McCain May Be GOP's Only Prayer

NewsMax ^ | March 3, 2008 | Fr. Michael Reilly

[Milltownmalbay]

For the most part, the Republican presidential candidates tried to play the "immigration" card — one that may backfire come November.

Only John McCain was willing to take a gentler approach to immigration and thank God he’s the last man standing. CNN and the liberal media were all too willing to let the Republicans continue their suicidal plunge on immigration.

Meanwhile, the New York Post recently featured a column by Geraldo Rivera decrying the impact of the immigration debate on the Republican Party: freefall in the polls among Latino voters. President Bush carried 45 percent of the Latino vote in 2004.

The number plunged during the 2006 midterm elections and prominent opponents to immigration suffered devastating defeats, including Rep. J. D. Hayworth from Arizona. Meanwhile, support for the Republican Party has plunged to about 21 percent among Latinos.

The problem is even worse when we consider that the Latinos are the fastest growing demographic in the country and will grow in electoral influence throughout this century. Concurrently, continuing anti-immigrant rhetoric will continue to cost Republicans among this important group of voters.

Does this mean that the Republican Party should allow open borders and turn a blind eye to illegal immigration? Obviously not, but that does not mean that immigration should figure so prominently in the Republican platform.

Perhaps President Bush’s approach to the abortion issue could serve as a blueprint. President Bush does not speak about abortion. When asked about the issue, he is less than articulate. Yet he has done more to advance the pro-life cause than any other president, including the most eloquent defender of human life Ronald Reagan.

Pro-life voters can thank President Bush for the partial-birth abortion ban, the Unborn Victims Protection Act, as well as judges Roberts and Alito. In 2004, they did: 23 percent of the people who voted for Bush were single-issue pro-life voters. Meanwhile, there was little or no rhetoric to energize pro-abortion voters.

The same approach should be used for immigration.

A Republican presidential campaign should say very little about immigration. A Republican president could order the Justice Department to enforce the law while publicly advocating more legal immigration. Republicans should quietly enforce the law and loudly argue for greater quotas and a streamlined, less bureaucratic system to enable legal immigration. Likewise, Republicans could put in place a more aggressive program to help Americanize and mainstream immigrants.

Republicans will never have an opportunity to lead on this issue or any other if they do not tone down the rhetoric, however. Eroding Republican support among Latino voters threatens to freeze Republicans into minority status for another 50 years. Perhaps nothing underscores this point more than CNN’s eagerness to ask Republican candidates about immigration during the debates.

Rev. Michael P. Reilly is assistant principal at St. Joseph by the Sea High School in Staten Island, New York.

[puroresu]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mzg5MWIzYjhkZTljNTZkYzAzN2ExNWM2MDBkMjQ2Zjk=

[EternalVigilance]

Only if Republicans allow the Democrats to take the credit. The only choice we have is to whole heartedly support legalization. Furthermore, the GOP must expel the anti-immigration extremists from the party to show we are serious about making amends with Hispanics.

Wow. I'm amazed at how openly the McCain agenda is now being touted, even here.

You're a Quisling for those who are destroying the sovereignty of the American people. And all it will earn you in the end is the eternal hatred of your countrymen, just like the original.

In contemporary usage, "Quisling" is synonymous with "traitor", and particularly applied to politicians who appear to favour the interests of other nations or cultures over their own. In American English, the term is less well known than the equivalent phrase "Benedict Arnold".

[TigersEye]

I’m not an open borders globalist like you. Also, unlike you I’m a man not a boy. ; )

[TigersEye]

The right wing is will be toast.if John McCain will be is our next president.

Fixed it for you, Soros Boy.

[TigersEye]

The Deportation patrol has about destroyed the Conservative message. Most Americans are not terrified of Paco weeding and harvesting the fields like Talk Radio is.

80% of Americans opposed the Shamnesty bill. You lose on the facts.

[upsdriver]

Why does this moron insist on calling invading illegal aliens an “immigration” issue? It is a “law enforcement” issue and a “national security” issue. Fr. Michael Reilly is either an idiot or a liar. Or both.

[TigersEye]

...the GOP must expel the anti-immigration extremists from the party to show we are serious about making amends with Hispanics.

That is completely absurd. During the height of the marches by illegals AZ hispanic citizens were polled and 56% were opposed to Shamnesty. There is no need to make amends where no offense has been taken. American citizens overwhelmingly oppose open borders and unenforced immigration laws. You are the fringe geek.

[Guenevere]

McCain our only prayer?....That’s close to blasphemy!

