Posted on 01/08/2004 3:34:13 PM PST by kellynla
I am beginning to think John McCain actually won the presidency in 2000.
Conservatives were relieved when the Straight Talk Express petered out during the 2000 primary season. John McCain, although tough on national security and runaway spending, was hardly a conservative on major issues such as campaign finance, healthcare reform and immigration.
Yet this is exactly where we find President Bush today (except unlike McCain, Bush doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with runaway spending). Last year President George Bush signed the McCain-Feingold bill into law, which is one of the worst assaults on political speech this country has ever seen. When conservatives (and many liberals) howled, the President’s advisers whispered that they believed the Supreme Court would “clean up” the more onerous parts of the bill which dictates the types of political ads that can air before a general election or primary contest. Of course the Supreme Court rubber stamped the entire thing and so the result is less, not more political speech in the U.S.
And now President Bush charges across the landscape to rescue us from our “unfair” and “broken” immigration system by rewarding people who came here illegally with the promise of legal status. This proposal essentially mirrors the immigration legislation sponsored by—you got it—Sen. McCain. Under the Bush/McCain plan, anyone outside the U.S. who wants to come into the country would only need to show proof of a “job offer” in order to get an initial three-year work permit that would be renewable for an unspecified period. Such temporary workers could also bring family members here. What prevents these people from staying on beyond their time premitted for "temporary" work? As it stands now, there seems to be no limit on the immigration —temporary or permanent— allowed under this plan. And as for the claim that this would be a big boon to the American economy? Illegal immigration costs taxpayers $20 billion each year, in extra education, healthcare, welfare, and prison costs. Today thirty-four percent of Mexicans legally in the U.S., and 25 percent of Mexicans illegally here are welfare.
How are those costs diminished under the Bush plan?
Most bewildering is the Administration idea that this plan is necessary for homeland security reasons. On the contrary, it would not be surprising if some would-be terrorists are among the millions of illegals who will become “documented” under the Bush plan. As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) charged, "Guest worker programs and gradual amnesty provide cover for terrorists."
It’s easy to understand why Vicente Fox, McCain, big business, and La Raza are happy this week—but what’s in this new proposal for working class American families? How about those immigrants who a lot of time and money to comply with our immigration laws?
The real answer is absolutely nothing. The only reasonable prediction is that wages for a wide range of jobs will be kept artificially depressed by outside workers—now with “legal status” will work for peanuts. “I have worked construction for 30 years as a truck driver (18-wheeler),” wrote one of my listeners, “And every year my pay has gone down because Mexicans are flooding the trucking industry…."
When Bill Clinton says we live in an “increasingly borderless world,” we’re not surprised. It’s the usual globaloney blather. But when a Republican president advocates a policy that will make our borders effectively meaningless, we should be outraged.
With his approval numbers high, President Bush has made a devil’s bargain with business and Hispanic groups. Elites from both parties are ignoring the view of a strong majority of Americans that we need to stop illegal immigration, not high-five it.
Another listener wonders: “What happened to the ‘party of principle’? More like the party of pandering. Considering the massive numbers involved, this amnesty being floated really is Pandora's Box, once opened cannot be closed.”
President Bush has now done the equivalent of posting a sign at the border: “Help Wanted for $5.15/hour.”
Conservatives are right to be disappointed in President Bush. We are right to ignore the Administration’s promise that this time, non-amnesty amnesty will be good for the American people. Our citizenship and legal residence should be reserved for people who love this country enough that breaking her laws—whether at the border or on the street—is out of the question. The next time I hear from his Administration that it is doing all it can to protect our homeland, secure our borders, and increase our standard of living, I will laugh.
Now I know the definition of “compassionate conservative:” a person who campaigns as a conservative, then sells out key conservative principles.
You are not stupid Poohbah, you know what happens to a nation that allows itself to be over run by invading immigrants. History provides numerous examples. England in particular is a good case study, Kosovo is another more recent example.
Link please. It's just too hard to believe that the National Security Act of 1947 was prescient enough to include a clause covering a terrorist hijacking of a commercial airliner.
OK.
How do you ARREST those people? The planes can't do that.
Those inspections aren't performed by the federal government. A very big difference.
I don't understand why poohbah, or any one else, opposes resonable solutions. NIS inspecting work places is not an "unreasonable search" like the WOD no knock search. Now that is unreasonable!
Explain in detail how it's not an "unreasonable" search. Even a no-knock warrant has to be sworn out. This doesn't require any sort of probable cause.
However there should be easily passable entry points. Folks avoiding those entry points are most likely up to no good and should be detained.
The Air Force is allowed to enforce border control?
No.
Then again, we had a guest worker program so that it was a great deal easier for workers from Mexico to come here and work legally than to sneak across the border illegally. They could even go home at the end of their job, and come back when a new job was available.
We didn't have a large-scale illegal immigration problem until 1965.
Which just happens to be when the guest worker program was terminated.
I submit that the two events are connected.
If the illegal alien's flying an airplane, yes.
Actually, I did.
The question is, what do you do about the other dozen groups of aliens that are crossing the border while your Border Patrol agents are chasing the first group to ground?
The former is legal (just barely), if you ignore the 14th Amendment incorporating the BoR at the state level.
The latter is unconstitutional, except if you are engaged in interstate commerce (REAL interstate commerce, not trumped-up "interstate commerce").
Tell me why an NIS inspection is unresonable, don't ask me to prove it is not.
Please reread the 4th Amendment.
You've just replicated how the Federal government overstepped its boundaries to begin with.
The burden of proof is on the government, not on the citizen.
Actually, I did just that. Here is a link to the entire text of the National Security Act of 1947 pertaining to the Air Force:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/postwwii/nsa47.htm
And now I know what the problem has been around here, Poohbah. You are full of shit, Poohbah.
Where in the text does the Act task the Air Force with intercepting commercial airliners that have been hijacked by terrorists?
Ha, ha, ha, ha!!!! Unless you're Poohbah, you don't send all 5,000 of your BP agents to chase down one group of fifty illegals.
I was hoping you were just having fun baiting people. You really must be a moron.
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.