Posted on 03/17/2002 1:36:37 PM PST by Sabertooth
For the past 10 years, I voted Republican, rain or shine. I was a single-issue voter.
My only concern was that the candidate be a Republican.
Why?
Because I don't like what the Democrat Party has done to America.
This year, another issue arises that concerns me greatly… so much so, that I might not be voting Republican this November. I'll maintain my GOP registration, but my vote is suddenly in play, where it hadn't been for 10 years.
That issue is: Illegal Immigration, and Federal Amnesties for Illegals.
Some agree, and some don't… that's fine. In any event, I've been active and vehement on the Illegal threads, to the displeasure of not a few. I've been called a few names, and that's to be expected (goes with being a Republican, no?) Among them are "racist," "xenophobe," "libertarian," "Buchananite," "knee-jerk," etc… And…
"Single-issue voter."
As though that's somehow damning. I was a single-issue voter beore, but now it's just a different issue. What bothers some is that it's a different single issue than theirs. Further, I don't really understand those who use this term in the pejorative… Is there no issue, position, or policy on which the GOP could lose your vote? Is there no circumstance under which you would part ways?
Your right to vote is your currency in the Political Economy. If your support is never in doubt, what is the incentive of politicians to listen to you? Do you continue to patronize restaurants with good food and bad service? Or do you let your wallet do the talking?
If so, then why should politics be any different?
How do you feel when arrogant party functionaries mock you, asking "Do you want Hillary?" or "You gonna vote Democrat?" or some other such demagoguery? Are we nothing but pawns?
Or do moments arise when notice must be loudly given to our "leaders," who serve at our pleasure, that there will be an electoral price paid for failing to heed the will of the American People?
Which bans are going to sunset?
Will or will not 245(i) benefit people who snuck across the border?
See post #176.
Section 245 is for paperwork snafus for foreign nationals who entered legally. Section 245(i) is for Illegals.
If it benefits only people who are illegal through no fault of their own, as Armey claims, why do you think they are being charged $1,000?
Outstanding observation!If it's all the INS's fault and they came legally, why fine them at all?
All politics are local.
I have no problem with anyone having a legitimate beef with Bush or any other politician. If that is the case, take your votes and money to the ones you do like.
Simple and much more effective than throwing a vote away or witholding one, which is the same net result.
Some of it is harsh enough to have the capacity to offset the votes in another direction. What has been accomplished then?.
More division at the hands of Bush and the "compassionate conservatives."
We shouldn't be apologizing for our principles.
That got the caller's attention. I'm gonna stick to that down the road. Simon's victory in CA is inspiring.
I think many find it easier to simply ignore the threads. In general, they all follow the same theme.
"Republicans are terrible because they haven't stopped the influx of hispanics into this country. The hispanics will destroy the country, and maybe even cause some states to break away from the USA and either form a new country or Mexico. Nobody is a racist here, but we don't want no steenkin' mezzicans destroying our 'culture.'"
I've heard it a million times, and the names on the threads are generally familiar. It's not much of a discussion. It's more like a rant, and there's usually at least one thread a day on the topic.
At some point, there's nothing that the silent majority can add. It just doesn't matter. There will be another thread just like this shortly.
Some news links are here, if you need to check.
Uh, here's a unique notion. Perhaps they are doing it to recover costs associated with the additional paper work. Nah can't be, nothing nefarious about that.
The others who wait 6-10 years to come here legally should not get thrown to the rear because of border jumping.
I do think we are lucky that Mexicans are a family culture of mostly Christian people, but I want them to follow the laws.
If their own homeland is a living hell then they need to create a garden of Eden out of their own home. Not leach off of us and our social services. IMO!
So true. You hit the nail on the head.
I made a big error. I voted third party against Spence Abraham(an awful senator). He lied to me on most favored nation for China. I spited him. We now got Debbie Stabusall, a Tom Dasshole clone. If Spence won, Jeffords wouldn't have screwed us. Same with Slade Gorton in Washington St.
I also learned a tactic from MCRGO. Incramentalism. I can't spell it, but that's the name of the game.
I decided to cut down to one litmus test. The 2nd amendment. If both suck equally there, I'll either leave it blank or vote GOP looking for a primary next time. If the dem is better, I vote for the dem. If it's McStain, I vote for his dem opponent no matter who it is since he does more harm than anyone right now on the issue.
