Replies

Amnesty loses him votes Really?

How many precincts have you worked knocking on every door? On what basis do you say that? How many votes did Pat Buchanan get? (not counting Jewish grandmothers in Palm Beach).

In 2000, 100% of Hispanics voted for Bush in my 7 precincts and 100% in local 2001 elections (with the exception of one 3d generation Hispanic lady on aid). This was because Bush and the pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-capital punishment Hispanic voters found the local conservative canidates (and me the local face of the Republican party) friendly.

In Nov 2002 my wife and 2 daughters were the only Hispanics to vote Republican... only 1% of my Hispanic voters. This was because mean spirited Republican JimRyan out Tancredo'd all your idols and wanted to abort innocent Hispanic life ... namely pushing for capital punishment for a Hispanic innocent of the crimes of which he was accused... innocent both in fact (Brian Dugan did it). And innocent in the eyes of the court system and constitution.

But you are correct on one account. There are relatively few Hispanic voters. They have an extremely low turnout. They don't like what the Dems say. And they don't like the mean spirited way the Republicans say it. So they have nobody to vote for.

To Karl Rove, the short term benefit in appearing compassionate and not mean spirited is in getting the vote of the PTA moms for whom mean spirited determines which way their swing vote will swing. PTA moms have a much higher voter turnout than racist bigots. But just like racist bigots, their vote is controlled by emotion rather than logic. It is interesting how those two groups suffer the same sin of emotion over logic.

Long term, it is obviously the strategy of Karl Rove, and me, and MOST conservative and libertarian Republicans (who did not vote for Buchanan) to get the largest pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-capital punishment demographic group in the nation to vote Republican.

The Pilgrims had no immigration papers. They just came. My ancestors had no immigration papers. They just stepped off the boat in Chesapeake Bay and walked until they found some vacant land in Pennsylvania. My wife walked accross the bridge with no immigration papers. What's the difference?

Without referring to your family, FRiend N: The difference, or rather, the point, is that in the United States of America, we are a nation ruled by law, among which are foundationally important laws of citizenship. Rome maintained order until their strong policy of citizenship was nearly overcome by the excessive immigration caused by their lust for free labor (Spartacus' slave revolt). If we have illegal immigration as the norm due to our lust for cheap labor, we also degrade ourselves as well as our illegitimate "tolerables" and threaten our rule of law and of course... our security.

I had a very good history professor at Judson Col. (Richard Clossman) who used to teach and warn about the virture of treating one another in love (based in the truth) vs. "toleration." Love in a culture seeks what is best, based upon virtuous acceptance of truth and the standards of behavior based upon truth. To treat an illegal as if he were a citizen is a violation of the standards of truth, which while "tolerating" the illegal, does what is unloving to our nation, that is the corruption of standards based upon truth. Many Hispanics are in agreement with this, because of their respect for law, citizenship, as well as truth and love, as you've pointed out.

Sometimes love must be tough --because truth is intolerant of untruth. Eh?

Happy New Year to all! (And citizenship justice for all!) Go Packers, beat the Eagles.

BTW the pilgrim Separatists successfully and equitably negotiated with the natives based upon what standards those natives had. Well really there was only one native who had any claim to the land upon which they settled. He was a Christian who welcomed them and saved their lives ("Squanto"). So should we all demonstrate charity to well-behaved newcomers. I agree with that!

Bob, I think the difference is "the welfare state". People who came here, came for the OPPORTUNITIES" that this country offered. They knew they had to learn the language and they had to work to feed themselves, their families.

Now with the "Great Society" programs, we have agencies ADVERTISING for people to get on these programs....and it is human nature; if you give it, they will come. I think the increasing number of "takers" is what has many overtaxed people angry about the immigration situation.

""The Pilgrims had no immigration papers. They just came. My ancestors had no immigration papers. They just stepped off the boat in Chesapeake Bay and walked until they found some vacant land in Pennsylvania. My wife walked accross the bridge with no immigration papers. What's the difference?""

Well, for a Mexican Illinois Freeper, it makes a lot of difference. My father and uncle , both from Mexico did things the right way.
The difference is that This mexican woman has worked to build America by working since I was 15 years old. I have paid into Social Security 32 years. And now you are going to use that money to fund Illegals? How fair is that?
The difference is that the Pilgrims came here with the idea of a better life. Mexicans come here wanting to turn America into little Mexico.
I lived in Mexico for a year. I am not that foreign to their way of life.

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of July 15, 2003

BUSH MAY SPEND U.S. TAX DOLLARS TO PROVIDE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS TO MEXICANS LIVING IN MEXICO

"With Social Security facing projections of insolvency, an Administration plan would hasten that crisis by sending hundreds of millions of dollars in Social Security payments to Mexican citizens living in Mexico - including those who have worked illegally in the United States."

ILLEGAL ALIENS WOULD BENEFIT

"Under current law, people who worked illegally in the U.S. can only become eligible for Social Security benefits by becoming citizens or legal permanent residents. But officials at the State Department and Social Security Administration (SSA) are preparing a scheme that would pay benefits to illegal aliens who have returned to Mexico."

DIFFERENT THAN 20 OTHER BILATERAL DEALS

"The agreement would be part of a series of executive agreements designed to ensure that people from one country working in another have their Social Security taxes paid into the home country’s social security systems. The U.S. has 20 such treaties with other [countries], but this one would be dramatically different - not only in sheer numbers of people affected, but also because it would be the first to make illegal aliens eligible for Social Security benefits for their illegal employment."