Posted on 11/15/2010 4:54:58 PM PST by rabscuttle385
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US Senator John McCain said Monday that he worried about eroding Republican support for the war in Afghanistan and "the rise of protectionism and isolationism" in his party.
"I worry a lot about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party," McCain, President Barack Obama's Republican rival for the White House in 2008, told a foreign policy forum.
(snip)
The Arizona lawmaker cited incoming Republican senator Rand Paul, stressing "already he has talked about withdrawals from, or cuts in defense, et cetera, And a number of others are."
"There's no doubt that this new group of Republicans have come in with a commitment to take a meat ax to spending," said McCain, who underlined it would be hard to declare military outlays "sacrosanct" in such an atmosphere.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
There’s no doubt that this new group of Republicans have come in with a commitment to take a meat ax to spending,” said McCain, who underlined it would be hard to declare military outlays “sacrosanct” in such an atmosphere.
I agree.
As I said, there was almost no public opposition. Almost every proposed law has some opposition in Congress, but most do not become heated public issues as the amnesty proposals of 2006 and 2007 did, and as any new proposal will. The 1986 amnesty passed with little notice by the public, and many considered a one-time fix a sensible approach.
What's happened since has resulted in the totally justified public outrage at the recent amnesty proposals after twenty years of deliberate non-enforcement of immigration law.
There was a heated debate in 1986 about amnesty. Reagan, like Bush in 2006 and 2007, sided with the Dems against the majority of his own party.
What's happened since has resulted in the totally justified public outrage at the recent amnesty proposals after twenty years of deliberate non-enforcement of immigration law.
There is no doubt that the public wants enforcement first. As someone who works at the grassroots level on immigration issues, our biggest problem is educating the American public on the meaning of the word amnesty.
Words have meanings. The pro-amnesty, open borders advocates have hijacked the language surrounding the immigration issue to the point that we had Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security and our nation’s top immigration official at the time, testifying before Congress using the term “undocumented workers” to describe illegal aliens.
John McCain and Barack Obama studiously avoided the term “amnesty” to describe their comprehensive immigration reform plans and despite the evidence, baldly declared that it was not an amnesty. Instead, they used such euphemisms as “coming out of the shadows,” and “an earned path to citizenship” as long as the lawbreakers pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line.” The pro-amnesty crowd knows full well that the American people are against amnesty, hence the avoidance of the “A” word.
Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay is amnesty. We must not only prevent the amnesty advocates from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty.
The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty on entitlement programs alone would be $2.6 trillion. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. Here is how the entitlement costs were calculated. We cannot absorb such costs or assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.
Most polls show that Americans are solidly against amnesty, but a small plurality favors some sort of legalization. In an April 2009 Rasmussen poll of likely voters, in response to the question, “How important is it for the government to legalize the status of illegal aliens already in the United States?,” 23% deemed it very important and 25% somewhat important while 23% said it was not at all important and 22% said it was not very important. This is where the danger lies.
” Absolutely! Furlough 75% of the government work force.”
Ya know, you could furlough 50% in the next 30 days, and most of us wouldn’t even notice ;-)
Outside of the UK, and Australia and a very few others, I vote for, "Fortress America"
This reminds me of McCain's defenses of Obama during presidential campaign. Always count on McCain to stick up for the interests of the foreigners and liberals.
“Oh, Jeez...6 more years of this McCrap? “
I often wonder how AZ could possibly vote this old windbag in again. I’m willing to bet the dems loaned mccain a few busloads of illegals for voter fraud. The Arizona electorate can’t be THAT stupid.
Now that the sumbitch got re-elected, he reverts back to his old self.
I think if a straight question is asked: Do you favor a path to citizenship for people who entered the US illegally? That question would receive about the same level of disapproval as one which uses the word amnesty.
They amnesty advocates have played endless word games, but I don’t think Americans approve of any plan that gives citizenship to illegal entrants.
Since you were close to the issue in 1986, do you have any opinion as to whether the Reagan Administration tried to, or intended to enforce the law after the amnesty passed? Or, just what administration failed to improve enforcement? Reagan, or GHWB. Where did it break down, or did either ever intend to enforce the law?
McCain is absolutely right: NO CUTS TO DEFENSE.
