Posted on 02/03/2004 6:50:12 PM PST by abigail2
Amnesty: Hating the Sin; Loving the Sinner
I have written about “The Party of Death (Democrats) vs. The Party of Slow Suicide (Republicans)”. But the GOP seems hell bent on speeding up the process via President Bush’s de facto Amnesty for illegals proposal. The question is, What to do about it?
Let’s face it: the President essentially inherited a security, cultural, and economic mess -- millions of illegal aliens floating around in America. His predecessors essentially looked the other way while illegals ran roughshod over our nation.
But George W. Bush’s biggest political problem in this election season is not illegal immigration itself, but rather the question mark being placed after his name by many potential voters. For the inescapable fact, is that the chief law enforcement officer in the land has insulted the lawful, and flattered the lawbreaker. And that goes to the question of character, the president’s assumed ace in the hole.
The American public has always been against legalizing illegals. When polled they’ve also shown solid support for militarizing the borders. The president knows this, and yet is determined to go against the law and the people anyway. Why?
I’m sorry to say our political parties too often do not represent the interests of the average American. The Democrats do the bidding of ethnic/interest groups, the unions and the fringe anti-values groups. But it is becoming increasingly clear that Republicans too often are also doing the bidding of ethnic groups and big business interests.
So what to do about the sellout?
Last week a group of Republican lawmakers signed a letter to the president warning him that he risks an election-year backlash if he continues to push his misguided illegal immigration proposal.
Many Americans are saying they won’t vote for the man if he continues in this direction. No, the vast majority won’t vote for Senator Kerry or some other liberal Democrat, but there’s a real possibility they may sit the election out.
The problem I have with all of this is that I have a lot of respect for President Bush. More importantly, I care about this nation’s future. So we’ve got to look reasonably at the options in front of us, with a clear head and heart.
Do decent Americans really want to stay away from the polls, and on election night watch the triumph of a liberal pro-tax, pro-abortion, soft-on-terrorism extremist? America cannot afford another liberal in office; it could be fatal. Just think what would happen if we had Al Gore leading us against the world’s terrorists after 9-11. No, I still thank God for President Bush.
Yet, I cannot be comfortable either in rubber-stamping the president’s behavior. We must oppose this illegal alien scam with everything we have.
I do not believe that those who would vote third party at this time are thinking clearly. If the president continues to push outrageous proposals like this one, and the Republican Party keeps being “the party of slow (or not-so-slow) suicide,” then one day in the near future a viable third party will come together. But that day does not yet exist.
The real reason we’ve gotten ourselves into this mess is that we’ve given up our rightful dominion over the political system, the same way we’ve given it up in our families and in our communities. I particularly urge men to come back -- now -- and tend to their obligations.
It takes a little patience, and a little work. But remember, before we fought our war with King George, we spent a great deal of time and energy attempting to get him to redress our grievances. We need to do our due diligence here too with President George.
Let’s not look for shortcuts. Let us take our country -- and political system -- back the right way! To act out of our resentments instead of our reason would be disastrous.
Patrick Rooney is the Director of Special Projects at BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, a nonprofit organization dedicated to “Rebuilding the Family By Rebuilding the Man.”
Indeed it is!
No wonder the Conservative Base of the GOP feels betrayed!! But lately it appears that the message might be getting through to Dubyuh as he's come out with a proposal to limit growth in discretionary spending to 1% next year and then set out a list of 128 programs that are to be ended or gutted in the upcoming budget. This is a very good start in the right direction, IMHO.
FReegards...MUD
I guess I missed the part where I said that. The article discusses the pending political suicide of the GOP vis a vis the immigration action. It does so in a near hysterical tone. The WH is full of political strategists that were astute enough to get Pres Bush elected in an election where he was probably viewed as less competent than he will be this time around against an opponent that I think was more formidable than kerry will be. Additionally, congress is full of politicians that will probably not self implode by doing something obviously stupid. I believe the WH and the congress have gotten the message from the voters re immigration. The Pres didn't even mention it in his SOTU message. Moreover, he has already heard from the GOP in congress on this issue. My comments were regarding the gist of the article and a (I believe) totally unnecessary call to action presented in an almost emergency like manner. My comments had nothing to do with political action in general nor the immigration problem as it is today.
