Report: RNC members sandbagged by Martinez pick
posted at 2:48 am on November 14, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Rove allegedly leaked his name before any formal decision had been made. Why? Just maybe to head off any grassroots groundswell for Michael Steele among the membership before it got started and assure that their fair-haired boy, Senator Mel, would be in a position of authority to campaign on behalf of the amnesty bill Bush is so hot for.
Or maybe it’s all a lie. Maybe the Times’s source is a Steele supporter who concocted a false allegation of cronyism in a fit of pique.
Some RNC members, already dismayed by last week’s election that swept Republicans from control of Congress, expressed anger at the way Mr. Rove leaked his choice of Mr. Martinez immediately after a conference call in which the Florida senator’s name was floated for the first time.
During the call yesterday with RNC members in which Mr. Rove, Mr. Mehlman and White House Political Director Sara Taylor participated, some members raised the names of Mr. Martinez and Mr. Duncan as possible successors to Mr. Mehlman, said an RNC member who was involved.
“But Rove and Mehlman never said they were going to name these people as chairmen, and we never voted or even gave our opinion,” the member said…
The move was seen as a signal that the White House intends to push through Congress the “comprehensive” immigration bill — which Mr. Martinez and Mr. Hagel backed in the Senate — that was blocked by conservative Republicans in the House.
Why not Steele?
While campaigning for the Senate in Maryland, Mr. Steele was an outspoken critic of the Hagel-Martinez measure — which would have created a guest-worker program and allowed most illegal aliens to become citizens — blaming “the partisan gamesmanship of Washington insiders” for the failure to deal with the problem…
Aides to the lieutenant governor confided that Mr. Steele was “furious over his treatment by Bush operatives,” who they said accused him of “not being a team player” because he had spoken to The Washington Times last week after his name was first proposed for the RNC post. Steele aides said White House officials threatened to withhold from Mr. Steele a Cabinet appointment he had been promised in lieu of the RNC chairmanship.
The article says RNC members traditionally rubber-stamp whomever the president taps to head the Committee. If Steele got the word last week that he wasn’t the pick and chose to float his candidacy anyway, then he’s guilty of treachery too. But that’s a venial sin; the mortal sin here is the leadership not only not soliciting the opinions of its base but deliberately running an end around them to make feasible legislation that’s repugnant to the base. If it’s true, if it’s true, it’s a total betrayal.
WashTimes has a companion article out tonight too weighing our chances of blocking the coming amnesty. In the Senate: zero. I mentioned in the Kyl post yesterday that there were only 36 Senators who voted against the immigration bill that passed in June, three of whom were Democrats. What I overlooked was that four of those Senators — Allen, Burns, Santorum, and Talent — are now gone. That leaves the anti-amnesty Republicans fully eight votes short of a filibuster, assuming that the three Democratic holdouts join them. Which is unlikely.
So it all comes down to the House. You’d need all 200+ Republicans plus close to 20 blue dog Democrats. I’m not optimistic.
But then, I never am.
Oh yeah: Kaus says the fence is in trouble now too. I doubt it. Bush would have no choice but to veto a bill that would repeal it, leaving the Dems to scrounge up 16 Republicans for an override. Could they do it? Considering that 48 of the 49 incoming GOP Senators voted in favor of the fence last month (Corker is the lone Republican freshman), I’m guessing no. Which will end up working in their favor when it comes time for the amnesty bill for exactly the reasons Kaus gives — namely, that we’re all easily placated suckers who will gladly eat shinola as long as we get our stupid, symbolic, never-to-be-built fence.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
I’m sick of these shmucks.
CanaryinaCoalMine on November 14, 2006 at 2:59 AM
I claim full credit for having reminded you of this gleefully.
The House is obviously much more tricky. If Pence wins the position of House Minority Leader he’ll probably crush dissent from whatever moderates survived the election (the only ones I can think of are Castle from DE and Chris Shays from CT). The GOP caucus is naturally going to move to the right in iight of the whole ‘we lost because we weren’t conservative enough’ spin that’s being tossed around.
House Dems? Should be interesting. I would think that a lot of conservative Democrats in the Blue Dog Coalition, especially the freshmen, are more worried about getting something done at all, as opposed to getting something done their constituents may agree with. If they can provide a provision that does a lot for border security, they’ll probably feel safe voting for the comprehensive reform and simply bet on being able to spin it as a compromise with security to their constituents. If the public image of Congress is that of a gridlock, they will suffer in 2008. They won’t want that.
Don’t count on anyone other than the Dems in Indiana to side with the Republicans, or Schuler. The Dems in CT, NY, PA, NH, IA, CO, FL and especially AZ are going to go full steam ahead on comprehensive reform.
Grebrook on November 14, 2006 at 3:09 AM
W’s behavior the last couple of weeks is giving me pause.
JustTruth101 on November 14, 2006 at 3:42 AM
This is just really disturbing. It doesn’t make sense to me that W would do all this just to push his guest worker program, and that he would be so ready to alienate the base over it.
see-dubya on November 14, 2006 at 4:03 AM
See-Dubya, they’ve just gone crazy at the White House. I can think of nothing else to explain it. I have never seen any politician go so far to try to alienate every possible constituency.
