Posted on 05/16/2002 12:24:37 PM PDT by hchutch
It seems to me that we should not be letting V Fox decide that integration does not work. It should be very clear, if you are here illegal you can obtain citizenship (within today’s laws, 5 years I think) but you must: attend an extended class on good-citizenship, learn English, work and pay taxes, stay out of trouble and off welfare. I propose a Marshal Plan for immigrants. If you do not meet the requirements, out of here.
Fox has his own motives, who knows what they are, but they are certainly favorable to him, not us. There is an opportunity for a long-term win for the US here, the deportation strategy assures that we lose.
Illegals, at present, have no option for citizenship... that's why they need Amnesty.
No citizenship and no Amnesty for Illegals, ever. That is the path of capitulation.
I propose a Marshal Plan for immigrants. If you do not meet the requirements, out of here.
And how would you get them out?
BTW, Illegals are not immigrants, they are invaders. We need to remain clear on that.
Sabertooth responded: And how would you get them out?
For the lawbreakers? Simple. If the cops come across them, they just make a simple call to INS, and that can start THAT ball rolling. Something similar was done in Richmond VA involving federal gun laws, it was called Project Exile. It worked quite well.
Also, those on that Marshall Plan would have to provide name and address, I assume. And that makes tracking them down easier.
Sabertooth also said: "BTW, Illegals are not immigrants, they are invaders. We need to remain clear on that."
And what guaruntee do you have that the media will use the term "invaders" as opposed to "undocumented"? Why not take a look at the way they handled this recent CBS report on the so-called "warnings" prior to 9/11 and think things through?
Your plan might be workable, and the GOP could make tremendous gains, if everything goes your way on this. Your planning is familiar, if only because I happen to follow a certain field of military history when I have spare time. I see a lot of similarities to the way something called Operation MI was planned around sixty years ago.
The problem for the folks who planned Operation MI was that their opposition DIDN'T do what they were "supposed" to do. As a result, the planners of Operation MI set themselves up for the worst defeat in their nation's history at that time against an outgunned and outnumbered opponent.
Optimism can be a force-multiplier, but I do NOT advise making plans on the optimisitc appraisals. Plan for the worst and hope for the best, and you'll get much better results.
Then again, Sabertooth, you might not be willing to take advice from a so-called "Vichy Republican." But I'll offer it anyway in the long-shot hopes that you MIGHT be willing to consider this point.
Sabertooth responded: And how would you get them out?
For the lawbreakers? Simple. If the cops come across them, they just make a simple call to INS, and that can start THAT ball rolling. Something similar was done in Richmond VA involving federal gun laws, it was called Project Exile. It worked quite well.
Also, those on that Marshall Plan would have to provide name and address, I assume. And that makes tracking them down easier.We don't need a Marshall Plan (way overused and misunderstood phrase, btw) to start deporting, we can do it now.
But you two are afriad to deport now, so why should I believe you'd be any different after capitulation?
Sabertooth also said: "BTW, Illegals are not immigrants, they are invaders. We need to remain clear on that."Stop and think... tracking Illegals down in any significant numbers means far more of the police state tactics you've warned against than anything I've suggested.
Again, why should I believe the Surrender faction of the GOP would develop spines if we cave in just this one more time?
And what guarantee do you have that the media will use the term "invaders" as opposed to "undocumented"? Why not take a look at the way they handled this recent CBS report on the so-called "warnings" prior to 9/11 and think things through?
Your plan might be workable, and the GOP could make tremendous gains, if everything goes your way on this. Your planning is familiar, if only because I happen to follow a certain field of military history when I have spare time. I see a lot of similarities to the way something called Operation MI was planned around sixty years ago.I can't even guarantee my own party can keep it straight, the Amnesty deniers are as prone to misrepesenting things as a liberal would.
In any case, who cares how CBS is handling the "9/11 foreknowledge" story? The public is yawning, it's wartime, and they know it's a farce. You keep warning against phantoms.
The problem for the folks who planned Operation MI was that their opposition DIDN'T do what they were "supposed" to do. As a result, the planners of Operation MI set themselves up for the worst defeat in their nation's history at that time against an outgunned and outnumbered opponent.
Optimism can be a force-multiplier, but I do NOT advise making plans on the optimisitc appraisals. Plan for the worst and hope for the best, and you'll get much better results.I ran a Google search on "Operation MI" and "Operation M.I." and got nothing. You seem to think this is significant, so why don't you elaborate.
Then again, Sabertooth, you might not be willing to take advice from a so-called "Vichy Republican." But I'll offer it anyway in the long-shot hopes that you MIGHT be willing to consider this point.In all honesty, you're an absolutely wild-eyed optimist.
You believe that Surrender to Illegals against the will of our party rank-and-file and that of our country won't damage both.
I've considered it many times, and found it lacking.
You're thinking like a liberal again, assuming that the definition of open-minded means someone else is agreeing with you.
Operation MI was the Japanese battle plan for what became known as the Battle of Midway.
You know, they thought that we'd race to Midway once word got out what was happening - we'd arrive AFTER they'd taken the islands. Heck, they figured that their diversion in the Aleutians would also throw us off - especially since that was American territory they'd be taking.