[bill1952]

>... will never vote for McKennedy

I like your thinking.
The only difference is that I am going to vote for selected candidates on the ticket who are worthy of my vote, or at least ones that I do NOT have to choose as the lesser of two evils.

I have stopped all contributions to the GOP.

[bill1952]

>People should read the whole article.

Fair enough. I have, so lets go...

> He doesnt advocate open borders. What he is arguing is that you can be for enforcement in ways that dont drive immigrant groups to the Democrats:

Switched. Not the subject, but I understand your point.
We are talking about McCain here.
Unless I missed something, the article is about thanking GOD that we have McCain.

>“A Republican president could order the Justice Department to enforce the law while publicly advocating more legal immigration.

Yeah, and my Aunt could be my uncle if she had balls instead of boobs.
Lets see. We have had a “compassionate conservative” running the executive branch for 8 years and the entire Congress controlled by a majority GOP party for 6 of 8 years and where oh where did that get us?

It got us McCain/Kennedy, and the attempt by McCain to ram amnesty right down our throats, time after time.
We are talking about McCain here, right?

Why should I believe that he will act differently once he assumes ultimate power in the executive?

> Likewise, Republicans could put in place a more aggressive program to help Americanize and mainstream immigrants.”

LOL! See above.

>In other words, instead of noisy anti-immigration rhetoric and little action, have a lot more anti-immigration action and a lot less rhetoric.

Baloney. The pro immigrant forces - and there are many of them - and the democrat party will NEVER allow such a scenario to occur. Ever.
It will be 100% the first priority until they can get enough votes to pass amnesty in incremental steps until a critical mass of non American democrat voters can take control of this system.

Did NOBODY hear Lopez get on-stage and scream for Latinos to “take control” of America??

>His point is:
“Republicans will never have an opportunity to lead on this issue or any other if they do not tone down the rhetoric, however. Eroding Republican support among Latino voters threatens to freeze Republicans into minority status for another 50 years.”

My point is:
Allowing massive immigration of Latinos is doing exactly that. - Right now.

>We should consider how to stand on law-and-order ground and hold to anti-illegal immigration positions in ways that do not lead to that situation.

Door, horse, barn on fire. - That very situation is already here!

In conclusion, I understand the concept of quiet control, but I also know that this has never, and will never, be achieved as long as there is political gain to be harvested by pandering to the very vocal and active opponents of the exact opposite.

Thank you for the opportunity to reply. - bill

[bray]

Yeah, Tancredo really rode that immigration wave right into the rocks. Nobody wants what the deportation freaks are offering. They overplayed Shamnesty and destroyed the Conservative movement.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[mefistofelerevised]

Yeah, but he really likes Mexican food.

[puroresu]

If you are correct and no one wants to deport illegal aliens, then you need to understand the ramifications of what you are saying. Namely, that we no longer have a border, and that if lawbreaking reaches a certain point we should simply capitulate to the lawbreakers.

There have been three immigration tragedies committed by the GOP. The first occurred in 1965 when Ted Kennedy brought up a bill to change our immigration policies from favoring Europeans to favoring Third Worlders. It also established chain migration as our national policy. The GOP supported the bill, which is the only reason it passed. The second was when Reagan gave three million illegals amnesty. The third was when both Bush presidencies ignored the border and allowed millions of additional illegals to flood in.

These three tragedies, all of which were avoidable, have resulted in demographic changes in our nation which pretty much assure the destruction of conservatism and the GOP. The only one even remotely defensible is Reagan’s amnesty, which was an honest mistake rather than calculated irresponsibility. All three of these tragedies enhanced the left and the Democrats. Yet we’re now advised to compound them with yet another amnesty.

No wonder the GOP is called the stupid party.

[Dante3]

Our country is being invaded and we cannot deport these criminals? Nonsense. Eisenhower did it. We do not need terrorists, criminals, and rejects of other countries. If not for Tancredo, we would be worse off.

Many of us parents are trying to teach our children to respect the laws. What a horrible message - "break our laws and you will be rewarded" is being sent when illegal aliens are provided with perks and allowed to stay here ahead of those want to enter legally.

Open borders and swarms of illegal aliens and immigrants fro enemy nations pose the biggest threat to this country.

Why would anyone support amnesty, perks for illegal, open borders? Is it blackmail, bribes, hatred of US, mental illness?

[Hat-Trick]

Jerry Rivers is a Republican? Who knew??

From this point forward, I suggest that anyone supporting McCain be referred to as being from "The Jerry Rivers wing of the Republican Party".

That would be the pro-illegal, anti-Gitmo wing.