Posted on 11/22/2011 7:54:13 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Edited on 11/22/2011 8:03:27 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
...desperate, jobless Americans will do most of the jobs illegals do now.
If proof of that is needed look to the Alabama unemployment figures recently released:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/21/unemployment-drops-as-alabamas-immigration-reform-enacted/
Being humane is one thing. We don’t want to do unnecessary harm. But we must enforce our laws strictly.
Borders, language, culture.
Yes, you are right that there is no purity. There are things about Newt that I am not crazy about. But, if the conservatives hadn’t thrown him overboard when things got hot with Clinton in the 90’s, I think Newt would have held the conservative line and not gone soft. He is the reason we had balanced budgets and welfare reform and stood up in the face of constant press attacks.
He has learned a lot and in my view is the best person to be our next President.
Excellent quote by an often-underrated conservative President.
I will say one thing. In the early part of the 20th century, many people thought that the Jews, Italians, and Irish who were coming over in droves were unable to assimilate, that they were dirty, criminal, and incapable of embracing American culture. That was, of course, proven untrue.
Will Hispanics follow the same route? I think this depends largely on what we do. For many Hispanics, yes, I think they do, and will, but others do not.
Jim Rob ? Herman Cain has 5 weeks to get back to the top spot and regain the lead and hold the lead into the Iowa Caucasus.
He wrote the bill against santuary cities, but couldn't get it through the House. If he really is against E-Verify, I don't take Freepers word on anything Perry, I will have to see it. If it is true, I don't get it.
Newt’s being a dick by implying the Conservative goal involves inhumane treatment of illegal aliens.
No, he’s just being the lib that he always gets around to being.
Newt is sticking true to his Washington roots. Conservatives should expect to find more and more progressiveness as Newt is re-revealed. He isn’t going to offend his intellectual friends in DC and media.
all this candidate debate is just more marketing for the socialist-lite GOP shamwow sales pitch
Bush was just slightly less liberal than Obama and Newt is just slightly less liberal than Mitt
but they are all just a bunch of lilly livered liberal socialist LAW BREAKERS leading us around by the nose and robbing us blind
our political system is off the tracks and is so far from the constitution that it is not even legal
they are all criminals and liars
“Newt’s being a dick by implying the Conservative goal involves inhumane treatment of illegal aliens.”
He’s reviving Jack Kemp’s tired routine of being “the good conservative” versus all the rest of us racist xenophobes.
The press laps that swill up. But somehow I don’t think it raised Newt’s favorables one iota among average Americans.
I make a point of not voting for politicians who refuse to enforce immigration laws because it might hurt the feelings of some foreign nationals who chose to ignore those laws years ago. That went for Dubya, it went for McCain, and it will go for Newt.
“Cain has the same position as Newt on the issue of what to do with the millions already here - selective deportation, but not blanket deportation.”
The difference is, unlike Newt and Perry, Cain isn’t claiming that conservative resistance to “selective deportation” instead of “blanket deportation” is some deep moral character flaw.
Selective deportation might be a necessary construct, but the goal should be ever more pressure for that selection to be self-selection.
If millions stay here after the border is closed, it’s not because we are being humane, or because we have a heart. It’s because it’s simply impractical to deport 12 million people in one fell swoop. That doesn’t mean that shouldn’t be the eventual goal.
And I could care less if Perry thinks I’m heartless, or Newt thinks I’m inhumane. They, however, should care very much how their moral superiority on illegal occupation will affect their votes. Or rather, they should have cared before they pissed those votes away.
“He wrote the bill against santuary cities, but couldn’t get it through the House. If he really is against E-Verify, I don’t take Freepers word on anything Perry, I will have to see it. If it is true, I don’t get it. “
The Texas House is 101-49 Republican. If Perry CANNOT get something through (like Sanctuary Cities) with that majority, then what the heck good would Perry be as President when his majority will be much less?
But the bottom line is that if Perry REALLY WANTED E-Verify and Sanctuary Cities, he would have called special sessions of the legislature to get them...just as he did 4 years ago when he really wanted a new business tax (he called them back 3 times in a row, and the Republicans finally got sick of fighting him and gave him his tax).
That pretty well says it all.
But we want purity here at FR, which we never get anyway, and what we’re going to end up with is Obama for 4 more years and COMPLETE amnesty. We’re a clever sort, aren’t we?
Newt’s dead? No, the country is dead if we re-elect the Chicago disaster to another term.
I’m usually right with you on this kind of thing, to the point that JimRob and other “purists” attack me vehemently.