It’s like Karl Rove’s got a bet on whether he can get Bush’s approval number down to zero. And this might do it.
Ali-Bubba on November 14, 2006 at 4:54 AM
The RNC must stand up to W and Rove in this case! If we are to rebuild the party, we must first turn our backs on those who have abandoned the parties principles. We either rebuild the shaken foundation or build a new party. There is no room for middle ground.
LonelyMassRepublican on November 14, 2006 at 6:22 AM
This is just really disturbing. It doesn’t make sense to me that W would do all this just to push his guest worker program, and that he would be so ready to alienate the base over i
stenwin77 on November 14, 2006 at 7:16 AM
This is treachery at its peak.
Threatening to…is unbelievable. Sometimes I wonder what being a republican means. I have not gotten myself to say this in a long time. They deserved to lose. I pray they lose terribly again.
Amen.
Ouabam on November 14, 2006 at 7:16 AM
The RNC’s phone number is 202-863-8500. They vote on this in January and if they don’t hear from us, it will be approved. CALL, COMPLAIN !!!
Could George have picked anyone more lackluster ?
I am ready to jump to the Constitution Party. RNC is NOT listening.
stenwin77 on November 14, 2006 at 7:18 AM
The RNC leadership finds itself on a sinking ship and busy themselves running around and flushing the toilets. The only question remaining is where the fleeing Republicans will end up…Libertarian Party or Constitution Party. Golly this water’s cold.
windbag on November 14, 2006 at 7:29 AM
I really think George should resign. This is nutz.
stenwin77 on November 14, 2006 at 7:53 AM
I’m crying if this is the last option. Well, there is nothing that we can do about it.
Ouabam on November 14, 2006 at 8:12 AM
Stay away from the Constitution Party.
I checked them out last night-and their views on Iraq are right in line with the moonbats.
They also have some very Pat Buchanan-ish fortress america tendencies.
I’d go libertarian but they support TOTALLY open borders, unfetterred abortion, drug legalization, and are against the war.
I’ve got no home to go to I guess.
annoyinglittletwerp on November 14, 2006 at 8:25 AM
I’m outraged at the outrageousness of it all!!1!
The President is attempting to ensure at least some of his preferred policies get enacted in his final two years?!?!
The leader of the party is making his picks in leadership positions?!?
What gall! What unmitigated presumption! Horror and shock at the President attempting to salvage what he can after the base failed to return a Republican majority including four of the hard line immigration Senators!
Who does he think he is? I’m harumphing loudly sirs and removing myself from the party which will not fight a lost cause in the face of overwhelming odds.
Just because his policy has the support of the MAJORITY of Americans, not to mention HE thinks it’s a good idea, doesn’t mean he should fight the MINORITY opinion in the country. The Mexicans must have paid him off! Quick! Blogswarm any bank tranfers to Jorge Arbusto’s coffers! There is treason afoot here, plainly!
I depart to the outer ring of political relevance forthwith. To the Constitution Party, and may the Union be damned! The cedeing of Mexifornia is a fate acompli!
/sarc off
Jesus wept. And we wonder why people think Republicans are reactionary retards. When has Bush ever just rolled over in a political fight? If he was a pushover we would have closed Gitmo in early ‘04 and Abu Ghraib would have ended the Iraq War. You dance with the one what brung ya. Get over yourselves. The man stood up for the Dubai Ports deal. Did you think he was gonna hide behind your skirts for his last two years? It’s called accomplishing your agenda and the man is good at it. You should be grateful that you’re rarely on the wrong end of his spear. I know I am.
The Apologist on November 14, 2006 at 8:27 AM
no, ya’ll. wait a minute. take a deep breath. have another cup of coffee. calm down.
now. that’s better. There must be some logical reason that we are not seeing as to WHY Bush is going this. we need to keep digging deeper. I have a hard time believing that he is deliberately railroading Steele. If anyone needs to go, it’s Rove. He’s the one who’s made many calculated errors.
pullingmyhairout on November 14, 2006 at 8:29 AM
This place hasn’t been calm for days. Every bit of bad news sends people into spasms of rage and/or despondency.
I agree that Rove needs to go. If he’s been the president has been listening to the past two years, then he’s overrated to say the least. He’s been too focused on building his own Republican majority legacy to help the president through the short-term storms that doomed the party this year.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 8:37 AM
What an inspired choice! This leaves the black man available to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development! A real craphole of a position, but the Blacks will be so inspired by the choice they’ll vote GOP next time.
And gee, while we’re at it, let’s get the Latinos, Hispanics, Chicano’s (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) to vote GOP because the head of the RNC is now a Cabaño! Fat chance El Presidente Jorge Arbusto!!!
Talk about the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. As they use to say, these dopes couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel!!
