Replies

As an immigration activist who lobbies the Hill on immigration issues, I am well aware of what Obama's and Hillary's positions on amnesty are. They are the same as McCain's. They voted for both of the McCain bills, S 2611 in 2006 and McCain-Kennedy in 2007. I will be fighting to stop such an amnesty being passed in Congress and it will be easier to stop if a Dem is in the WH.

Hmmm...let's see.

1. Ours is a republican form of government. We elect people from our home districts and states who (at least in theory if not always in practice) represent their constituents' viewpoints.
2. In the mid-to-late 1990's DEMOCRATS began agitating for a repeat of President Reagan's 1986 amnesty. By the 2000 campaign, the issue had heated up enough so that then-Governor Bush included his own plan for immigration reform, one that he believed was better than the uber-leftist plans of the Democrats.
3. In his 2nd term, when the President's immigration proposals began working themselves through Congress, his right-wing (meaning us) forcefully expressed their opposition and all of the various versions of the bill were killed.
4. In other words, our representatives abided by our wishes. I do not understand why conservatives, who believe themselves to have a more firm grasp of our Constitutional form of government than others, continue to whine about a legislative battle they won hands down.
5. Yes, defeating that legislation took strong agitation on our part, BUT THAT'S PRECISELY HOW OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!
6. However, with a Democrat in the White House, and larger majority margins in the Congress, the legislative battle we won regarding immigration in the Bush years will become just a distant memory. The Democrats will not respond to any agitation from conservatives, becase we are not their constituency. The Democrats WILL enact and sign into law a true amnesty with no strings attached. Why? Largely because conservatives can't get over the fact that Republicans supported an immigration reform bill THAT WAS DEFEATED.

2. In the mid-to-late 1990's DEMOCRATS began agitating for a repeat of President Reagan's 1986 amnesty. By the 2000 campaign, the issue had heated up enough so that then-Governor Bush included his own plan for immigration reform, one that he believed was better than the uber-leftist plans of the Democrats.

Reagan's amnesty was supposed to be a one-time event. Many Reps and Dems voted against it, including John McCain when he was serving in the House. Final tally: 216 Congressmen (125 Democrats, 91 Republicans) for the bill; 211 (138 Democrats, 73 Republicans) against. You can be an apologist for Bush all you want, but in 2000 the Reps controlled Congress and Bush had the veto in the WH. There is no way any immigration reform bill could have passed without Bush's approval. The Dems were not forcing him into anything.

3. In his 2nd term, when the President's immigration proposals began working themselves through Congress, his right-wing (meaning us) forcefully expressed their opposition and all of the various versions of the bill were killed

Wrong. In 2006, the Hegel-Martinez Amnesty bill [S 2611] passed the Senate. It was the Reps who stopped it in the House, i.e., Jim Sensenbrenner. Bush wanted it passed. You should question why a Rep President would try to push this legislation that was opposed by the majority of his own party down our throats.

4. In other words, our representatives abided by our wishes. I do not understand why conservatives, who believe themselves to have a more firm grasp of our Constitutional form of government than others, continue to whine about a legislative battle they won hands down.

Battles are won, but the war is still on. The Dems and RINOs tried to force the Dream Act [read stealth amnesty] down our throat just a few months ago followed by an amendment to the Ag budget bill. The Dems and RINOs are still intent on getting amnesty passed, piecemeal if necessary. The Dems have been blocking the SAVE Act even though Heath Shuler is a sponsor along with plenty of other Dems and Reps. Pelosi won't let it get to the floor for a vote.

In 2008 the Dems will increase their margins in the Senate and House. Groups as diverse as the Chamber of Commerce, labor unions, La Raza, the Catholic Church, ACLU, etc. are still pushing hard for CIR. All three of the remaining candidates for President favor amnesty. There is no political price to pay. We can win the battles and lose the war. As someone who follows this on a daily basis, I am not optimistic about our ability to stop it. The politicians and the media will play to the ignorance of the American public on the subject. They will continue to use words in an Orwellian way to mask what is happening, e.g., undocumented workers, earned path to citizenship, fines, getting to the back of the line, a nation of immigrants, doing work Americans won't do, etc. The ignorance of the American people on this subject is monumental.

5. Yes, defeating that legislation took strong agitation on our part, BUT THAT'S PRECISELY HOW OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!

We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? You can thank guys like Roy Beck {whom I coordinate with], Mark Krikorian, Robert Rector, and others who provided the channels and data to stop [temporarily] these bills. It is a daily fight and far from over. So stop patting yourself on the back. The real fight is going to take place after November. The other side is already mobilizing. It is well-funded and has plenty of political clout.

The Democrats will not respond to any agitation from conservatives, becase we are not their constituency. The Democrats WILL enact and sign into law a true amnesty with no strings attached. Why? Largely because conservatives can't get over the fact that Republicans supported an immigration reform bill THAT WAS DEFEATED

The majority of Reps voted AGAINST the 2006 and 2007 amnesty bills. I have no idea what you mean by "a true amnesty with no strings attached." What the hell do you think the 2006 and 2007 amnesty bills were?