He would have supported the NAFTA super highway and Bush. The North American Accord was the gipper's opening shot when he announced his presidential candidacy in 1979.
Posted on 11/09/2006 2:14:10 AM PST by NapkinUser
President Bush yesterday said he will team up with Democrats to pass an immigration bill with a guest-worker program that his own party blocked this year, and his Republican opponents predicted a bloody intraparty fight but said they cannot stop such a bill from passing.
"We will fight it, we will lose. It will go to the Senate, it will pass. The president will sign it. And it will happen quickly because that's one thing they know they can pass," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican and chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, who had led the opposition to a guest-worker plan. "I am absolutely horrified by this prospect, but I have to face reality."
Mr. Bush supported a bipartisan majority in the Senate this year that passed a broad immigration bill including a new worker program and citizenship rights for millions of illegal aliens. But House Republicans blocked those efforts, calling them an amnesty, and instead forced through a bill to erect nearly 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Unless Bush does a major about-face, he will so badly tarnish the Republican name that it could take years for Republicans to come back. A disastrous war, huge spending, open borders. With that kind of legacy, Bush can only be remembered as a real loser.
I can't say you are alone in that observation. I suggested once 4 years ago Bush was governing left of Clinton on everything but Security. I still have the marks left from offering that for debate. Wow, was I trounced.
That being what it is, wonder where the newly elected "Blue Dogs" dems will stand on this issue? Many of the seats picked up in the south were essentially Republicans running as Democrats. Bush/Pelosi/McCain-Kennedy et. al. might find opposition they don't expect.
The Republican majority was full of RINO's, is Nancy's parlor full of DINO's? This is a strategy we'll need to be on the watch for in the future elections.
The terrorists posing as illegal aliens are licking their chops. This country is in serious trouble.
I KNEW this was next...
Bush just doesn't learn...or he is getting some bad advice.
Uh... Thanks, I think.
He would have supported the NAFTA super highway and Bush. The North American Accord was the gipper's opening shot when he announced his presidential candidacy in 1979.
The elites that control the Dark Side are interested only in achieving and perpetuating their own power -- the country be damned. They could care less about the opinion of their lock-step, take-'em-for-granted constituants whom see 30 "undocumented immigrants" stuffed in the little house down the street or another emergency room closing because of crushing debt and get a slight spark that maybe, just maybe, something is not right.
Yep and if Mexico hasn't successfully anexed the US by then, we can expect another amnesty in 20 years.
It's already widely know that they can "purchase" multiple variations of fake documents, so what provision is in place that would have stopped them from voting?
Sorry. I did a search but it didn't come back as having been posted.
Great post genius get out that flamethrower and flail away so they stay away from supporting in the future.
Illegal immigration was/is a wedge issue. The fact that the WH sided with the Dems on this issue hurt us badly in the midterms. I watched many of the debates on C-SPAN and the immigration issue was raised time and again. The Rep security first approach was trumped by the Dems who said they agreed with the McCain and Bush approach.
In the real world, traditional Dem constitutencies like union workers and blacks feel the impact of illegal immigration more than most. Add to that the environmentalist wackos who see these contributors to population growth to be a threat.
I see this issue causing a real split in the GOP. When Duncan Hunter runs in 2008, I see the issue coming to the fore as never before. There will also be a major fight on the GOP platform on this issue. It could even cause the formation of a third party.
Look for a increase in illegal immigration from Mexico as illegals look to get into the US before the passage of the new law.
No, they weren't. They voted for a 'virtual fence' with little funding and this just a couple of months prior to the mid term elections. Then they said the president could use the money on cameras, roads or whatever 'virtual fence'. They were covering their butts until after the election. Those of us that removed the scales from our eyes a long time ago knew that we were going to get scamnesty rammed down our throats after the elections no matter who won.
Oh they are alive and kicking this morning flaming and hurling taunts at any stay at home conservatives so they can keep them mad so they don't get involved again...groan...there are a lot of idiots on FR at times.
Why can't they look at the root cause the GOP performance adapt move on and quit the bomb throwing?
I have had the smae fears as well. To quote my father, "No matter who wins the man on the street will lose." That opinion is in many ways what cost us this election. When people start to see very little difference between both parties the dems will win.
Truth hurts. Live with it, Einstein.
Wasn't it? He spoke of a "new America" before he was elected. He closed debate on the issue before he was elected.
.....<
| We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture. Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende. For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America. As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico. George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000. |
Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:
In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster
The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)
An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.
How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.
This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.
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.
Click the Pic!!!!