I’m feeling more and more like third-party! Tried it before and it lead to the “Contract with America!” Maybe it time again! NEWT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on November 14, 2006 at 8:47 AM
I’m sick of the amnesty. So is Bush pretty happy? He can get his amnesty bill passed in Congress now.
americanpundit on November 14, 2006 at 8:50 AM
Rove should hand in his resignation letter. He is done. His services are over.
Ouabam on November 14, 2006 at 8:51 AM
I was listening to Hannity rant again yesterday about the incoming dem’s agenda - how it’s partisan, liberal, evil, etc. He needs to calm down too. Bush is trying to push through his agenda. And, regardless of the dem’s “plans” for America, Bush still owns the veto pen (if he has the balls to use it.) In all reality, the democratic congress MUST work with the conservatives if they want to accomplish ANYTHING at all. So, I don’t know what all the hubbuballoo is all about.
Now, back to the topic, maybe Steele will be a VP nominee. who knows. there’s got to be a valid reason for the RNC thingy.
pullingmyhairout on November 14, 2006 at 8:53 AM
What an inspired choice! This leaves the black man available to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development! A real craphole of a position, but the Blacks will be so inspired by the choice they’ll vote GOP next time.
And gee, while we’re at it, let’s get the Latinos, Hispanics, Chicano’s (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) to vote GOP because the head of the RNC is now a Cabaño! Fat chance El Presidente Jorge Arbusto!!!
Talk about the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. As they use to say, these dopes couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel!!
I’m feeling more and more like third-party! Tried it before and it lead to the “Contract with America!” Maybe it time again! NEWT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on November 14, 2006 at 9:00 AM
We’re sounding like the looney left with all the conspiracy theories. I guess losing does this to folks?
SouthernGent on November 14, 2006 at 9:02 AM
I’m starting to aclaimate to our new Democratic overlords. It’s not so bad.
Food tastes better.
I can now run a 4 minute mile.
My teeth have never been whiter.
Don’t fight it people. Join the hive. It’s fantastic.
natesnake on November 14, 2006 at 9:02 AM
Exactly what are you referring to?
Bad news in River City.
thegreatbeast on November 14, 2006 at 9:03 AM
Rove helps Bush accomplish what he wants. All of Bush’s staff members do this. It’s their job. Rove is awesome at his job, but even he can’t do the impossible. Even he couldn’t save the do nothing 109th Congress from itself.
The problem in the last two years has been Frist, who was terrible at the leadership job he had because he was running for President, and the Republican House leadership which were under assault over corruption allegations and then in tactical retreat for a year while they tried to regroup and charge again. Unfortunatly Boehner wasn’t up to the task of being a miracle worker either. We kicked our own butts in the House and in the Senate. That’s why we lost. Not Iraq, not immigration, not even Foley and Indian tribe lobbyists. Americans will accept fallibility if you get something done in the process. The 109th didn’t get enough done. If they had they could have spent six months bragging about it instead of talking down the Dems.
Rove did his job. He’s still doing his job. He serves the President and the President wants comprehensive immigration reform. He recognizes you can’t send millions of illegal workers back to Mexico because their aren’t enough unemployed in America to do all their jobs when they’re gone. Illegals take SOME jobs Americans will do, but most are jobs Americans don’t want. You know alot of people looking for dishwashing jobs? Cause I don’t.
But I know I’m talking to a wall here. Nobody at Hot Air can see beyond the fence at the border. It’s a tragedy that this is what’s going to prevent us from regaining the majority in ‘08. Border fanatics are gonna cost us the Presidency and we’re gonna be stuck with Hillary! cause the 20% Minuteman Party will Perot our chances. Something very stupid is stalking the GOP. How long before it strikes?
The Apologist on November 14, 2006 at 9:05 AM
Also, the Democratic hive has miraculous healing abilities.
I cut off my thumb with a chainsaw when I was five.
It grew back yesterday.
Thanks Democratic hive! You guys are the best!
natesnake on November 14, 2006 at 9:06 AM
I hope the leadership at the libertarian party has extended an invitation to Steele.
Jose Chupacabra on November 14, 2006 at 9:07 AM
W better take less Prozac…
Wade on November 14, 2006 at 9:08 AM
My own prediction: They get the amnesty passed, and the dems impeach Bush; they get the conviction, he’s history. Butcher’s bill on amesty comes due in 08, the Dems blame Bush…they cruise into office. Our country becomes giant toilet for any country that wants to make any demand and urinate all over us. You know, subjagation by Islamists may not seem so bad after how our own goverment sticks it to us..well, except for the head chopping bit.
austinnelly on November 14, 2006 at 9:08 AM
Mel Martinez is an open border RHINO and he voted for CAFTA.
He is GWB’s man for the North America Union and Comprehensive Immigration Reform AMNESTY
Why are all of you surprised?
Bush is a traitor and has sold conservatives out.
We all were suckers to support him and his true colors are coming out now.
