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 doesnt 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 Presidents 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 byyou got itSen. 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."
Its easy to understand why Vicente Fox, McCain, big business, and La Raza are happy this weekbut whats 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 workersnow 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, were not surprised. Its 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 devils 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 Administrations 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 lawswhether at the border or on the streetis 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.
No, you're sending the only four BP agents in that particular sector to chase down fifty illegals, and there's another 500 or so crossing at about the same time.
Bush and Fox were all set to implement a revised version of the guest worker progam, but then 9/11 hit and it was put on the back burner until now.
What was announced this week is apparently the program they were working on revisited and Fox appears to have had his way with Bush to a large degree.
Wonder what was said away from the cameras between Fox and Bush about such things as revising the guest worker program, political cooperation and support from Mexico if Bush complied, and future plans to expand immigration to the point of dissolving the border between Mexico and the United States all together - similar to a European solution.
As a payoff to the AFL-CIO for getting the vote out for Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
"all persons shall be secure in thier person, papers and affects from unreasonable search and seizure."
The intent of this amendment was to protect one's home from warrantless searches. An NIS inspection of a work place is not unreasonable. The greater good, in preventing employers from hiring illegals far out weights the minor inconvenience of an inspection.
And place of business. Most businesses were run from homes. Also, the 4th Amendment does not specify homes. One's "papers and effects" could be found in one's business, and frequently one's person as well.
An NIS inspection of a work place is not unreasonable.
The greater good, in preventing employers from hiring illegals far out weights the minor inconvenience of an inspection.
"The greater good in preventing gun violence far outweighs the minor inconvenience of outlawing private firearms ownership."
"The greater good in preventing extremist views from inciting violence far outweighs the minor inconvenience of prior restraint on speech or publication."
That's amazingly low across eight years.
The problem was manageable. It stopped being manageable in 1965. That isn't a coincidence.
An elitist is as an elitist does.
No, only Poohbah has just four BP agents in any given sector because Poohbah doesn't believe that a country with a $12 trillion GDP can afford any more manpower on the border.
So is Bush - on us!
The American public isn't willing to spend the money. Period. They'd rather have it spent on pork in their districts.
Second: absent immigration (legal AND illegal combined), America's population will decline. The only way to avoid this is to draft women into the Maternity Corps and order them to have babies, and after they reach majority, draft their kids into the Border Patrol. In short, unless you're willing to do those things, your policy is not sustainable in the long run (i.e., more than 20 years or so).
You are.
We have a huge problem in this country.
That's the excuse every tyrant offers. "We have a huge problem, so y'all have to surrender your freedom for a little while."
A hell of alot of teenager are turning to dealing drugs cause there ain't no jobs for them.
Standard liberal mantra, I see.
You are not free to hire illegals.
I have seen no polls on this, so I don't know. But if you'll allow me to extrapolate from the polls showing 65-85% of Americans being against unfettered illegal immigration, I suspect there would indeed be a great deal of support for beefing up the manpower on our borders. Unfortunately, no politician in either party, except Tancredo, is even proposing this.
Second: absent immigration (legal AND illegal combined), America's population will decline.
I'm not sold on the idea that only the illegals can save us from a population decline. There are millions of people around the world who have applied for U.S. citizenship. We should bring these people in faster.
Is Poohbah pro-abortion?
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.