Posted on 03/31/2006 3:41:14 AM PST by pageonetoo
As Congress battles over immigration, the consequences are likely to be far greater than the details of border walls or green cards. The most important political outcome may turn out to be the message that Republicans send about the kind of the party they are and hope to be.
To wit, do Republicans want to continue in the Reagan tradition of American optimism and faith in assimilation that sends a message of inclusiveness to all races? Or will they take another one of their historical detours into a cramped, exclusionary policy that tells millions of new immigrants, and especially Hispanics, that they belong somewhere else?...
...The immediate danger is that Republicans will ignore their longer-term interests by passing a punitive, and poll-driven, anti-immigration bill this election year. Any bill that merely harasses immigrants and employers, and stacks more cops on the border, may win cheers in the right-wing blogosphere. However, it will do nothing to address the economic incentives that will continue to exist for poor migrants to come to America to feed their families. And it will make permanent enemies of millions of Hispanics, without doing anything to draw illegals out of the shadows and help them assimilate into the mainstream of American culture and citizenship.
This is not Ronald Reagan's view of America as a "shining city on a hill." It is the chauvinist conservatism usually associated with the European right. How Republicans conduct and conclude their immigration debate will show the country which kind of "conservative" party they want to be.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Reagan was then.
Tancredo is now.
Times have changed, as has the nature of immigration. If we are blind to those changes, we stand to be overwhelmed.
I will vote for Tancredo over _any_ other Republican name on a primary ballot.
- John
I would love to see he and George Allen on the ticket, and would not care which was on top! But, first we have to get past November 2006!
We ceased being a real nation, when the SOTUS began attacking our constitution, and found a "penumbra' emanating from it...
We are reaping what has been sewn. IMO, the only solution is a constitutional convention, but God only knows what the results would be. There are too few patriots, and too many special interests!..
If Reagan would have had line item veto, amnesty for 3rd world, Leftist, Liberal, illegal aliens would have been dead on arrival.
The Liberal Democrat congress that Reagan had to work with shoved amnesty down his throat.
As Bush is so fond of saying every time he opens his mouth, "Make no mistake about it." This time it's Bush shoving amnesty down ours.
During his speech? You expected to see someone pressuring him during his speech?
He signed it, because he had to work with a Liberal Democrat controlled congress to get anything done. Congress promised Reagan it would be the last amnesty.
Buchanan was part of Reagan's administration.
Reagan wouldn't have hired 'W' to empty the waste baskets.
He should have vetoed it based on the merits of the word amnesty.
He hired his daddy to be his VP, and Bush is a much better president than his father was.
W and Reagan were good friends, and he thought quite a bit of GW. They actually spent time together in the Whitehouse... can you imagine? Of course you can call me a liar like a certain mother on here, but Michael Reagan is my source on this.
LLS
WHAT?... the republican party and White House?..
Yeah yer right.. Darn.. How'd THAT happen..
They most assuredly will (though they may not want to). They lack the Jeffersonian gene and 'their' country wallows in crap. Wealth abounds in the same sphere as massive peasantry. Government corruption and zero education are contributors to this mess.
In their country, the peasants are rightfully communist sympathizers, but in our country, they're the f**king enemy.
Now, that may depend upon how well our current leaders (elected elites) adhere to the orignal 'plan' as envisioned 200 years ago and to the extent it is implemented.
Should they stray further into the land of 'collectivism', then perhaps the masses of peasant undesirables would be welcome to bring about their master plan. Peasant meet Globalist.
If, however, they should come to their senses and realize America-(it's sovereignty) is worth preserving at all cost, then these Red, White, and Green flag bearers had better prepare to have flags shoved up their hynies.
Anybody that thinks that's good is nuts.
Our borders would have been securred.
We wouldn't even be talking about surrendering to Mexico.
So go vote for a Democrat.
The War on Terror, which we did not choose to start, must mean nothing to you, since all you seem to care about is money.
I doubt Reagan would have hired him either.
Bush drove our Nation $3 TRILLION DOLLARS more into debt and we don't even have our borders secured, because the $10 or $20 billion it would require is just too high a price for Bush to pay for our own security when he's squandering TRILLIONS on everybody Else's.
If it had been up to you green-eyeshade-types, Reagan would never have built up our defenses to win the Cold War.
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.
SOURCE