ScottyDog on November 14, 2006 at 9:20 AM
It would appear that the alignment hoped for in the Democrat party is, instead, occuring in the Republican party, which will now totally ignore mainstream American’s disgust for amnesty. (I think his dad has something to do with it, he is, after all, a globalist)
pocomoco on November 14, 2006 at 9:22 AM
Natesnake - would that 4-minute mile be while you’re in your almost-brand-new gubmint-mandated Smart-for-two liberated from the Great White North (oh, that’s right, we can’t have diesels either).
steveegg on November 14, 2006 at 9:33 AM
The new face of the elected GOP will be defined by immigration policy.
Allahpundit, perhaps HotAir could start a immigration policy thread today to sort out readership alignment?
Let me say again that Martinez as RNC chair is a horrible pick regardless because he smacks of immigration appeasment.
On a side note, the Democratic Hive told me that bestiality is OK. Now I can enjoy that hot man-on-dolphin action I crave without the guilt.
Thanks Democratic Hive! You made my day!
natesnake on November 14, 2006 at 9:43 AM
Who’s surprised? I knew that no matter what they claimed, they were going to screw us on immigration.
Fool us once, shame on you.
Fool us twice, shame on us.
Fool us thrice, we need to be committed.
EF on November 14, 2006 at 9:47 AM
Oh man, NAU, CAFTA, “globalist”…what next? Links to Pat “Jew baiter” Buchannan’s book? How about linking Bush’s amnesty and his attempts to “sell out America” to the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bildebergers, and Prisonplanet.com? If you can make that leap it’s not but a short skip to “Inside Job” territory.
Yep. Mainstream America and their disgust for amnesty. That’s what Americans really care about. Not education, winning the War on Terror, reforming bankrupt social programs, or bringing down the debt. No, what Americans really are willing to go to war over is denying a future in America to Mexicans who snuck across an unguarded border in search of a job cause their family is starving in the toilet called Mexico. Yeah, Americans are really just itching to kick the Mexicans. That’s a real winner.
Bush couldn’t possibly be supporting this cause he thinks it’s the best solution to the problem. No, this must be about The Corporations and The Globalists ending American sovereignty and turning us all into MexiMeriDian peasant workers in their sugar caves. Good grief. CAFTA has saved Mexico and helped America to expand the market for it’s products. It’s win-win. Martinez supports amnesty because he came here from Cuba and he knows what a difference it makes for a person’s life.
Bah! I’m not gonna argue this here. It’s hopeless.
The Apologist on November 14, 2006 at 9:47 AM
Nope. That’s while I’m in my wind/seismic powered Yugo with optional hamster-assisted-cruise-control.
Join The Hive people! Water never tasted better!
natesnake on November 14, 2006 at 9:50 AM
Nice try, Apologist, but you forgot to mention the Trilateral Commission and the New World Order.
But if we just impeach Bush and shift our allegiance to the Constitution party, everything will be just fine.
/snark
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 9:56 AM
Damn RINOs. I’m webraged!
Valiant on November 14, 2006 at 10:06 AM
Everyone around here seems to love to insult liberals for being idealistic and naive; for living in a fantasy world and not basing their policy decisions on the harshness of the real world. On this issue roles seem to be reversed and as The Apologist has said, you need to get your heads out of your asses and look past the fence.
There are 15 million illegal immigrants in the country right now performing all kinds of menial jobs for extremely low wages; jobs 95% of Americans wouldn’t perform if you paid them twice as much. This isn’t good, it isn’t fair, and it isn’t legal–but it’s real and it’s happening. Deporting these people will not happen–it’s the very definition of impractical, not to mention a political and economic nightmare. Hence, the only pragmatic and reasonable thing to do is to institute some sort of guest worker program. You may not like it, it may not be fair, and it may not be pretty but you guys more than anyone should realize that the world isn’t exactly a neat and clean place.
JaHerer22 on November 14, 2006 at 10:08 AM
I can’t believe I forgot those two! Nice catch Slublog. I need to brush up on my far right conspiracy mongering. It’s been awhile since I attended a militia meeting and I let my subscription to Soldier of Fortune lapse. Maybe I can find a good gun show in town this weekend. Ah well. Good catch though.
The Apologist on November 14, 2006 at 10:11 AM
I wanted that job- when I was 16. I washed cars, did janitorial work, cleaned venetian blinds… All for slightly over the minimum wage. I go to the carwash in my neighborhood and it is all illegal aliens.
Next year we are going to be entering a recession. A lot of Americans are going to want those jobs back. Then you have terrorists crossing our border. One bomb in a suburban shopping mall that is linked to a border crossing jihadi and you can forget about amnesty.
The one advocate of open borders in the party is George Bush. If we can stymie him now then we are guaranteed to have a someone better in ‘08. Controlling the border is not a minority issue. It is a wedge issue in the black community. In Chicago, hispanics and blacks are clashing over resources. That is one of the reasons a white, Irishman has been mayor for nearly twenty years. When Jesse Jackson Jr. runs for mayor the hispanics will not vote for him. There is no great minority solidarity thing happening here. Trust me. My wife forces me to listen to rap/hip-hop so I catch some rants against Mexican intrusion into black neighborhoods. Kinda ironic.
