Checking them out myself here
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.
Hell, that wouldn't even be a down payment.
I've run the numbers, and they aren't pretty. About 3,000,000 or so new "border guards," just to close the Mexican border.
Gee..what more can I add to that..it pretty well sums it up!
Uh-Oh! Now Laura will suffer the WRATH of the Bush-Bots...
Warn her NOT to drink the Kool-Aide, and tell her Nice Job! Well said!
Here's the real issue, Poohbah. The longer you put off dealing with a problem, the harder it gets to actually confront it-and we've seen that with both illegal immigration and terrorism. The Reagan amnesty was basically an attempt to deal with the problem of illegal immigration by wishing it away. However, when you reward illegal behavior, you tend to get a lot more of it. So now we have several million illegal immigrants and an entire undergound economy around that population.
However, if we choose to not deal with this problem now, it will probably be impossible to deal with it later - we're extremely close to the point of critical mass when it comes to illegal immigration. We can't build a wall that will keep out everyone, but we can build a wall that will make it that much harder to come here. We can't stop employers from hiring illegals, but we can make examples of those caught doing such. But trying to once again deal with illegal immigration by legalizing or rewarding it is abject surrender.
Nah she took the kool-aid of the knee jerk corwd. Her e-mail is all rant and nil on solutions.
Gee..what more can I add to that..it pretty well sums it up! >
And what compassionate liberal Democrat nominee would have signed the Partial Birth Abortion bill? Hmmm? Which would continue the tax cuts? Which would prosecute a war overseas to avoid glowing craters in America? Hmmm?
Small potatos, gentlemen. And note carefully in your conservative fervor, usually pointed at minimizing government action in society, that you are clamoring for Bush to generate *more* government enforcement action. Are you truly conservatives?
Here's the real issue, Poohbah. The longer you put off dealing with a problem, the harder it gets to actually confront it-and we've seen that with both illegal immigration and terrorism. The Reagan amnesty was basically an attempt to deal with the problem of illegal immigration by wishing it away. However, when you reward illegal behavior, you tend to get a lot more of it. So now we have several million illegal immigrants and an entire undergound economy around that population.
However, if we choose to not deal with this problem now, it will probably be impossible to deal with it later - we're extremely close to the point of critical mass when it comes to illegal immigration. We can't build a wall that will keep out everyone, but we can build a wall that will make it that much harder to come here. We can't stop employers from hiring illegals, but we can make examples of those caught doing such.
No proposal of and by itself is going to end illegal immigration. But trying to once again deal with illegal immigration by legalizing or rewarding it is abject surrender.
It got sick in the mid eighties, when it moved into the 'big tent', and became terminal when in became 'kinder & gentler'.
Today the GOP is like the corpse in 'Weekend at Bernies', being driven around by a couple of smart*sses calling themselves 'fiscal republicans'.
LOL! Great Imagery!
Let's Call it "Weekend at Vincente's", and have Rove as the Andrew McCarthy charachter!
Controlling our borders and immigration is a Constitutionally-mandated function of the federal government. Providing a Medicare prescription benefit is not. Try again.
Checking them out myself here
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.