Replies

You've not answered the questions.

Do you support giving legal status and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal aliens?

Would you have voted for or against passage of H.R.4437 in December 2005 when the bill was presented for a vote in the United States House of Representatives if you had been a member of House

Would you have voted for or against passage of S.2611 in 2006 when the bill was presented for a voted in the United States States Senate if you had been a member of the Senate?

I understand the complete history of H.R.4437 and S.2611. The House passed a good bill and a minority of Republican senators were determined to collaborate with nearly every Democrat in the Senate and pass an amnesty bill. Thirty-two (32) Republicans voted against the Senate amnesty bill. Twenty-three (23) Republicans joined with forty-one (41) Democrats to pass the amnesty bill. What you refer to as "reform" is amnesty.

Senator Sessions and Senatopr Vitter both correctly called S.2611 an amnesty bill. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd all supported the Senate amnesty bill.

Republicans in the House are not split on giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. A solid majority of Republican senators opposed the Senate amnesty bill.

The twenty-three (23) Republican seantors that insisted on rewarding millions of illegal aliens are to blame for a bill not being passed.

Why are you afraid to say whether you support rewarding millions of illegal aliens with legal status and a path to citizenship?

Why are you afraid to say what member of the Senate or House best represents your views on immigration?

The third paragraph of post number 168 shoudl have read "Would you have voted for or against passage of H.R.4437 in December 2005 when the bill was presented for a vote in the United States House of Representatives if you had been a member of the House?".

A paragraph contained in post number 168 should have read "The twenty-three (23) Republican senators that insisted on rewarding millions of illegal aliens with amnesty are to blame for a bill not being passed."

Your strategy isn't working. It works ok at FR because that is what people come here to hear. But it doen't work in the real world. It fact, based on all the shake-ups, and public opinion, your strategy is actually hurting you. You have been at it for over three years now, where are your results? Where is your bill?

Let's back up and look at it.

The first thing was to frame the issue as republican against republican. Good republicans against bad republicans. Bad Ben. Bad Bush. Bad any/everybody who didn't agree with you. They're not "true conservatives" or real Americans. "They" are trying to destroy America.

To go along with this, try to define the language. This is amnesty, that is amnesty, everything is amnesty.

Once again, after three years it hasn't worked. Your support today is no wider than it was in 04, and it is probably less.

That is because it has always been and will always be republicans against democrats. And when they are discussing the issues, they now exactly what amnesty means.

Let's look at those evil republicans who joined with the dems. We can look at why and when it happened.

There is one and only one reason why. They knew that the GOP would never unify to pass an immigration bill. That the borderbots would never return. And the only way to pass an immigration bill was to join with the dems. At all it took was for the dems to compromise enough to switch. We know when and why the Ag state senators switched in 2003. Later, when the dems agreed to the further compromises in Martinez-Hagel, more switched.

Now lets llok at the particular numbers you use in your last reply.

You accurately state that there were 23 Senate republicans supporting the bill. Then you make the leap that this means that the 32 remaining Senate republicans supported enforcement only. Not true. Most of those voting against the Martinez-Hagel Reform were backing the Bush Comprehensive Immigration Reform Plan or the Kyl-Cornyn reform plan. Then if you deduct those GOP senators who were not voting for anything, there were only a handful who were supportung enforcement.

Now let's look at your numbers in the House.

You say that there was a "solid majority" of House republicans supporting enforcement only. Not true. Many republicans voted for it as part of comprehensive reform. If there has been a solid majority, the House would have gone to conference committee. Hastert knew there was more than enough votes in the House to pass S2611. That is why he bailed out and refused to go to conference.

The bottom line is, then or now, and after 3 plus years, you have no way of coming close to implementing what you want.

As a stong supporter of Tancredo for president, there is something you need to know. You shouldn't be hyping Sessions and others. While they are willing to be allies with Tancredo on immigration, they are emphatically against him for president. You see, Tancredo is of southern European descent and these ol' boys in the south don't like southern europeans any more than they like mexicans and blacks.