Posted on 02/06/2008 2:04:10 AM PST by plewis1250
Okay, so this evening was like a glass of cold water hitting me in the face.
The GOP is on its way to nominating McCain as our Presidential candidate. If this happens, I WILL NOT vote Republican this Presidential election.
Here is my question, could Huckabee or Romney drop out, and endorse the other candidate, and request their delegates to join them in that support?
Could a VP promise from either of these men, with egos set aside, save the conservative vote?
I am willing to vote for EITHER of those two men for POTUS, and am willing to bet if the two were paired up, most conservatives would be willing to as well, especially considering the alternative.
I find it so laughable that McCain is calling himself the "true conservative" when nothing is further from the truth...
So, once again, is it possible for either of the candidates to do this?
From what I am reading on the Internet, I believe only a very few of Romney/Huckabee's delegates are hard, and could vote either direction once they convention comes around.
(http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R.phtml)
Just an idea I wanted to see what you guys thought of this, and if it would be possible or not.
- plewis1250
LOL. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.
I think you’re being a drama queen. Destroy this party and this nation? What a load of poo. He’d be better than Clinton any day. Stay home if you want. Vote for a 3rd party candidate. Write someone in. Don’t vote, waste your vote on someone who coudn’t possibly win, whatever you want to do. I’m voting for the Republican candidate because I think we’d be better off with a Republican president than a Democrat.
You don’t understand the significance and impact of amnesty. You are not alone unfortunately.
AMNESTY IS FOREVER
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) bill [S. 2611] that passed in the Senate in 2006 with the support of Presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain contained provisions that would have legalized the status of the overwhelming majority of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country, i.e., amnesty, and provided them with a path to citizenship. The House never voted on the bill and it died.
Undaunted, in 2007 Senators McCain and Kennedy together with a small group of other senators circumvented the normal committee debate process and introduced directly into the Senate for a vote another CIR bill [S. 1348] that actually expanded the number of illegal aliens who would be rewarded with amnesty beyond the 2006 bill. They would be allowed to stay and work here after meeting certain conditions, e.g., pay fines, learn to speak English, understand American civics, etc., that mirrored similar provisions contained in the 1986 amnesty bill. And, as was the case in 1986, the illegal aliens would be offered a path to citizenship. The major difference is that President Reagan called the 1986 bill what it was, a one-time amnesty. The proponents of the proposed 2007 McCain-Kennedy CIR bill denied, and continue to deny, that their bill is amnesty.
The American people were not fooled by the Orwellian use of language to disguise what was being proposed. Despite strong-arm tactics to limit debate and amendments and to force a hurried vote, the 2007 CIR bill was defeated procedurally due to an unprecedented [and huge] public outcry that clearly had an effect on senators’ votes. The American people have spoken, but Presidential candidates Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee still call for legalizing the status of most of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens, i.e., amnesty, which would be an unmitigated disaster for this country.
The irrevocable decision to legalize the status of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens would have direct and immediate consequences on the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who will be authorized entry as a result of this change of status. Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation estimated that the 2006 CIR bill would have resulted in an additional 66 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years due to existing chain migration policies that allow legal permanent residents to sponsor family members for entry as part of family reunification. And the figure of 66 million is based on the conservative Census Bureau estimate of 11.9 million illegal aliens, and does not include the current annual intake of over a million legal immigrants. The numbers are staggering.
In analyzing the 2007 CIR bill, Rector stated, “The main fiscal impact of S. 1348 will occur through two mechanisms: (1) the grant of amnesty, with accompanying access to Social Security, Medicare and welfare benefits, to 12 million illegal immigrants who are overwhelmingly low skilled; and (2) a dramatic increase in chain immigration, which will also be predominantly low skilled.”
“The bottom line is that high school dropouts are extremely expensive to U.S. taxpayers. It does not matter whether the dropout comes from Ohio, Tennessee, or Mexico. It does matter that the Senate immigration bill would increase the future flow of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S. and grant amnesty and access to government benefits to millions of poorly educated illegal aliens already here. Such legislation would inevitably impose huge costs on U.S. taxpayers.” Heritage research has concluded that the cost of amnesty alone will be $2.6 trillion once the amnesty recipients reach retirement age.
In 1986 the U.S. Government estimated that one million people would apply for amnesty. The number turned out to be 2.7 million. If the current number of illegal aliens is closer to the 2005 Bear-Stearns report estimate of 20 million, the demographic and economic impact of amnesty will be exponentially greater than that estimated for an illegal alien population of 12 million. Without having reliable data on how many illegal aliens are in the country, it would be totally irresponsible to pass legislation that would grant legal status to untold millions regardless of the numbers. It is not the way to make good public policy.
President Reagan’s Attorney General, Ed Meese, stated, “The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem. There was extensive document fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today’s large population of illegal aliens. So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal.”
Amnesty has a corrosive effect on the rule of law and is grossly unfair to the millions who have followed the rules and are waiting their turn overseas to enter legally. What kind of message does amnesty send to them and the many millions more who would like to enter the United States? Rewarding those who have entered our country illegally and broken our laws in multiple ways, e.g., ID theft, tax evasion, misuse of social security numbers, etc., will just encourage more people to enter our country illegally so they can take advantage of the next amnesty.
In addition to the huge costs associated with amnesty, there are national security concerns. An amnesty will make it easier for alien terrorists to operate in the United States by allowing them to fraudulently create “secure” IDs with ease. We would be conferring blanket legal status to millions of unknown and unknowable persons, thereby facilitating the movement and access of terrorists who entered the country illegally.