"I guess I missed the part where I said that."
You just called it "whining" when folks complain about Dubyuh's domestic policy and I prefer to view it as constructive criticism of the performance of the folks we voted to put into office. FReepers are a unique breed 'cuz we tend to pay more attention to these issues than the average folks who talk to pollsters. When we--who voted fer Dubyuh and contributed to his campaign and even rushed the courthouse where the ballots were be recounted and recounted in December '00--when we start bitchin', it makes political sense fer Dubyuh's advisors to pay attention, imho.
"The article discusses the pending political suicide of the GOP vis a vis the immigration action. It does so in a near hysterical tone."
I guess I missed the hysteria, my FRiend...to me, it seemed more resolute than anything else.
"The WH is full of political strategists that were astute enough to get Pres Bush elected in an election where he was probably viewed as less competent than he will be this time around against an opponent that I think was more formidable than Kerry will be. Additionally, congress is full of politicians that will probably not self implode by doing something obviously stupid. I believe the WH and the congress have gotten the message from the voters re immigration. The Pres didn't even mention it in his SOTU message."
This is very good, imho...some more cynical than I would even go so far as to assume that perhaps Dubyuh presented his plan knowing it was going to be DOA in Congress just so he could get credit from the Hispanic community fer proposing it while knowing he never had to fear it becoming law.
"Moreover, he has already heard from the GOP in congress on this issue. My comments were regarding the gist of the article and a (I believe) totally unnecessary call to action presented in an almost emergency like manner. My comments had nothing to do with political action in general nor the immigration problem as it is today."
Fair enough...I mistook your comments as deriding citizen activism against issues or policies we disagree with. IMHO, our elected leaders benefit greatly from our ongoing input during the interval between elections...and if they heed our input, I believe they stand a much better chance of enjoying reelection.
FReegards...MUD
To me, the article focused more on the risk the GOP was taking re re election vs criticism of policy therefore my whining remark. Perhaps I misinterpreted something.
One man's resolution is another's hysteria
some more cynical than I Nothing cynical here. I think that was a consideration
Pres Bush needs my support (and he has to earn it) but not my advice (I'm pretty sure).
I hope we cleared all that up now
I don't consider it "advice" as much as "citizenry input", and you may be surprised at just how handy that can be from time to time. If we on the Right don't make our wishes known, we leave the playing field to be dominated by the Left's insane rantings.
"I hope we cleared all that up now..."
We're clear, my FRiend.
FReegards...MUD
And discovered that "true conservatives" were, like Paine's summer soldiers and sunshine patriots, nowhere to be found when it came to lending support in the 1995 budget crisis. The Dems went after them hammer and tongs--and the "true conservatives" and "grassroots activists" didn't march to the sound of the guns, they ran in the opposite direction as fast as their feet could carry them.
As I recall it, the GOP's unfortunate and unseemly retreat from the Clinton-produced Guv'mentShutdown cannot be blamed on the principled RightWing as much as the weak-kneed RINOs in both the Senate and House. If you are specifically referring to Gingrich and his inner circle, I would submit that Newt's less a principled conservative--a "true conservative", if you will--than a political opportunist.
"The Dems went after them hammer and tongs--and the "true conservatives" and "grassroots activists" didn't march to the sound of the guns, they ran in the opposite direction as fast as their feet could carry them."
This is revisionist history, Poohbah, the fact is we just didn't have enough principled conservatives to withstand a DemonRAT Presidential veto and the defections of the RINO branch of our Party!! Sure, I believe the Republican Party was right in shutting down government and shouldda stood their ground until the RATS broke, but to blame this failure on the RightWing base of the GOP is disingenuous at best.
FReegards...MUD
I have rarely (if ever?) disagreed on anything of political importance with you, Steve, but I’m afraid we part ways on this one.
Staying true to my conservative principles will no longer allow me to support yet another so-called conservative leader who has bartered those principles away to the highest (political or monetary) bidder.
Please bear with me here and read this to the end. If you still disagree with me, I will chalk it up as a genuine divergence of opinion between two intelligent, well-informed conservatives. But I’m hoping that, in this specific instance, maybe there are some facts of which you are as yet unaware.