They didn't expect we'd let them have the Aleutians. They didn't expect we'd get there before they launched the invasion and ambush their carriers, which we did. And we took out FOUR of their carriers in return for ONE of our own.
I'm going to lay it out straight for you ONE LAST TIME: You have NOT taken into account what will happen, either the reactions of the Dems, or the way the media will cover it. Furthermore, you are dismissing concerns - VALID concerns - raised by others here who disagree with your METHOD of solving the problem.
Yeah, your way of getting illegal immigrants to deport themselves might work as word spreads south of the border, but word will also spread NORTH of the border as well. And some Hispanic equivalent of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson will begin to speak out against it, and he'll raise all sorts of he!!. Before you know it, 80% of the Hispanic vote is going to the other side.
And after the Democratic landslide of 2004, the tough policy you want will be repealed. An amnesty will be passed, and not only that, we will lose EVERYTHING else. Becuase while we might get some angry white males, the other side will get two or three Hispanic votes for every angry white male we pick up. And that is how you get to political irrelevancy.
In the end, it's all about votes. And it doesn't matter if you are doing the right thing, because in the end, it's gotta be sold to Joe Six-Pack. And if you've ever read Bias, you'll find out real fast that you are playing with a stacked deck, and the cards are marked.
Yet you somehow expect that just because YOU are using the term "invaders" instead of "undocumented immigrants", the media will go along. It's not going to happen, unless the reporter prefaces it with the words "so-called".
The fact is, something is going to happen. Either we are the ones that do it and decide the terms, or our political enemies do it and THEY decide the terms. And whoever does it will win a majority of the fastest-growing minority group in the U.S. electorate.
We either go for a diversion, and get ourselves shredded, or we move into a position, and royally screw the Left over. Because right now, the other side will pander, and they probably will succeed. They're using folks like you like they use the church burnings and the James Byrd murder. It's called stampeding them to vote Democratic.
Falling on your sword for principle isn't glorious. It's suicide. If that makes me a Vichy Republican, so be it. I doubt 90% of these "close the border" types even voted for Bush in the first place. They either stayed home or voted Buchanan. That's the probable breakdown for the people who consider this to be a "make or break" issue.
You know what? This thing is not going to be a loser for Bush. It's not going to be a loser for the GOP. The few who DO leave over this will probably be replaced quite easily from new voters picked up elsewhere. And the GOP will not care what you think, after all, the other group votes for them and provides the contributions.
I ain't the one dreamin' here.
If you really believed this, you wouldn't waste your time arguing.
You're off on a sketchy, unprincipled gamble with the future of our party and our country, It's divisive, counterproductive, and undermines the Rule of Law. I think you know it and fear it deep down, that's why you keep coming back, because you secretly hope to finally convince yourself of this snake oil you peddle.
But we're going to fight you, and we're going to beat you.
You are for Illegals and against America, and we don't lose.
I tack very hard right in a number of areas (foreign policy, Second Amendment, pro-life, property rights, etc.). Those, and several other issues rank higher than immigrationon my list of concerns.
I feel it's better to rack up a bunch of singles and doubles than to rack up a ton of strikeouts and a few home runs.
When presented with a situation like this one, which is comparable to facing Barry Bonds with a two-run lead and the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, and a couple of slumping hitter behind him, I'll do the political equivalent of walking in a run to get a more advantageous matchup. Yeah, the macho thing to do would be to pitch to Bonds, but why risk losing the game just so you can show the world you've got guts? You'll just prove how stupid you are.
I used to be a fire-breather. A "go for broke" person. You know what? It changed with Mediscare, because I saw that it was too easy to get caught up into the political equivalent of Pickett's Charge (yet another effort by someone to prove that he had guts, and instead only proving he lacked brains), and getting waxed, hosed and flamed by the opposition.
"[F]or when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the sonnest winner." (Henry V, Act 3, Scene 6)
Back in Shakespeare's day, it was for real. Today, it's all about the perception. Either way, your plan will not work. And I'll point that out. People don't get paid for their methods these days, they get paid for results. We'll see who gets the results, but the track record of the Prop 187 crowd is not promising, and I have every right to say so.
You've misread the issue on which to sacrifice principle. This ain't it.
You're still thinking that you can win by cutting a deal that 70% of Americans oppose.
You promise deportations later, why not now? We were promised deportations with the '86 Amnesty (first, last, only) and they never happened. I'll never support another Amnesty, or any candidate that does, and I am not alone.
I've been posting with most of the other anti-Illegal Freepers for months. Most voted for Bush, and not one is going to budge on Amnesty. Do you get it yet?
I was at a meeting of L.A. Freepers on Saturday, and the consensus against Illegals was strong, no dissent. But not one of these Freepers are regulars on the Illegals threads.
Do you get it yet?
My brother is mainstream Republican and lives in Orange County. He doesn't know boo about Free Republic, and I haven't disussed Bush's Amnesty sneak attempt at all with him. The other day, he told me he was having second thoughts about Bush because of this crap of his on Illegals.
Do you get it yet?