Everyone is pointing to their pet issue as the reason for the loss. I want to say it was because of the internet gambling ban. The truth is that the opponents of these Republicans are not going to take a diametrically opposed position on immigration when they won squeaker elections. (Please point out where a Democrat won by 10 or more points?) Those Republicans reflected the views of their constituents and so will the Democrats who represent them now.
Bill C on November 14, 2006 at 10:16 AM
JaHerer, a guest worker program isn’t the problem. ILLEGAL immigration is the problem. A guest worker program would allow people to work here LEGALLY, and to enter the country LEGALLY and with our control and consent.
Deporting people isn’t anyone’s priority either. It would be impossible to do. But you can impact those who have come into this country ILLEGALLY and who are working here ILLEGALLY by penalizing employers who hire them ILLEGALLY. We have laws for that, but we aren’t using them.
We need the workers, far more than we need John Kerry’s 10 million jobs. But we need them to come here LEGALLY, so that they are not part of an ILLEGAL black market. They suffer and the competitors of those ILLEGAL employers suffer.
Shouldn’t we have laws? Shouldn’t we enforce them?
Pablo on November 14, 2006 at 10:16 AM
JaHerer22,
I agree that opinions vary in the GOP in regards to immigration policy. Hence the reason I think it’s productive to start a thread relating to readership opinions of immigration.
It is impractical to deport 4% of the U.S. population. There is a middle ground out there, but granting instant citizenship is not the answer in my opinion.
We need to sort the issues, review the pros/cons, and abandon emotional attachment.
natesnake on November 14, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Apologist, if you make it to the gun show, just keep an eye out for the shape shifting alien lizardoids. They’re Illuminati.
Pablo on November 14, 2006 at 10:19 AM
Dude. We’re conservatives. People without hearts cannot have emotions.
I think you have a good idea, though. This is not an issue that’s going to go away, and no one group is going to get exactly the solution it wants.
So where can we find common ground, compromise?
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Not really. We oppose liberals on the grounds that your ideas suck. They suck in the classroom, and in the real world. We know that your positions are grounded in reality; it’s your reality that sucks.
St. John of Phoenix tried running that same mierda by some local union guys, and it’s going to cost him the 2008 GOP nomination. Please, keep repeating that mantra.
Different kind of amnesties. Do I really have to make the distinction between political amnesty and voluntary economic refugees? I love how you can just presume we’re too stupid to tell the difference.
Kid from Brooklyn on November 14, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Come on you idiot Republicans! Get Steele in there!
msipes on November 14, 2006 at 10:22 AM
…an old canard…when you spend more time at the bottom end of the workforce, especially in a town like San Antonio, dishwashing jobs — and construction jobs, warehouse jobs, stocking jobs, agricultural jobs — look pretty good. This whole prissy “jobs Americans won’t do” justification is worthless.
Illegal immigration is doing two important things:
1) It is importing an underclass. Thanks to the Pollyannas of this world, they’re getting to stay here and attempts to at least have them assimilate are being frustrated as “racist” initiatives. So…*THIS* society has to adapt, not them.
2) We’re skewing the entire political environment. We’ve got weak-kneed pols from border to border with one eye on how to make a political buck off of them. Want a majority? Import more “voters”…just give ‘em amnesty, and they’ll vote for the “patro’n”.
Sacrificing sovereignty to the price of artichokes is feckless in the extreme.
…it must be a real chore being the smartest guy in the room. All these peasants.
Is that what it’s all about, keeping Hillary out of office? If the guy *your* party is only a fly-speck better than Hillary, why get so worked up?
Why be a conservative when you’re constantly assailed by folks, styling themselves pragmatists, who speak of party-party-party, themselves only worried about preserving meaningless majorities.
Politics should be about results. If Bush and his enabler Rove are all afire to suck up to the open-borders and cheap-labor lobbies, what use are they? Why even be worried about the War, when the country that the guys are defending is morphing out from under their feet?
Border fanatics? A phrase guarenteed to make friends and foster unity.
If the Republican Party is for amnesty, it’s no better than the Democratic Pary, and this conversation is moot. If it’s all a matter of win on bait and switch on issues — War, yes/border, no — when the *BASE* (and the majority of the country) is pretty well settled in their view on the issue, what’s the point of trying to keep the opposing party at bay. You’ve *become* the opposing party, except for the letterhead.
I know that these are all very complex, intricate, nuanced issues, and that I’m just a “border fanatic”, and talking to me is like talking to a wall…but why talk if you’ve got your mind made up, all afire to keep Hillary in the Senate…regardless of the wider costs to the nation, its culture, to the integrity of the electorate, and to the opportunities open to the electorate…not just the shirt and tie and cubicle set, but to the paper hat and name tag set. They’re citizens, too.
If you elect Hillary or someone who’ll end up doing what Hillary’d do 75% of the time, what’s the difference?
