Posted on 11/15/2006 7:56:14 AM PST by conservativecorner
Another score for the Laura Ingraham Show. Why would Tom Tancredo be working with a guy who once suppported Ellis Island centers for illegals? Because with a “massive amnesty bill” coming from the White House, the time for intraparty squabbling is over.
Ignoring all my cautions about optimism as well as the hard lessons learned on election night, Mary K thinks Pence has a shot at winning:
It sounds like the race for Leader will certainly be uphill, but he said he’s been getting positive reaction from folks on the Hill. Will they do the right thing and elect a change of leadership?
I think, politically, they have to. Perception is reality in this case. I don’t even have a huge problem with Boehner. He stepped into what was already a bad situation when he became Majority Leader, but the fact remains that he is old leadership, and we need new leadership. And, given that we’ve got a competent, inspiring guy like Pence to provide it, I pray the Republicans will do the right thing. That does not, of course, mean they will.
They won’t.
If the bill is coming from the White House, won't there be even more contentious intra-party squabbling? I'm just glad Pence may have seen the light.
You want Pence... you'll accept Boehner... but you'll get Blunt.
Again in hope that some of our Congressmen are lurking here at FR, let me propose as a politically feasible position, the one I have always advocated:
1. Tough enforcement of existing laws
2. Tough border enforcement
3. No amnesty that puts folks who snuck into the US on a track to citizenship
4. A guestworker program
5. Increases to legal immigration quotas
6. Increased penalties for creation or posession of fake ID's
7. Increased penalties for employers who knowingly or without due diligence employ illegal immigrants
8. For illegals whose only crime is sneaking into the US in violation of our immigration laws (oh, and I suppose having a fake ID), an amnesty into guestworker status with a time limit on how long they can remain. (Saves money on the cost of mass deportations, and gets the desired security effect of knowing who's here.)
ping
I heard that show!!!
Pence was GREAT!!
He sounds like Presidential material to me and a welcome change from the RINO herd of Giuliani, McCain et al.
no 5. I see absolutely no way Americans benefit from more legal immigration - the million odd we receive now is fine & might even be lowered (or raised) pending a referendum from the people. Its time our leaders asked US what we think;
and no. 8 remember the old german slogan 'there is nothing so permanent as a 'temporary worker'. They will NEVER go home, and there is an army of lawyers and judges that will see to that. Thats just the way it is. NO special consideration for border jumpers, period.
First, I'm not a protectionist vis-a-vis our labor market. We benefited from the legal immigration that brought my Norwegian great grandfather here, my wife's Greek grandparents here, and for that matter, all the Italians, Irish, and Germans who came before them.
Second, you're not going to get 1-4, 6 and 7 without 5 and 8. Not with the new Congress, not with the last Congress.
Politics is the art of the possible.
Or would you rather a decision that has such a direct bearing on the quality of our lives be thrust upon us by politicians?
Politics is the art of the possible.
On the other hand politics aren't static. Strong leaders can often influence what becomes possible. We shall see.
Yes, I would object to throwing the question open to the American citizenry. I am a republican, as well as a Republican, and am neither a Democrat nor a democrat.
Then you're an elitist. No doubt your happy with the crew in charge.
Bttt!
Hugh Hewitt has a paragraph Friday evening on his site that he was on a GOP Congressional Conference call last week and usually they are boring as spit, but this was anything but boring, that basically the congress is not going to be in lockstep with the WH the next two years. If you go to HH you can read it verbatim.
Why's that, you afraid like on that Simpson episode where everyone publicly talks about how much they really really love mass immigration when they get a chance to actually vote on it in secret 95% say close the door? The fact is for most of the country's history the average annual rate was no more than 250,000. The million we're seeing now year after year, not including those of the illegal kind is way over the top and to say we should allow even more in will never sell with the public.
Judging by the response in your post I think you know it.
Then the Founders were elitists. They did not open any aspect of government, except the selection of members of the House and the Electoral College to a direct vote of the people, and put in all manner of checks and balances not merely to restrain the power of the state, but to restrain the power of popular enthusiasms.
"A republic, if you can keep it," was Franklin's reply when asked what form of government the Constitutional Convention had given the nation.
Quite frankly, I think the direct election of Senators was a mistake, abolishing the Electoral College would be a greater mistake, and that the one-man-one-vote decision that destroyed the system of government in states which had followed the wisdom of the Founders in having an upper house based on geography rather than population was a hideous blow to our polity, ranking with Dred Scott and Roe as one of the most abusive cases of judicial overreach in the nation's history.
Seeing that one of my favorites among the Founders was John Randolph of Roanoke, you may be onto something in holding that I'm an elitist, though I'm not happy with the crew currently in charge.
Then you must have a big problem with ballot initiatives that many states have, after all only elitist politicians elected solely by property owners, excluding women and other minorities as the Founders set it up should make these decisions right? Yes these were very great and intelligent men however they were not perfect and the political system has modified itself slightly over the years.
Actually, I don't like ballot initiative. Plenty of states have gotten themselves into trouble with ballot initiatives that had unintended consequences and couldn't be undone easily. (At minimum it has to wait for an election.)
Ballot initiatives and recall movements are an excellent way of letting politicians and the courts know that if they attempt to run roughshod over the electorate there is recourse. When it comes to immigration both parties appear to want to keep these massive numbers pouring in and so under these conditions it's too bad we can't put it to a national vote since that idea may not be constitutional, or at the very least binding. As it is many states like Arizona are doing it and it's obvious what the vast majority prefer.
I mean referendum in the sense of having a national discussion without the browbeating and intimidation tactics that are normally employed by those on the pro side. I'm for openly discussing the advantages and disadvantages of more or less immigration so that the public becomes well informed, and asking political candidates where they stand prior to a their election.
Something that has such a direct effect on the lives of all US citizens should be more subject to their sanction than it currently is.
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.