That's not good enough though. The LOCAL politics is where it starts. Fred Upton is one of the biggest RINOs around in congress. What are we doing about it? Primarying his ass. State senate Dale Shugars, a good guy, who is pro-2a, is going after Upton in a primary.
We need to get good conservatives in the GOP elected to county commish, city councils, mayors, drain commish, and the like. Then they go up to the State Rep and State Senate seats. They can primary some of the jerks, and also provide a good conservative FARM CLUB to choose from.
Those local races are the most important of all. They are the future. If the dems have no good farm club, then they are gone, and we can worry more about getting good conservatives elected.
Let's not throw away the local votes. They are as important at the house and senate.
C'mon, you and I have already established that 245(i) applies to Illegals, hence: the $1000 fine.
The point I was making was that it would be clearly wrong and silly to fine those foreign nationals here legally and eligible under Section 245. And that's obviously not what the fine is about.
Not referring to you or am I decrying pricipled discussion. Simply, some of it has not been principled.
Personally the energy has been good, now its time to focus. November's coming and the "fang and claw" battle for candidates I like, will begin. I'm sure you'll do the same.
Okay, bear with me again. "Entered without inspection" means what? Is that just a P.C. way of saying "snuck in"? Is this the clause that covers border-jumpers? (Because, after all, border-jumpers did "enter without inspection"!) Did Dick Armey lie when he said 245(i) would not benefit anyone who snuck in illegally? Or is there some category of entering legally, but without inspection?
Honestly, those sound like Democrat talking points.
I speak for myself, but I don't favor the immigration moratoriums promoted by a very small few. I expect that we'll probably continue to have more legal immigrants and guest workers from Mexico than anywhere else, and I've got no problem with that, as long as the numbers are reasonable, and subject to American control.
That being said, you can't deny that assimilation is a crucial issue, and that lawbreakers in the millions are more difficult to assimlate than legal immigrants in the hundreds of thousands. True?
I'm against illegal immigration, gun laws, high taxes, big government, etc. Over the past forty years we have had increased illegal immigration, more gun laws, higher taxes, and bigger government, no matter who won the election.
Politicians of both major parties have disappointed me over the years in so many ways I can't list the ways, and I think there's really not much much difference in the parties on most issues, no matter what they promise. In the last presidential election I wanted to vote for Buchanan, but knew he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell, so I voted for Bush. Now I think that in many ways Bush is almost as liberal as Gore, though I never would have voted for that dolt.
I have watched California all my life, and see the quality of life here going towards third world status in many areas. Yes, I'm mad about it, and angry that I'm getting the bill for it.
Legal immigration is part of our proud history, and is part of what makes our country great. Unchecked illegal immigration is bringing this state down, and I have no respect for a President or a Congress who refuses to enforce the immigration laws against lawbreakers, and who selectively ignores the fact that we have an open border, giving us nothing but lip service, especially after the tragedy of September 11.
In the next election I'll vote for the most conservative candidate, no matter what party he belongs to. Just hope he isn't lying to me like all the others have.
Here's what an immigrant advocate organization has to say about 245(i). I guess amnesty is in the eye of the beholder.
On December 15th, Congress passed legislation to temporarily restore Section 245(i). Under 245(i), someone who is eligible for permanent residency and for whom a visa is currently available can apply for adjustment of status in the United States if a petition for an immigrant visa is filed on their behalf before April 30, 2001 and if they are physically present in the United States on the day the President signs the bill.
This will allow those who entered the U.S. without inspection or those who have overstayed to avoid the 3 / 10 year bar by remaining in the U.S. to complete the process for lawful permanent residency , instead of applying at a consulate abroad. Section 245(i) was phased out of the law on January 14, 1998.
Through the restoration of 245(i), visa petitions or applications for labor certifications filed on behalf of individuals presently in the U.S. between January 14, 1998 and April 30, 2001 may be eligible for adjustment of status.
*PLEASE BE AWARE: The temporary reopening of 245(i) is not a new law, nor is it an amnesty. Like many immigration organizations, we are still fighting for a general amnesty for all immigrants. In the meantime, if you do not have another way to gain legal status--such as through marriage or sponsorship by an employer or an immediate relative--245(i) cannot help you. Do not be fooled by those who make false promises so they can take your money.
Yes.
Did Dick Armey lie when he said 245(i) would not benefit anyone who snuck in illegally?
I'd have to see the quote in context.
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.