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 10:27 AM
Pablo,
I agree we need to increase security at the border and implement a plan that allows a certain pre-determined number of immigrants to legally come and work in U.S. every year. That’s part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the 15 million who are already here and working illegally. Sure, it sounds great to say make them quit working and go to the back of the line, but this is just impractical. In a perfect world, those who came legally would get jobs and those who came illegally would face justice, but it’s not a perfect world and that just will not happen. We need to admit we made mistakes in the past that allowed things to progress this far and then develop and future-looking plan that takes into account the best interests of country.
JaHerer22 on November 14, 2006 at 10:30 AM
You know guys, we can all threaten to leave the GOP, but where ya gonna go? No viable 3rd party. Even with the discontent I feel given the approach GWB and the RINO’s have taken on a bunch of issues, I still will vote GOP.
Why? For me, when I list the reasons I support conservative candidates, the 1st item on the list is always taxes. Pro-life, anti-gun control, fiscal responsibility, smaller government, less gov’t regulation, strict border control and enforcement of immigration law all take the backseat to taxation policy.
I will never, ever vote for a candidate or support a party that is for increased taxes. Period. In reality, neither the GOP or the Dems have shown any sort of responsible behavior when it comes to spending our tax dollars. Given that, why in the world would anyone want to give them more to waste.
Bottom line……we all can whine about border protection, etc., but until the GOP becomes the party of higher taxes, I’m voting for conservatives.
BacaDog on November 14, 2006 at 10:32 AM
You mean like the common ground and compromises we found in the past based on promises of enforcement that were never implemented or enforced or funded? No thanks.
And you still have the issue that they are agreeing to flood the market with cheap labor thereby driving wages even lower. If they pass amnesty or even a guest worker plan, they will grant driver’s licenses. You can expect delivery and truck driving to become another job Americans won’t do because wages are so low. And in California where car insurance is mandatory, they want the taxpayer to subsidize insurance for illegals/guest workers. And any federal plan is not addressing the fact that the tax payer is still stuck with the bill when it comes to health care, housing, and education for these workers. As a taxpayer, I am sick of being asked to subsidize the workers for corporations and other people’s businesses. It is a sizable chunk of change and making them “legal” is not going to make my tax burdern go down.
EF on November 14, 2006 at 10:35 AM
Bottomline, who do you think pays for the housing, healthcare, education, etc. of the workers the gop wants to let in? The taxpayer.
EF on November 14, 2006 at 10:37 AM
Not really. Make it too risky to employ them, and make it easy to employ legal workers to replace them, and we solve the problem by attrition. Either they go home and come back legally, or they can’t work here. That’s not difficult at all, and you can pay for enforcement through the fines you wallop illegal employers with.
Right, we need border control and we need it badly. When your boat is sinking the first thing you must do is fix the leak. Then you can deal with the water you’ve taken on.
Pablo on November 14, 2006 at 10:38 AM
One word - incrementalism.
The problem with the GOP has been that its many factions are pushing to make huge changes all at once. Traditionally, that’s not something democracies are good at.
What I’m saying is set priorities - what do we need to do first. After we get that, where do we go from there? I think Pablo answers the first question - first, we need to push hard on one issue - physically secure the border. That’s your talking point - don’t worry about the workers here, or the financial implications of immigration. Just focus on one point - physically secure the border.
We’ve allowed the debate to get cluttered. Let’s strip it down, make up some policy points and hammer them until they get done.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 10:43 AM
Apologist,
If Bush thinks the solution to the problem is rewarding illegal behaviour, then I suspect he hasn’t thought it through. It’s certainly the easiest way to take care of the problem. It might be a viable solution if an equal number of Americans were heading to Mexico.
It’s an odd policy, considering that Canadians (me) will need a passport to cross the border. Doesn’t make sense to tighten restrictions with a country that isn’t flooding the USA with illegal immigrants while loosening them with a country that does.
Then again, if there are “jobs Americans won’t do”, then perhaps America’s time is almost over.
Krydor on November 14, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Sure we do, EF. I’m certainly not downplaying the seriousness of the immigration program Bush, et.al. are proposing. I think it’s a damn shame, and I will continue to write my legislators and let them know how I feel.
My point was not to abandon resistance to stupid policy proposals. My point was that for me anyway, I have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to tax policy. Honestly, if the GOP ever became a “tax and spend” party instead of just an irresponsible spend party, I’d evaluate candidates on the tax issue alone.
Unfortunately, it’s come to that as our old familiar GOP has become an unfamiliar face.
BacaDog on November 14, 2006 at 10:49 AM
This is an absolute outrage. Do W & company have any clue why they lost this last election? Do they give a rats’ rear? Mr. Rove, if you don’t see our anger, go to the optometrist.
If we can’t keep the Republican party true to its base on something as important as who leads it because it insists on getting one unconstitutional issue passed, its time to let them sink their own ship. Lincoln has got to be rolling in his grave.
I agree with the assessments of the Constitution and Libertarian parties. What’s wrong with the Conservative party? If funding is the only issue, who among us could beat George Soros at his own game?
I would think that the political climate for a third party is much more favorable now than it was in 1992. After all, both parties are in danger of fracturing because they take their bases for granted. Maybe it’s time to dust off the phrase “All your base are belong to us” for a new meaning.
