Posted on 09/04/2008 9:03:48 AM PDT by WakeUpAndVote
I will translate for you....
Yes, those our your words and your translation based on pre CPAC things that McCain said.
The above CPAC quote remains McCains current documented position (whether one wishes to believe McCain or not).
John McCain on Border Security and Immigration
I point your attention to the section on "Address the Undocumented." McCain can't even call them illegal aliens. It leaves no doubt that he still favors amnesty.
Address the Undocumented. John McCain will address the fact that we have a large number undocumented individuals living in the United States and working in our economy:
All undocumented individuals will be required to enroll in a program to resolve their status. This program will use background checks to identify criminal aliens for prosecution and deportation.
Assure that the remaining undocumented immigrants learn English, pay back taxes and fines, and pass a citizenship course as part of a path to legal status.
Guarantee that no person here illegally receives a green card before those that have been legally waiting outside the country.
Do a proper accounting of all social security numbers used and attained illegally, rectifying the accounts and alerting those whose identity had been compromised.
The program will also ensure that all undocumented aliens either leave or follow the path to legal residence. America cannot permit a permanent category of individuals that do not have recognized status – a permanent second class.
In addition, the program will provide a system that is fair, humane, realistic, and ensures the rights of the individual and families will be protected.
.Ensure that families are reunited.
Address in an expedited manner the status of individuals brought here illegally as minors through no will or intention of their own.
Thanks for the permission. Your dodging the question is duly noted. What kind of conservative principle is it that you should vote for someone knowing full well that his policies will destroy our nation and wreck our economy, i.e., amnesty and a "cap and trade" system to address the manmade global warming hoax?
Ah, so it's more conservative to help the guy who believes firmly in both those things and agrees with every single piece of liberal claptrap, and is unqualified for the office on top of it all? Really?
In 1976, you could have said, "What kind of conservative principle is it that you should vote for someone knowing full well that his policies will destroy our nation and our way of life, i.e., supporting the ERA, being pro-choice, detente, etc. Why should I be complicit?"
Go ahead, tell me that someone couldn't have said, "Reagan's not a conservative, he's supporting that jerk Ford. I'd rather have Carter than vote for Mr. ERA." Go ahead, tell me you're any different from such a person.
If I wanted to "help" Obama, I would vote for him. Using your logic, by not voting for Obama, I am "helping" McCain.
In 1976, you could have said, "What kind of conservative principle is it that you should vote for someone knowing full well that his policies will destroy our nation and our way of life, i.e., supporting the ERA, being pro-choice, detente, etc. Why should I be complicit?"
Different issues, different results. I firmly believe that amnesty will destroy this country with the stroke of a pen. Would you advocate support for McCain if he were pro-choice? He is for more federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Go ahead, tell me that someone couldn't have said, "Reagan's not a conservative, he's supporting that jerk Ford. I'd rather have Carter than vote for Mr. ERA." Go ahead, tell me you're any different from such a person.
Voting is a personal choice made on the basis of principle and conscience. I would never vote for Obama, but I can't vote for McCain. I will not be complicit in the destruction of my country by voting for someone whose policies will. Simple as that.
I won’t go to DU, but I will go to a real conservative site. Many here may as well be libs the way you are acting. Insults and threats vs. intelligent debate. Sad how low you can sink.
You are irrational. Medication might help.
IRRATIONAL?If you say so!
That’s all?No more arguements?
Try to be more specific!
Do you want to say that OUSSBAMA is not an appeaser,a believer of the “blame USA first” “church” with the so-called Pastor J.WRIGHT( for the great pleasure of AMADINEJAB,CHAVEZ...)?
Do you want to say that OUSBAMA is not threatening free speech and fair debate in USA with the hep of libtard MSM?
Do you want to say that OUSSABAMA has no links with ISLAM at least by his education?
Do you want to say that Mr.O. is not threatening life,family
and then the american society with the gay activist,abortionist...crowds?