Bush’s immigration proposal has three main thrusts:
(1) It grants legality (via temporary work visas) to the approximately ten million illegals already in the country (Do you realize that that figure represents almost 3½% of our total population? That’s a mighty huge chunk of humanity, and a mighty huge potential voting block, and a mighty huge special interest group, and a mighty huge drain on our already over-extended social services fabric).
(2) These visas would not only apply to illegals who are already here, but would also be offered to aliens living abroad who have been offered a job by a US employer. The administration claims that there are not enough Americans to fill the available American jobs, and that this will help fill the void.
(3) The visa holders would be candidates for a green card. The lid on green card applications would be lifted. (Note: one of the most insidious tentacles attached to the obtaining of a green card is the privilege of sponsoring the immigration of one’s relatives – parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles. Talk about a Pandora’s box!)
My first (and most vehement) objection to these ludicrous proposals is that nowhere contained in them is even a hint of a solution to what caused this problem to begin with. What are we doing to stem the tide of illegal immigration? Why put a (rotten) band-aid on a sore that is still bleeding profusely? My logic tells me that, rather than stemming waves of illegals streaming across our borders, this idiotic ‘solution’ will instead encourage even more. We’ll need another amnesty program five years from now for the additional ten million who will see this as an open invitation to suck America dry.
Not only does this program fail to punish people who have come across our borders illegally. It rewards those who, in addition to that first crime, have also gained employment. How does an illegal gain employment in this country? He fakes the documentation required to obtain work (birth certificate, social security number, etc.) And, if the illegal hasn’t faked his own personal documentation, then his employer has hired him without the proper documentation. So one or both of them are being rewarded for committing one crime on top of another.
And how about the drain on social services that these people (and those who will inevitably follow them) are going to cause? Anyone who believes that they will not be using up more taxpayer services than they contribute to is living in a dream world.
As this article says, The American public has always been [and still is, by a huge majority] against legalizing illegals. So the bottom-line question is Why is the President doing this? To solve the problem? It solves nothing. If anything, exacerbates the problem of illegal immigration by making it more attractive. The only benefit is a political one. A genuine conservative does not override the will of the people to gain political favors from minorities. That falls into the leftists' camp. And when the line of demarcation between the two camps blurs, it's time to take a step back and ask yourself who is erasing the line?
The only thing this President has done that has made me proud that I voted for him is his handling of the war in Iraq, in general. That’s it. He has signed into law every single big-spending, unconstitutional, socialist bill that has crossed his desk. Not one veto! He has signed on to the continued confiscation of our hard-earned money and spends it on new and improved bloated entitlement programs, redistributing our wealth so that work and success is deemed secondary to sloth, mediocrity, and a socialist nanny-state. He has signed into law an act that would allow the state to subvert more of our God-given individual liberties than any previous act or law every passed in this republic, all in the name of homeland security.
I am beginning to fear that liberty may someday be more at risk as a result of creeping socialism and homeland security measures than it is through the threat of external terrorism itself.
Of one thing I am certain. The ability of terrorism to wreak havoc here in our homeland is inversely proportional to the amount of individual liberty and prosperity we enjoy as a united people. And, in that respect, our own President is weakening our defenses with every stroke of his free-flowing pen.
~ joanie
You recall most incorrectly.
If you are specifically referring to Gingrich and his inner circle, I would submit that Newt's less a principled conservative--a "true conservative", if you will--than a political opportunist.
I was not referring to Gingrich--or any other elected official. I was referring to the "true conservative" and "grass-roots" activist groups.
You whine about the GOP being "weak-kneed."
You know WHY they were weak-kneed?
Because their mail--their snail mail, the stuff that matters--ran 10-1 against their effort.
"True conservatives" were contacted in a well-nigh desperate effort to counter the steamroller.
They were no-shows.
This is revisionist history, Poohbah, the fact is we just didn't have enough principled conservatives to withstand a DemonRAT Presidential veto and the defections of the RINO branch of our Party!!
I was there, trying to organize a letter-writing campaign. The "true conservatives" flat-out refused to send any letters supporting the shutdown unless every jot and tittle of their demands was complied with immediately--and some of their demands were ludicrous, and would have required Democrat participation (removing Clinton and Gore from office being the most noteworthy of these).