On a related topic… Grebrook, you’ve earned the right to gloat for now, but reality has a way of biting back. You are quickly going to find that the Dems have this same problem because they compromised their base (reaching out to conservatives) in order to win power. Maybe you will get your precious amnesty, maybe not. Enjoy this feeling while you can, and don’t count your chickens before they hatch.
flutejpl on November 14, 2006 at 10:50 AM
If I had my druthers, we would do the following.
1. Closely monitor the borders for 60 days in preparation for staving off a massive influx.
2. Start a nation wide advertising campaign that gives undocumented immigrants 30 days to register as such. Use poling precints as a way to register the immigrants. Create transportation assistance programs to pick up people in rural areas.
3. Registered immigrants are now taxable individuals and allowed to work immediately.
4. Registered immigrants are now part of an 8 year naturalization process verses the standard 6 year. Time is still subtracted for military service.
5. Voting rights are only given after the naturalization process is completed.
6. After 30 days, any illegal immigrant found in the U.S. is deported immediatly. By this point, the numbers should be very low (perhaps under 500k?). Employers who hire illegals are dealt with severely via harsh fines and prison time. One Stike and your out for criminals who are not finished with the naturalization process.
In my mind, this is decent Sticks/Carrots approach. It’s just not practical to deport 15 million people. This gives us some of the tax base that is needed to support the services that they currently use. It also allows us to start from scratch on border security. Perhaps it’s not a fence, but better security in some form to cut down on crossings.
This is just one person’s approach and it’s not perfect. I’m interested to hear others.
natesnake on November 14, 2006 at 10:53 AM
Society must have a menial labor force. If it is not native, it must be imported. Europe imported Muslims. Yikes what a mistake. We import Mexicans. Abolish the anchor baby loophole, and deny entitlement benefits to those who do not demonstrate a sincere desire for American citizenship. However, Mexicans are very good people and we should embrace them with an orderly guest worker program.
Obviously, we are never going to initiate mass deportations. However, why can’t law enforcement officials be empowered to determine the citizenship status of every lawbreaker they come into contact with, including traffic offenses, and send THOSE illegals for deportation?
And we should also encourage immigration from European nations, especially Eastern Europe. I have a nasty premonition that Islamist expansionism is going to lead to a huge refugee problem.
Oh and one other thing. FREE CUBA!
RushBaby on November 14, 2006 at 10:54 AM
3 mentions of Impeaching Bush in this thread, and none by me. I’m not surprised.
Newt is already leading the conservative charge. Bush should listen to the man.
DannoJyd on November 14, 2006 at 10:59 AM
…exactly what do we *OWE* these invaders? Really…what do we owe Mexico?
Mexico’s been a basket case since, under the Spanish, they had 23 levels I think that it was, of racial and ethnic designation which dictated how far went in society. It didn’t get any better after the “Grito” and the Spanish left, or under Iturbide, certainly not under SantaAna, nor under Juarez, Diaz, the Madero or his murderers, Carranza, the PRI, and now not under Fox.
…to bad for Mexico.
Mexico has resources and talent…and the same sort of a “great sucking sound” Perot rambled on about. The talent and moxie in the country is being sucked *NORTH*, when *SOMEONE* down there *MIGHT* one day think to actually begin rearranging the furniture to make things better, so’s they could prosper *AT HOME*.
Mexico simply can’t handle their own affairs…so we’ll import millions of ‘em because — for *THIS* generation — they’ll work for less than native labor and won’t kick about it. Mind you…next generation their kids won’t settle for working in the fields…the slaves won’t stay on the planation.
…and they’ll just keep coming.
…so, nix that…addressing this problem is too hard, no?
They come up here not only with impugnity but encouraged by several self-serving sectors of our political environment. They clog our hospitals, schools and entry-level workforce.
Either on-the-sly or brazenly, they’re tempted into poisoning our elections by bum-rushing the electorate. Nobody had better say a thing, or it becomes a snow-job-storm of “racism” and the impracticality of purging ourselves of these parasites is pointed out…ironically, by people who wouldn’t do anything to purge them if they could figure out a way to do so.
Ultimately, when advocates for national sovereignty point out that this can’t continue, the immediate counter is surrender. Give up, that nation doesn’t belong to us, we’re told. If these benighted illegals “just want to make a better life for themselves and their families” by coming here to this “nation of immigrants”, we’d be both hypocritical and inhospitable to turn them away.
…so, if anyone wants what you’ve got, whether you’ve gotten it by your own labor or you’ve inherited it, it isn’t really yours. *MEXICO HAS THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN*.
This problem has been around my entire long and twisted adult life. Now, however, the goal-posts have been moved. We’re at war.
We’re at war…we’re at war with a dedicated, fanatical force of indiscriminate murderers who’ve *ALREADY* flouted our immigration laws to kill our citizens by the thousands. The securing of our national territory is the *FIRST* issue, the nexus of all these other issues, from the War and national defense to economic policy…because illegals, their ways of getting here to the many nooks and crannies into which they’ve spilled touch upon all these issues.