Do you want to say that OUSBAMA is not playing and will not play the race card and fuel racism?
Be more specific please if you can...And tell why one should vote for Mister O.
Not one rational disagreement in your statements!
And till you make the proof of the contrary you are for me an OUSSBAMA troll.
But as i am an open minded conservative tell me why one should vote OUSBAMA or why conservatives should stay home and then help OUSSABAMA.
I am eager to know
Then go to a “real” conservative site. One that prefers an Obama presidenct to a McCain presidency, I suppose.
Then go to a “real” conservative site. One that prefers an Obama presidency to a McCain presidency, I suppose.
By 2012 America will be in the hands of Mexico?
The youngest justices are the conservatives. Barring an illness or injury, the only replacements will be lib for lib.
This is patently wrong. Scalia is in his 70's and he's easily the most conservative, followed by Thomas, who's in his 60's.
McAmnesty voted for Ginsburg and already said Alito was too conservative and he would never apppoint someone like him.
I do know he won't nominate Hillary Clinton or Alcee Hastings or Al Gore.
I'ms o surprised to see someone that supports the liberal McAmnesty using insults and nasty comments. May as well be on DU as here.
The only insults flying around here are coming from the person who insists on mocking McCain as "McAmnesty", and telling people who disagree with them to take their "medication".
I think you're a DU troll. No doubt about it.
I saw someone already using it on the Australian website!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24300421-26397,00.html
Look I fully respect you views and your choice to vote for McCain. I have big-issues with supporting him.
Look, I’m not a fan of amnesty, either. But we will be in a far worse position with Obama in the White House, any way we cut it. If you have to hold your nose to vote McCain, I understand, but for the love of God, we need to be united as a party to keep that Marxist out of the White House...
_________________________________________
I soooooo agree with you. Obama in the WH is a mandate for socialism. But SunnyFlordia is hellbent on being AGAINST anything McCain. It’s like getting the Pope to propose Martin Luther for sainthood. I’d give up. SunnyFlordia will by one vote for Obama that we can’t turn around.
airborne and I have disagreed more than once; but he’s a great fellow, so if you run in to him again, just shrug off his point man on patrol mindset.
I don’t think anyone should ever try to make debate points by saying or implying that the other poster has a lack of intelligence or a deficient education or is a child. These are the attack lines the liberal elites use all the time, which is why I often go balistic if a supposed conservative or Republican uses those tactics.
I’m far from perfect, so you can take me to task if I break my own rules in the heat of debate.
Thanks, word_warrior_bob!
SNIP
I am not thrilled by Senator McCain’s speech this evening. I thought his words anti-climatic and at best a distraction, if not a distancing, from the conservative message. It is unfortunate that in degree his words deflated the expectation created by Governor Palin. Perhaps astute “Freepers” will explain how it is that Mr. McCain does not recognize or sense the evil intentions of those across the aisle with whom he much desires to “work”. These so-called liberal Democrats (and truly they must be labeled Socialist, even Marxist, for by their word their and deed they are recognized as such) these impostures of representative government, these quislings against the common good… are no different in ideological conviction than those under whose imprisonment John McCain suffered his greatest anguish. I am open to reasoned explanation. Admittedly, John McCain is a disappointment for me, and I do hold a reasoned suspicion of his motives; but that doubt is not yet cynical. Should President McCain repeat in the Oval office those legislative dealings for which he is notorious, then perhaps my opinion will become less charitable. I pray not.
The REAL disappointment for you should be the administration of George Walker Bush! For six years he held power, yet did not veto one pork bill handed to him by the so-called "conservative" Republicans.
In the four years prior to 2006, he allowed "autopenning" Sec. Don Rumsfeld try to run a war on the cheap that resulted in unnecessary deaths of our men and women in uniform instead of using the proven military doctrine of overwhelming force to conquer an enemy. He trusted his buddy "Pootie Poot" because he "looked into his soul and saw a man I can trust" and he slapped "Heckuva Job Brownie" on the back after Katrina. In short, he was long on "conservatism" and short on "Americanism"...he's a G-D bum!
