Posted on 06/06/2007 11:23:41 AM PDT by ventanax5
Also, it must be noted that Prop. 187 saved Republican Pete Wilson's governatorial campaign. Before he endorsed it, he was far behind in the polls. Once he got on board and started campaigning for it, aggresively, he took the lead and went on to win.
WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! TILL YOU RUN OUT OF INK IN YOUR PEN!
Bombard the Democrats as well, especially the ones that ran on an anti illegal immigration plank and the ones in marginal districts who could be vulnerable. keep pounding on them. This is a bipartisan issue not a Conservative or Liberal issue BUT AN AMERICAN issue.
STOP AMNESTY NOW!! WE CAN DO IT!!
The best way to stop Shamnesty
Bush has always supported amnesty, but I think one of the reasons he’s so determined to pass this particular bill is to get a nice write-up in the history books. Lyndon Johnson has been trashed by most historians for supporting the Vietnam War, but the trashing has been more than balanced by the fawning write-ups he receives for supporting the Great Society, three major “civil rights” bills, and the 1965 Immigration Act.
There’s been a lot of talk that future historians (whom it’s simply assumed will be “liberals”) will fill our public schools with history texts painting Bush as a failure and a criminal for invading Iraq. Bush figures that by getting a leftist amnesty bill passed, he’ll at least have some praise directed his way in those future texts. And as more and more of those texts will be written by “multi-culturalist” historians, especially if the bill passes and radically changes our demographics, he’ll probably be correct. He may even be credited as the great hero who drove the final nail into the coffin of the ugly, old America envisioned by our founders, thus locking leftist Democrats into power for all the forseeable future.
Andrew McCarthy on Immigration
The Immigration Debate On the Right
I’m an enforcement first person, but I’ve got to say I think this is hard stuff, I’m still struggling with it, and it galls me when people on either side treat it like it’s easy and, therefore, impugn your motives if you are on what they perceive to be the wrong side — which is just a cheap way of ducking the tough questions.
Here’s an example. As I’ve said before, I don’t want to round up and deport millions of illegals — I know of few enforcement first people who do. So I say reasonably enforce the law — crack down on employers who hire illegals, deport the felons as they come on law enforcement’s radar screen in connection with other crimes, build up a record that the government is now serious about controlling immigration — and the problem will be manageable.
Sounds good. BUT ... I think the pro-reform side has a very good point when they say: We need to know who the hell is in the United States. Creating a situation in which it’s de facto acceptable for people to be “in the shadows” and otherwise unaccounted for is a big national security problem. It is probably not as big a problem as we would create by encouraging more illegal immigration (as I believe the current proposal would do), but it’s still something to be very concerned about.
Here’s the problem: You can’t, as a practical matter, get people to come forward and be identified unless you give them something in return — some kind of legal status. I don’t think that’s a good idea, but I can understand why some people do. If you take their position, you will almost surely make the problem worse. But, if you take my position — namely, no round-up but no legalization — you should be ready honestly to say you are willing to abide a situation where we don’t know who is inside our country.
On balance, I think that is the lesser evil, but I’m not comfortable with or happy about my position — and I really resent it when a good faith struggle to arrive at the best policy gets caricatured by people who pretend this is all so easy.
Comments (0)
Posted on 8:42 AM by Andy McCarthy
That peasant class already exists, in Mexico. I think you want to add "in the United States" to this.
I don't think their kids will have that many kids, though it may still be above average.
If the guest workers are not intended to be a permanent underclass, then they serve no economic function.
Unless we are willing to extend citizenship rights to every person on the planet, it makes no sense to extend them to the select people who have already violated our laws.
Precisely. Neither type cares about real people.
Yet she supports the most pro-illegal candidate out there (after Huckabee). But at least under Mayor Greasy, we’ll all have national ID cards! ;-)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
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.