Replies

Really? Then again, he was a freshman Senator who got in on Engler's coattails in 1994, and couldn't do so hot in 2000.

Here's my question: Are you willing to blow judicial nominations, the tax cut, the war on terror, a sensible forest policy (which Bush has recently been pushing), and a host of other things that Bush has done RIGHT in his term of office over a disagreement on this issue?

Even if I were to disagree with his policy, I would not be totally cutting off his support.

Oh, and keep in mind - if those immigration reform groups had their way a few decades back, Michelle Malkin might still be in the Phillipines as opposed to being here.

And, by the way, here's the numbers on immigration:

When it comes down to the level of immigration, while a plurality (49%) wants the levels decreased, 48% say they should stay the same or be increased (36% stay the same, 12% increase).

And, as far back as June, 2002 (nine months after 9/11), 52% still felt that immigration was a good thing. And by a 51-31 margin in December of 2001, people felt immigrants contributed to the country as opposed to making problems.

http://www.pollingreport.com/race.htm#Immigration

If anything, the contribute/cause problem numbers have REVERSED from 1994 (the heyday of Prop 187), which were 53-29 saying they caused problems (see above URL).

I don't think you can claim credit for Abraham's loss.

Sidebar: I'm partiularly interested in your opinion on this question, because you've been the most vocal in support of any form of Amnesty, and have probably taken the most heat.

Are you generally satisfied with the tone of this thread?

Should those who might share a minority opinion on the question of Amnesty feel hesitant about expressing their opinions here?

I don't think you can claim credit for Abraham's loss.

Where did I say that I was claiming credit for Abraham's loss?

You can't deny reality, he and Dick Chrysler sabotaged immigration reform in 1996 that would have gone a long way to keeping out the kinds of terrorists who blew up those buildings. FAIR and Numbers USA did extensive media coverage of Abraham and his positions during the campaign, it cost him the election.

You are totally missing the point anyway, even if only 3 to 5% of voters are swayed by a candidate's views on mass immigration/amnesties, that could be enough to kill their chances of winning.

Immigration is a very important issue to many people, any attempts to keep topics focused on prescription drugs and Social Security will be defeated as soon as candidates take questions from voters. It always comes back to illegal immigration and its impact on communities. Watch C-Span once in a while when they cover town meetings and see what citizens talk about.

As far as Michele Malkin, get a life, this is about illegal immigration. She or her parents came legally. As far as legal immigration goes, during the eighties we took in approximately 500,000 annually. I see no reason to go back to those numbers as opposed to the nearly 1,000,000 today. That's way too high, they need to be moderated so communities can absorb and assimiliate them better.

"When it comes down to the level of immigration, while a plurality (49%) wants the levels decreased, 48% say they should stay the same or be increased (36% stay the same, 12% increase).

Sorry, that's more obfuscation. Faulty logic alert. More incorrect, Chutch Brother's assumptions.

If I wanted to mislead, as well, I could say that 85% want the levels decreased or to stay the same, while only 12% want an increase.

That would be equally deceptive, though. I'm a conservative Republican and above that. ;^)

In actuality, if the same respondents were given only the two choices of increased or decreased, that 36% would be split between the two remaining choices.

The numbers would probably be more like 84% levels decreased and 13% levels increased. That's fair, no? :P

LOL!

And, as far back as June, 2002 (nine months after 9/11), 52% still felt that immigration was a good thing. And by a 51-31 margin in December of 2001, people felt immigrants contributed to the country as opposed to making problems.

HC, contrary to what your referenced poll (gallop) indicates, just about every national poll conducted on the issues regarding immigration in the last 5 years have shown strong and broad support for immigration reform which cuts across all ethnic, racial and political lines—including Hispanic Americans.

This is a well-known TRUTH that most immigration advocates like to downplay or ignore. In fact the CBS poll on the same page showed that 59% of those polled said that “Legal” immigration should be decreased. Now do you honestly believe that if the question were about “Illegal” immigration that the percentage of those saying it should be decreased would have been LESS than 59%? I hope not.

You strike me as a case study in the life of a political operative who has no appreciation for the truth, just propaganda and twisted reasoning in an attempt to justify warped positions that support your particular special interests. On that, you are no different than most democrat political operatives.