Me, I'm a Reagan (gwad, how I loved that man) independent who is moved by John McCain's personal story and zeal for America--much of what I feel mirrors Reagan's. Conservatives to me are the Dick (5 deferments during Vietnam) Cheney, Tom (indicted) DeLay and Newt Gingrich (who, not withstanding the legitimacy of impeachment for lying under oath, incidentally did about the same thing that Bill Clinton did while criticizing his involvement with Monica Lewinsky). I would rather someone showed me character of conviction and love of country during one of the most imperiled times of its history rather than a love of some political philosophy.
Thanks so much for all the time you put into your posts and all the research that you do. Your posts on illegal immigration have been most informative and reinforce my concern. I think we know that we will be forced to hold our noses and vote for McCain, but I’m tired of having to hold my nose when I vote.
If we have to vote for him, the least we can do is make darn sure that ‘no amnesty’ gets repeated, over and over and drilled into his brain. We need to keep it on the front burner at all times and we need to get Palin to tell us where she stands.
Like you, I’m not a single issue voter, but, I realize the major importance of this issue.
But we can do the job if Eisenhower could , with fewer high tech goodies at his command.
The way to get it done is for a lobby to start publishing and funding for the enforcement after the election.
The MINUTEMEN have a good start on that.
I also am ALL FOR enforcing current laws. The problem right now is that the presidential campaign is already full of the "racist' dynamic. If McCain would wave goodbye to the Hispanic vote, he could likely gain a lot more from saying: We build the fence!
But if you read the article hereunder, you will see that Eisenhower saw that the non enforcement of US immigration law was the result of corruption. Hopefully that corruption is part of what McCain promises to clean up.
******************
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html
from the July 06, 2006 edition
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico By John Dillin
WASHINGTON –
George W. Bush isn’t the first Republican president to face a full-blown immigration crisis on the US-Mexican border. Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America’s southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.
President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today’s force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.
Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike’s official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.
General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said “Amen” to Senator Fulbright’s proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: “The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks’ to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.”
Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower’s first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.
America “was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale,” Mr. Brownell said. “When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint.”
Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.
According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President’s Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were “approximately half” the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.
Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement “had friends among the ranchers,” and agents “did not dare” arrest their illegal workers.
Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: “When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now.”
Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and the then-called US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are still fueling the flow of illegals.
During the 1950s, however, this “Good Old Boy” system changed under Eisenhower - if only for about 10 years.
In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph “Jumpin’ Joe” Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.
Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing’s close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.
One of Swing’s first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.
Then on June 17, 1954, what was called “Operation Wetback” began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.
By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.
By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.
Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.
Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.
The sea voyage was “a rough trip, and they did not like it,” says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.
Mr. Coppock says he “cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today’s] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox.”
There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.
Border Patrol vets offer tips on curbing illegal immigration One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States.
The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement.
General Swing’s fast-moving campaign soon secured America’s borders - an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.
Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.
“Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!” Edwards says.
Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, “they’d be on top of this in a minute.”
William Chambers, another ‘50s veteran, agrees. “They could do a pretty good job” sealing the border.
Edwards says: “When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce.”
While Congress debates building a fence on the border, these veterans say other actions should have higher priority.
1. End the current practice of taking captured Mexican aliens to the border and releasing them. Instead, deport them deep into Mexico, where return to the US would be more costly.
2. Crack down hard on employers who hire illegals. Without jobs, the aliens won’t come.
3. End “catch and release” for non-Mexican aliens. It is common for illegal migrants not from Mexico to be set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Few show up.
The Patrol veterans say enforcement could also be aided by a legalized guest- worker program that permits Mexicans to register in their country for temporary jobs in the US. Eisenhower’s team ran such a program. It permitted up to 400,000 Mexicans a year to enter the US for various agriculture jobs that lasted for 12 to 52 weeks.
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.