But in the case of Newt, this is not just about Amnesty — though on that topic he is tipping his hand on plans that are FAR from a “realistic” view and much more of a Progressive or Neocon view than most of us here would tolerate. But with Newt, the reality is, he would compromise on his principles — ALL of them — each and every Conservative principle, until there was NO PRINCIPLE left, only a pragmatic WASHINGTON (District of Corruption) POLICY that preserved the place of BIG [Central] Government but sold the principles, the Constituion, the States and We the People, down the river — but kept the Washington Elite in their place of Privilege.
This is what I feared from Newt. He’s sounded really good for 2-3 weeks, but I was WAITING for his condescending talk down to us, as though WE Conservatives are INHUMANE for wishing LAWS to be OBEYED. I’m not OPPOSED to realistic solutions — I’m opposed to politicians who portray ME as somehow morally deficient or “heartless” because I EXPECT OTHERS to actually MAKE THOSE LAWS a REALITY — which Newt would NOT do. He has demonstrated that, by his attitude.
I’m glad for his reminder of who he really is, and I’m glad I didn’t jump on his bandwagon. Now back to looking for the closest thing to a REAL Constitutional Conservative in the race (it would have been so much easier if THE Constitutional Conservative had just run... But I still love Sarah anyway)
He shows no humane feelings for we,who are Americans in his statement.
He shows no consideration for any national security issues caused by unidentified people coming across the borders,which also relates to my first statment.
Children of illegal aliens should not automatically have citizenship. Those born here of people who disrepected our immigration laws,profited from our welfare,medical and education systems and their parents should have their citizenship stripped.
Why is he not standing up for us,the American people?
“I tend to agree with Newt, a realistic view.”
Minnesota. Figures. If you had watched SoCal change from American suburbia of the Beach Boys into a suburb of Tijuana then perhaps your opinion of Newt’s “realistic view” would be somewhat different.
The “realistic” view is the Arizona example. Enforce the laws, require employers to check their citizenship, the illegals will deport themselves.
ABSOLUTELY correct. The few that stay behind for nefarious purposes (drugs, terrorism, etc) we can deal with by more forceful means.
Newt’s version of the “heartl;ess” arguement.
Here’s the deal. Newt. You close the borders. You put a heavy civil and criminal penalty on companies that hiore illegals.
You get rid of the social give away’s for illegals.
Then you tell the ones who elect to try and stay after all of that...because doing those things will cause a majority of them to self deport...that they have 90 days to turn themselves in, to identify themselves. if they do so, we will deport them and allow them to apply for visas or citizenship through the normal channels (unless they are found to be criminals or enemies).
After the 90 days, they will be crinimally sought out, found, prosecuted and deported with a lifetime ban on any vissa or immigration to this country.
Then, we use our full law enforcement powers to go after the criminal drug dealers and other hardened criminals whom we show no mercy to.
Once we do all of that, then we can look at adding a potential workers program to our legal visa and immigration policy that allows them to come here for jobs that are offered to American citizens first, which if they get are limited to a maximum of 12 or 24 months withput bringing theior families and with no amnetsy or pathway to citizenship...though with the work visas we already have, their may not be a need fo it.
That’s not heartless, that’s just defending the soveriegnty of our Republic.
Will Hispanics follow the same route? I think this depends largely on what we do. For many Hispanics, yes, I think they do, and will, but others do not.
"Silent" Cal was a man of few words but his words were fitly spoken, especially on this matter.
I have little hope that the tide of Mexicans that have flooded our country will embrace American values and culture. Yes, there were those in the late 1800's and early part of the last century who thought the southern and eastern Europeans would never assimilate.
I think the Hispanics (and I'll focus on the Mexicans) present a totally different situation. Here's why:
1). Proximity to their homeland. The Europeans immigrants that you mention had to "sink or swim" here and adapt to American ways.
2). The sheer numbers of Mexicans is unlike anything seen before for one group. Yes, immigrants came in waves some hundred years ago but they came from an assortment of countries. The rallying cry is no longer "We shall overcome" but "We shall overwhelm".
3). The rise of political correctness and the diversity agenda have made it nearly impossible to articulate a "Shape up or ship out" policy. The culture of tolerance has not worked in America's best interest in this regard.
4). The mass media (Univison, Telemundo, Azteca, Estrella) allow Mexicans (and other Hispanics) to continue to have the language of their homeland delivered to them 24 hours a day. It's a disincentive to speak English, which I consider an important component of assimilation.
Maybe I present a too-bleak picture and I welcome fellow FReepers to give me some reason for optimism on this matter.
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.