Rand Paul is nuts, but that comes as no surprise. He is there to further the libertarian agenda, which furthers the leftist anti-American agenda.
I never thought I would see the day FR would align with the likes of Rand Paul and turn against our military and the War on Terror.
Isolationism has never worked for this country, and is more of a foolish choice now than it ever has been.
As the Rasmussen poll I cited in my previous post, that is not the case. Many Americans are buying into the paying a fine, learning English, and getting to the back of line scam. Most Americans have no idea that an amnesty would lead to an additional 70 million legal immigrants coming here through chain migration, i.e., family reunification. They don't understand the $2.6 trillion costs to the entitlement programs.
I speak to groups on a regular basis on the immigration issue. You would be amazed at the level of ignorance that exists about the issue. Most of them seriously underestimate the number of legal immigrants that enter each year. The attitude is legal immigration is good and illegal immigration is bad. After all, we are a nation of immigrants.
Since you were close to the issue in 1986, do you have any opinion as to whether the Reagan Administration tried to, or intended to enforce the law after the amnesty passed?
If you believe Ed Meese, yes they fully intended to enforce the law. But amnesty occurred near the end of the Reagan administration. It was Bush 41 [and his son] that really didn't want to enforce the law against employers or sercure the borders. Bush 41 doubled the number of legal immigrants who could enter annually. The 1990 Immigration Act
•Raised the annual ceiling from 270,000 to 700,000 for 1992-94 and 675,000 afterwards (including 480,000 family-sponsored, 140,000 employment-based, and 55,000 "diversity" immigrants)
•Allowed an unlimited number of visas for immediate relatives –children, parents and spouses – of US citizens, not counted under the cap
•The 125,000 allowable refugees are also not counted under the cap
Or, just what administration failed to improve enforcement? Reagan, or GHWB. Where did it break down, or did either ever intend to enforce the law?
Both Bush 41 and 43 were the worst when it came to immigration and the promotion of our national interest. They were bought and payed for by corporate interests. They did more damage to this country than any President since FDR. In fact, they may be the most responsible for the destruction of this country due to misguided immigration policies that are killing this country now. Demography is destiny.
•Almost nine (9) million immigrants came to the U.S. in the 1990s
Thanks for the reply. I remember that GHWB raised legal immigration significantly, and suspected that he was the one that really put the more or less de facto, non-enforcement policies in place.
You mentioned what is probably the second biggest word game after amnesty, the often used “go to the back of the line”. Of course, no one ever specifies where that line is, and who and how many are already in that line. Most who see that in a question probably think the illegals would be required to return to their home countries and get in line behind all the legal applicants who’ve already applied. As far as I can tell “the back of the line” means next to nothing, or maybe it means the illegals would stay in the US, get a green card, and then be put in the back of the line of those awaiting naturalization.
It amazes me that no one in the media, or even the politicians speaking on the issue, ever mention just how many legal immigrants are now permitted each year. I think it’s around 1,200,000, plus another 100,000 or so for refugees. The numbers were mentioned fairly often in the 1980s, but almost never now. That’s probably by design because if the very large number was well known by most Americans, it’d probably change many attitudes and make it far more difficult for open borders advocates to mix legal and illegal together and discuss “immigration” and “immigrants” as if there are no distinctions.
The lies and dissembling involved in this issue are amazing. I just hope we can escape the lame duck session with no Dream Act or other form of amnesty being passed. After that we should be safe for a couple of years, and even more IF we can elect a Republican president who won’t try to push amnesty. Most of the potential candidates are strangely quiet on the issue, except to mention border security occasionally.
“I never thought I would see the day FR would align with the likes of Rand Paul and turn against our military and the War on Terror.”
It’s more of an anti-McCain thing than anyone else.
Cue wife and daughter´s opinions.....
As usual Juanito and Lindsay always trying to change the SUBJECT when it is time to CUT SPENDING...and take the heat off of their sorry voting history....
For once, Juan and Lindsay, do the right thing...
When have we ever TRIED isolationism?
According to a recent Rasmussen poll, most Americans would agree to a path to citizenship if illegals went to college or joined the military. Even most Republicans agreed with the latter option.
McCain is dumber than his airhead daughter.
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.