The "RINO branch" of the GOP was able to argue that the hang-tough strategy was a sure-fire loser--and the mail bags supported their argument, thanks to the "true conservatives" stabbing them in the back.
Sure, I believe the Republican Party was right in shutting down government and shouldda stood their ground until the RATS broke, but to blame this failure on the RightWing base of the GOP is disingenuous at best.
In other words, you were perfectly content to simply hang the GOP out there to do your bidding without any support. You wanted the goodies, but didn't want to do the frickin' work.
There's a technical term for that
Parasite.
Believe me, I'm paying attention...we are usually of one mind.
"Staying true to my conservative principles will no longer allow me to support yet another so-called conservative leader who has bartered those principles away to the highest (political or monetary) bidder."
My voting record to date has been Reagan/Bush/Bush/Dole/Bush, and that second Bush vote was the hardest fer me to swallow, but I couldn't stomach Perot and I believe I foresaw what an embarrassment Clinton would ultimately become. That said, I've considered--and continue to reconsider--not voting fer Dubyuh due to his domestic policy performance over the last few months.
"If you still disagree with me, I will chalk it up as a genuine divergence of opinion between two intelligent, well-informed conservatives. But I’m hoping that, in this specific instance, maybe there are some facts of which you are as yet unaware."
I'm sure there is always going to be something I can learn from you, my FRiend.
"Bush’s immigration proposal has three main thrusts:
(1) It grants legality (via temporary work visas) to the approximately ten million illegals already in the country (Do you realize that that figure represents almost 3½% of our total population? That’s a mighty huge chunk of humanity, and a mighty huge potential voting block, and a mighty huge special interest group, and a mighty huge drain on our already over-extended social services fabric).
(2) These visas would not only apply to illegals who are already here, but would also be offered to aliens living abroad who have been offered a job by a US employer. The administration claims that there are not enough Americans to fill the available American jobs, and that this will help fill the void.
(3) The visa holders would be candidates for a green card. The lid on green card applications would be lifted. (Note: one of the most insidious tentacles attached to the obtaining of a green card is the privilege of sponsoring the immigration of one’s relatives – parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles. Talk about a Pandora’s box!)
My first (and most vehement) objection to these ludicrous proposals is that nowhere contained in them is even a hint of a solution to what caused this problem to begin with. What are we doing to stem the tide of illegal immigration? Why put a (rotten) band-aid on a sore that is still bleeding profusely? My logic tells me that, rather than stemming waves of illegals streaming across our borders, this idiotic ‘solution’ will instead encourage even more. We’ll need another amnesty program five years from now for the additional ten million who will see this as an open invitation to suck America dry.
Alright, Joanie, let me stop here...I do not support Dubyuh's proposal for Amnesty fer Illegal Immigrants in any way whatsoever. All your points are well-taken and valid, it's an absolutely STOOOOPID proposal on so many fronts, and I feel it should never see the light of day in Congress!! That said, is it not DeadOnArrival in the House?! I saw Congressperson Jackson-Lee arguing vehemently against it on TeeVee the other night and believe plenty of GOP Congressfolks will also argue against it...is it not feasible that Dubyuh knew this going in and simply proposed it knowing it was DOA? Admittedly, I'd prefer our POTUS stuck to conservative principles and demanded that lawbreakers bwe held accountable and that we give Illegals time to return to their hometown in exchange for the opportunity to get in line with folks who were trying to obtain residency in this Country via legal means...I'd even support giving some consideration to employer recommendations as to their having jobs in America when/if they were to return, but we must enforce our borders or our Country is sure to crumble from the inside out. My point, though, is that perhaps Dubyuh's proposal was a crass political calculation and he never meant for it to become law...if that comes to pass, could you still support the man?
"Not only does this program fail to punish people who have come across our borders illegally. It rewards those who, in addition to that first crime, have also gained employment. How does an illegal gain employment in this country? He fakes the documentation required to obtain work (birth certificate, social security number, etc.) And, if the illegal hasn’t faked his own personal documentation, then his employer has hired him without the proper documentation. So one or both of them are being rewarded for committing one crime on top of another."
After giving these folks ample opportunity to return to their homelands, I agree that we should hold both employee and employer responsible for their law-breaking...rewarding the breaking of our laws should never become official government policy!!
