological latrine by the Conservative Party and its enablers in media. But thanks to a deep-seated affinity for basic conservative principles, the base in both places is disinclined to linger in that malodorous spot for long.
When all is said and done, ordinary American conservatives worry about the growth in the size and power of government under Bush. They fret over mass immigration and the national identity and debt. Keeping what they earn and being able to secure life and property—with firearms—is still a priority. When plied with enough ale, conservatives will increasingly admit their jingoism is a function, not so much of their devotion to W’s Wilsonian wars, but of their patriotism, (unreciprocated) loyalty to the party they believed represented them, and a visceral loathing of the left.
Yes, left-liberals are a singularly charmless lot—in the US, Britain and everywhere else, for that matter. In Gabb’s assessment, the left’s "aim is to construct a new order in which—whatever its proposed merits—we shall have been stripped of our historic liberties and our national identity." It is faced, however, with a paradox. Although the left has a tentacular grip on societal institutions, "It must rule a nation that, so long as it remains a nation, is strongly conservative."
How has the Republican Party and its media lickspittles reconciled this paradox? Why, by reinventing themselves as the "Quisling Right."
"A Quisling Rightist is someone who calls himself a Conservative," observes Gabb. "When standing for office, he implies promises without making them. If pressed, he will make promises that he has no intention of keeping. If elected, he will make firm declarations of principle and argue over inessentials. His conservative politics are purely symbolic. Where essentials are concerned, he will do nothing to challenge the continued domination of the left. In return for this, he will be invited to the best parties, and allowed endless time in the media. ... He will be allowed income and status. He will earn this by systematically betraying those who trusted him to stand up for all that they held most dear this side of the grave."
The Republican Quislings have contributed greatly to the convergence of left and right. What we have now is a cartel, the traditional ideological differences between the political parties having been permanently blurred (both Democrats and Republicans, for instance, see merit in wars for democracy, limitless immigration, and a massive expansion in Medicare and other entitlements). If anything, antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.
As the reign of the Bush backstabbers draws to an end, we find ourselves "with still fewer of our historic liberties and still less of our national identity." This being so, Gabb counsels against voting for the party that has broken all its promises so far. I agree; there is no reason for conservatives to vote for the Republican Party. "We in the conservative movement might as well vote for a party that says what we believe. That party will not win either, but at least our votes will be counted and recognized as a clear statement of opinion."
To press the point, Gabb adds a Parthian shot: "If I must be destroyed let me be speared in the front by someone who looks me in the eye and calls himself my enemy. Far better this than be garroted from behind by a supposed friend."
http://www.freemarketnews.com/
If I hear the words "We are a nation of laws" from one more politician I am going to puke!!!!
What good are these laws if they are completely ignored?
Catch and release? Ignoring uttering of forged documents...a felony for any one else.
JUST ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS pertaining to this invasion and regarding the employment of illegals.
It is clear to most Americans that we need "ENFORCEMENT FIRST". Twenty years of amnesties
and lax enforcement has led us to our situation of millions of illegal immigrants in this country.
It won’t get fixed overnight, but when a boat has a leak and is sinking the first thing to do is to plug the leak.
Secure the border, and establish working employment verification systems to enforce immigration
laws in the workplace. Establish the rule of law in our immigration system
first before you do anything else.
The Senate bill is not the answer, it repeats errors of the 1986 massive
legalization/amnesty and contains far too many provisions that incite further illegal immigration
and undermine the rule of law in immigration.
This is where your points are well-taken. The Senate bill could be attacked as 'amnesty' (it is).
But in truth it is worse than mere amnesty, it's a mess of bad law.
All that aside, we are left still with a host of tawdry, dangerous and foolish provisions in the
Senate bill, many special-interest-written:
- Going beyond mere amnesty with giveways like providing benefits for social security taxes
made on fraudulently used social security numbers
- The invitations to fraud by forbidding the use of applications in investigations, and allowing
for "difficulties encountered by aliens in obtaining evidence of employment", a signal
for wink-and-nod fraud in applications
- The loophole that forbids local law enforcement to hold people for civil immigration infractions,
making the opportunistic detention of criminal aliens harder ( a terrorist loophole)
- Provisions tampering with the immigration appeals courts, so they are less effective and more litigious
- An AgsJobs section with pitifully weak job requirements
- Allowances for self-sponsorship and for conversion of temporary guest worker visas to
permanant residency status, that make a mockery of the "temporary guest worker" label
- Over-regulation of wage and employment contracts, with Davis-Bacon rules imposed for some workers,
to the point where it risks creating complex new regulations in industries currently not covered
- An odious requirement to advise Mexico prior to building any fencing
- AgJobs has 'no immigration lawyer left behind' provisions: Provides for taxpayer-funded lawyers for
filing alien adjudication appeals, and requires lawyers to write applications
- An employment verification system that is simply unworkable; Senator Cornyn explained it in Senate debate as a
"system that is designed to fail"; it creates Federal liabilities opposed by DHS Secretary Chertoff,
requires an impossible standard of accuracy to be mandatory, and that won't be operational for years
I could go on and on about how awful the Senate bill is. It has no redeeming merit at all.
There is a national consensus that we must secure our borders and enforce the immigration laws better.
While we should find a reasonable approach to handle illegal immigrants in the U.S. now, there is
no consensus on the answer. So the best policy and political answer is "enforcement first", leaving
legalization/amnesty and vias changes for the next Congress. Instead, stick to:
o Secure the border first
o Set up an employment verification system that works
0 Streamline deportation and immigration law to reduce litigation in deportations
0 Involve State and local law enforcement in immigration law enforcement
All of that is embodied in the House bill today, HR4437, and should be readily adopted by the
conference committee. Such a common-ground bill would be a good ‘down payment’ on
immigration reform that deals with the immediate immigration crisis and helps move us
forward to address remaining immigration issues.
"Republicans who are steadfast against "a pathway to citizenship" need to be realistic and open to compromise."
Let's turn that arugment around:
"Republicans who are steadfast against any bill that doesn't have "a pathway to citizenship"
need to be realistic and open to compromise."
Take it off the table and discuss the REAL ways to achieve the 4 points I mention above. HR4437 has
it already, so we can't do much better than to simply chuck the Senate bill entirely and go with HR4437 as
the solution for this Congress.