On this issue, many Republicans have been betrayed over and over again, in '86, in '94, in '96 (Loretta Sanchez), in 2000 (expedited citizenship for foreign felons) and now in '02. The course you advocate smacks of more of the same, and we'll never buy it.
We'll fight it with more fire and determination than you can imagine. We care more about this issue than you do, and you will not prevail.
And after all the fuss, when the Dems start to get 90% of Hispanic votes, we will lose everything, and you will ultimately not prevail, and I'll be saying, "I told you so" with little satisfaction and a lot of anger.
Tom Tancredo, who you've been backing on this, favors a guest worker program. I'm sure the details can be worked out, but in that case, he sounds a heck of a lot like Poohbah in this.
The only thing I get is you're like a manager telling a pitcher with a two-run lead with two out in the bottom of the ninth in Game Seven of the World Series to throw a fastball down the middle to Barry Bonds because "you never walk in a run." Yeah, the pitcher stands up for principle, but it's very likely that Bonds ends the series with a homer, and the manager goes down as something besides principled.
Besides, you mentioned California... when was the last time the GOP won anything significant there? Sounds like there is little to lose on that front. I can tell a likely Dem state from a toss-up, and California's a state I wouldn't bank on if I were consulting a presidnetial candidate.
The fact is, you really don't have all that many cards to hold. You will try to take as many as you can? Like it will matter in a state the GOP lost by a million votes.
Bush pretty much proved in 2000 that it's possible to win the Presidency without California, so there's no big loss there. And, thanks to a lot of the stuff we're doing on other fronts, it looks as if other states could fall into the GOP column quite easily.
If you want to keep wasting energy on a fight you WILL lose, then be my guest. I'm sick of arguing anyhow. We'll get the best deal we can on this, then go back for more later. You, on the other hand, can enjoy the political wilderness.
Tom Tancredo, who you've been backing on this, favors a guest worker program. I'm sure the details can be worked out, but in that case, he sounds a heck of a lot like Poohbah in this.Fear, fear, fear. You don't have to pander on Illegals to court the Hispanic vote. Your approach is both condescending and guilt-ridden.
And as for anger, when save it for those like yourself who simply won't take the high ground and speak the truth that most already know:
That anti-Illegal does not equal anti-Latino or racist.
That preening unwillingness always plays into the hands of the Democrats. Always.
Besides, you mentioned California... when was the last time the GOP won anything significant there?I favor a guest worker program as well, always have. Down the road, I might even support increased immigration levels from Mexico.
But not until there's significant deportation of Illegals from the American interior. It's time the US gov made good on the promise of the '86 Amnesty.
Until then, there is no trust and there is no deal.
Sounds like there is little to lose on that front. I can tell a likely Dem state from a toss-up, and California's a state I wouldn't bank on if I were consulting a presidnetial candidate.Let's see, that would be 1994, when our party fought the good fight against Illegals. Since then we've been led down the path of cowardice by the likes of Kemp, Bennett, Lundgren, and Bush, and have been decimated.
I guess we just haven't been obsequious enough.
The fact is, you really don't have all that many cards to hold. You will try to take as many as you can? Like it will matter in a state the GOP lost by a million votes.We're losing our entire state because of politicians of both parties who are either too corrupt or too fearful to enforce our laws.
Bush pretty much proved in 2000 that it's possible to win the Presidency without California, so there's no big loss there. And, thanks to a lot of the stuff we're doing on other fronts, it looks as if other states could fall into the GOP column quite easily.As long as you're counting, how many of those votes were cast fraudulently?
Take a look at the election of Loretta Sanchez. She won her first campaign with Illegally cast votes. The evidence was there, but Gingrich and the House Leadership caved in to the race-baiters on the Left and seated her. Then they refused to investigate.
The Democrats are now so emboldened that they take in hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes cast state wide every election.
Why don't the Republicans mount a national campaign against bilingual ballots and no ID requirements to register or to vote? In two years, why haven't we pushed a national offensive to clean up the phony names from the registration rolls?
At the L.A. Freepers meeting on Saturday, one member told of a house in his precinct with 60 registered Democrats at the address... All Latino. Why won't the RNC support the fight against this nonsense?
Why haven't we even attempted to reinstate the English-speaking requirements for citizenship that Clinton and Gore overturned?
Fear and fear alone. We might be called names.
If you want to keep wasting energy on a fight you WILL lose, then be my guest. I'm sick of arguing anyhow. We'll get the best deal we can on this, then go back for more later. You, on the other hand, can enjoy the political wilderness.Another bluff, huh?
If you really believe all of this, why are you so tireless in promoting this pandering?
Could it be because Bush won in 2000 by the narrowest of possible margins? Could it be that you know he doesn't have the votes to squander?
You are not even started with the arguing. Get used to it.
You are pushing a strategy that you've been warned will create schism in the party.
Yet you persist.
Yet you complain when the warning you won't heed blow up in your face?
I've been in the wilderness since '94 because of so-called "realists" like yourself. You are the ones that have brought us to this, but rather than summon up the courage of your convictions you want more of the same.
Why are you so hell-bent on fighting many in your own party on the wrong side of the issue, rather than fighting the Democrats on the right side of 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.