"And how about the drain on social services that these people (and those who will inevitably follow them) are going to cause? Anyone who believes that they will not be using up more taxpayer services than they contribute to is living in a dream world. As this article says, The American public has always been [and still is, by a huge majority] against legalizing illegals. So the bottom-line question is Why is the President doing this? To solve the problem? It solves nothing. If anything, exacerbates the problem of illegal immigration by making it more attractive. The only benefit is a political one. A genuine conservative does not override the will of the people to gain political favors from minorities. That falls into the leftists' camp. And when the line of demarcation between the two camps blurs, it's time to take a step back and ask yourself who is erasing the line?"
Like I indicated above, there is nothing about Bush's Amnesty Plan that I support, but my only point is that I believe this can be defeated at the Congressional level. If this turns out to be the case, and Dubyuh doesn't use precious political capital making it a reality, is it not possible that Dubyuh was simply using it as an opportunity to gain the respect and trust of the hispanic community with no real expectation that it would ever become law?
"The only thing this President has done that has made me proud that I voted for him is his handling of the war in Iraq, in general. That’s it. He has signed into law every single big-spending, unconstitutional, socialist bill that has crossed his desk. Not one veto! He has signed on to the continued confiscation of our hard-earned money and spends it on new and improved bloated entitlement programs, redistributing our wealth so that work and success is deemed secondary to sloth, mediocrity, and a socialist nanny-state. He has signed into law an act that would allow the state to subvert more of our God-given individual liberties than any previous act or law every passed in this republic, all in the name of homeland security."
I've got problems with Dubyuh's domestic performance to date as well, my FRiend, and I am by no means unconditionally pledging my support to Bush at this time. Still, I believe there is a distinct possibility that Bush can be persuaded to toe a more conservative line. Just since the recent outcry in response to the StateOfTheUnion address, he has amended his discretionary spending increase from 4% to 1% and proposed the ending or significant reduction in spending of 128 programs. My point is, Dubyuh's a politician and can be impacted by the yearnings of the RightWing...DemonRATS couldn't care less what we say, no matter how long or hard we say it!!
"I am beginning to fear that liberty may someday be more at risk as a result of creeping socialism and homeland security measures than it is through the threat of external terrorism itself."
I'd say that's already a given, and I look forward to the day that we declare "VICTORY" in the War on Terror and legislate the restoration of our Civil Liberties that have been compromised over the last 25-60 years!!
"Of one thing I am certain. The ability of terrorism to wreak havoc here in our homeland is inversely proportional to the amount of individual liberty and prosperity we enjoy as a united people. And, in that respect, our own President is weakening our defenses with every stroke of his free-flowing pen."
Nobody can agree more with you that Dubyuh's spending orgy is anathema to everything conservatives hold dear; however, I retain the hope that we can regain his attention between now and November to the extent that he can help mend his ways and convince him to not follow the ill-conceived MilqueToast path of his father. I am thoroughly convinced that no amount of pressure we could exert would get similar consideration from Senator Kerry and his MerryBand of Lib'rals!!
FReegards...MUD
My elected public servants from the WH down to the local mayor rec. my input on a regular basis. I agree that's our responsibility. Getting back to the cynicism for a moment, I believe Bush team did exactly what you suggested. However, I think there are additional dimensions to it. The carrot part for the Hispanic benefit is too obvious. The better part is how it paints the dims in a corner. They either agree with the Pres (not likely) or the more vocal extreme of the party screams that it doesn't go far enough which totally alienates the majority of the voters in this country. This, to a political novice like me, borders on genius and it is another of many political strategies that I think this group is really good at. Another reason why I’m not particularly concerned about the political ramifications of the subject of the article. Again, not to say the immigration problem does not concern me.
Somewhat regrettably, likewise. A lot of work to do here!
Wholeheartedly agree and your metaphor is great. This is bad policy as well as bad politics and I pray Conress will have the good sense to reject it. But when I look at the good things Bush has done (Southhack recently posted a great list), I feel that the good things he has accomplished more than outweigh the bad. He certainly deserves re-election.
Ah, but you see, Joanie...that is where misguided uh, I mean...*compassionate conservatism* comes in, and saves the day! ( otherwise known as “creeping socialism”...)
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on.
It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."
~ Frederic Bastiat -’The Law’
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.