With a stroke of a pen, the legalization of the status of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens— plus the tens of millions more who will join them later legally—will have a profound and negative impact on this country for many generations to come. The efforts of state and local governments to control and limit the costs associated with illegal immigration would be undone overnight. And the burden on the taxpayer will increase. Amnesty is not an action that can be taken lightly or be reversed. Amnesty is forever.
DEMOGRAPHICS OF IMMIGRATION AND AMNESTY
The nation’s ongoing debate over immigration generally has not focused on the effect it has on U.S. population size. Yet, increasing the nation’s total population is one of immigration’s clearest and most direct effects. Congestion, sprawl, traffic, pollution, loss of open spaces, greenhouse gas emissions, energy needs, infrastructure, etc., will be impacted by massive population growth. Using Census Bureau data, the current level of net immigration will add 105 million to the nation’s population by 2060.
· Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million.
· If immigration continues at current levels, the nation’s population will increase from 302 million today to 468 million in 2060 — a 166 million (56 percent) increase. Immigrants plus their descendents will account for 105 million (63 percent) of the increase.
· The total projected growth of 167 million is equal to the combined populations of Great Britain, France, and Spain. The 105 million from immigration by itself is equal to 13 additional New York Cities.
· Net immigration has been increasing for five decades; if immigration continues to increase, it will add more than the projected 105 million by 2060 that will be added if immigration levels stay the same.
· Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.
· The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007. Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. Within a decade it will be one in 7, the highest in our history.
Amnesty: The 2006 Senate amnesty bill [S. 2611] that passed but died in the House would have granted legal status to most of the 12 million illegal aliens who would then sponsor another 66 million more LEGAL IMMIGRANTS to join them thru chain migration, i.e., family reunification, for a total of 78 million new legal residents over a 20 year period in addition to current annual legal immigration levels of over 1 million.
The 2007 McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill would have expanded the number of illegal aliens receiving legal status to virtually everyone, which would result in an even greater increase in LEGAL IMMIGRANTS thru chain migration. And these huge numbers are predicated on an illegal alien population of 12 million. The numbers could be much higher, e.g., the 2005 Bear-Stearns report estimated that there are 20 million illegal aliens. Whether 12 or 20 million, amnesty would be catastrophic for this country.
Yes, I see that you can cut and paste. Now run along.
I like Mexican food, and brown nipples. I love brown nipples.
And we know that all the posters from Dem. Underground are reading our posts and laughing their bottoms off.
Sigh.
Bears repeating...
“Yet, (McCain) he’s better than the Dems in other areas, namely defense and opposing socialized medicine.”
I wrote it as part of my campaign against amnesty and McCain. I followed the McCain campaign throughout SC and Florida. If you took the time to become informed about the issue, you would understand the significance of what impact amnesty will have and of the failure of our current legal immigration laws, which will take this country down even if we control illegal immigration.
Me too, but it has nothing to do with amnesty and immigration. I am married to an immigrant and have lived overseas for 25 years of my adult life in nine different countries. This is not about racism or being a nativist.
And what is it Democrats will do better when it comes to immigration issues?
Huckabee has apparently taken Romney’s campaign tactics personally and is in a snit. He would not likely cooperate in any venture that might give anything to Romney.
They will do the same thing as McCain. Hillary and Obama voted for the 2006 Senate amnesty bill [S. 2611] that passed and they supprted McCain-Kennedy in 2007. It makes no difference in terms of amnesty who is elected. That is why there will be a tidal wave of illegals right after McCain locks up the nomination trying to get here before the amnesty.
I picture you as a 300 pounder with big breasts, waving a Mexican flag.
I weigh a little more than half that, and my nipples are pink. What “breasts” I have are pretty much all muscle. But enough about man breasts. The comment you were responding too was kind of a joke directed at someone I was giving a hard time because it seemed he was a little too worried about our white population shrinking. And I do like exotic little brown women I must admit. Before I married my beautiful blond haired wife I had dated a Vietnamese lady and a Costa Rican, among others. Something about exotic little brown women was always intoxicating to me. The brown nipple comment was already probably too much information so I won’t go into that anymore.
What a canard. We cannot assimilate the numbers that are coming in now. Amnesty will add an additional 78 million new legal residents to this country. It is about assimilation and maintaining a national identity and shared sense of endeavor. The 1965 immigration act changed the demographics of the US forever. Non-Hispanic whites will be a minority by 2050 and decline thereafter. That is a given. The question is how do we reform our immigration policies to go from a system based on kinship to a merit based one that serves the interest of this nation. We can't continue to import tens of millions of high school dropouts from Latin America. They will be a net burden to this country and a drain on our entitlement and welfare systems.
Half of the children in America between that ages of 0-5 are minorities. Blacks and Hispanics have the highest out of wedlock births and the highest high school drop out rates. They are our future. We are building a permanent underclass with that social pathology. As a nation, we must address the issues connected with this very serious problem. Immigration, legal and illegal, is contributing to it. Amnesty will be catastrophic for the country.
On most issues he’ll be a lot better than either of them. There is just no way we’re going to be better off with either Democrat in office and I can’t support any RINO’s decision to turn his back on the rest of us and not support the Republican candidate.
It sounds like you are the RINO. If amnesty is passed, the GOP will be the permanent minority party. You are deluding yourself if you believe that pandering to the Hispanic vote will make them Reps or support the conservative agenda. We either stand for something as a party or we do not. I have been a contributor to the RNC, been a poll watcher at election time, volunteered to help in such events as the Inaugrual Ball in 2004, etc. I am just as much a Republican as you are, if not more. I will not, however, be complicit in the destruction of the party or the nation by supporting John McCain. I will vote in 2008 for a straight GOP ticket except for the office of President. I will write in my daughter's name. It is a matter of principle.
I’ll have to take your word for it.
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.