We’re at war…and we’ve a very vocal segment of society, able to organize these invaders into huge crowds to impress us with their numbers. They demand that we drop our defenses so’s they themselves — both native-born reconquistadores and the illegally resident malcontents — can accrue political “juice” and influence.
We’re at war…and we’re told that securing the national borders will effect the price of produce. Illegals will be able to import TB, jihadis will be able to import munitions, and Mexico will continue to siphon *BILLIONS* from our economy into theirs…but McDonalds will have cheap lettuce.
In the end, nothing will be done. Inertia will be the tool of choice for working this problem…that, and rhetoric.
If you think that these folks will leave the culture which makes Mexico such a basket case back at home, think again. If you think that America’s consumer culture of diversity, self-gratification, political dynamism and chutzpah will “rub off on” these newbies, think again.
Remember: we’re giving the farm away with both hands to these guys. Snivelling local politicians are caving to “activists” and are extending driving privileges to them, thereby “documenting” them. Other morons are letting ‘em into state colleges at preferential rates. People are tripping over themselves to accomodating these invaders. The rest of us are having to hold our noses as space is made at the national table, already crowded by the culturally indigent, societally crippled and professionally shrill.
So…we’ll continue to import an under-educated and under-served underclass, hungry for the goodies we take for granted…swelling the need in a country which has to be weaned away from “need”. Societal engineers and welfare bureaucrats must be ecstatic!
So…hang in there Mexico. Keep breeding. We’ve got your back.
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 11:06 AM
Which begs the question as to why the little zootsuiter is begging the Mexican legislature to interfere in US affairs as opposed to improving the lot of their own people.
EF on November 14, 2006 at 11:13 AM
Slublog,
Right. We’ve been through this before with Reagan’s amnesty. We were promised border enforcement along with that amnesty and nothing was done. Unless we take control of our border, nothing else matters. All other illegal immigration related problems will remain beyond our control unless we stem the flood of illegal immigrants, and that’s before we speak a word of those who come across our border not to improve their lives, but to destroy ours. If we can’t see fit to enforce our border post-9/11, when will we ever do it?
Pablo on November 14, 2006 at 11:14 AM
…and, when all in power except a few points of light have shown that they’re more interested in addressing “tax policy” or “gay marriage” or some other pet issue, and haven’t even given this issue any serious consideration, you see that this is a problem with no solution. You have to have someone willing to break a sweat to solve anything.
You can’t prioritize thin air.
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 11:15 AM
I agree - our leaders are weak tea. But I think the time for pissing and moaning is over. We’ve got two years to find our way before we get either back into power or thumped again.
My model is the Contract With America. It used everyday language to communicate a positive message. We are not going to get everything we want in one fell swoop. So let’s push toward one thing - securing the border. Repeat that point over and over again - get moderate democrats and independents on our side until Congress cannot ignore the issue.
But this effort has to start with one positive step. Let’s take it.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 11:20 AM
…now there’s a precedent worth considering: the French Intifada.
…but, you say, the Algerians, Tunisians, Arabs and sub-Saharan Africans didn’t assimilate, and were treated like second-class menials by one arrogant government after another! No parallel there!
…well…looking back on the last election, after 12 years of effective Republican primacy, throwing their base out with the bathwater; and with an eye toward the Democrats’re capable of doing, I don’t see how anyone can *NOT* see a parallel.
We allow an underclass to develop unobstructed, they’ll be burning your chidlren’s cars….
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 11:21 AM
…excellent notion. No, really…excellent idea!
Where do I sign?
Maybe we need a Newt. Are there any on the horizon?
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 11:25 AM
Maybe we need a Newt. Are there any on the horizon?
I think the only one is actually, um, Newt.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 11:26 AM
There’s one fly in the ointment…or seeming fly…demographics.
The Republicans have lamely been trying to court the black bloc vote for years. No cigar. They’re now trying, just as lamely, to court the Hispanic vote…which they lost *BIG* in the last election.
If the Republicans are all tender about “losing the Hispanic vote”, they might want to consider something: they lost half the Anglo vote.
So, that begs the question: how much of that would they recover by a no-amnesty, practical border policy? How much of the native and law-and-order Hispanic vote would it court if immigration reform was targeted as law-and-order, job-market-order, and national security, not at ethnicity…the trump card of the Reconquista Left?
Where do the bad-hats who steal across the border go when they get here, some to steal and terrorize? They go to the Hispanic neighborhoods. That’s the way it happens here in San Antone. With whom to these long-resident illegals and native, unassimilated Hispanics compete for jobs, position and influence in the community? With the illegals, that’s who.
Control of the borders and a sane, organized immigration policy benefits us all…even the illegals in the long run. Maybe enough of ‘em will stay home to actually *FIX* Mexico one day.
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 11:30 AM
Good bye republicans. I guess there’s now nobody to vote for unless a viable third party springs up. Welcome to balkanized America.
PRCalDude on November 14, 2006 at 11:41 AM
Furthermore, after last Tuesday’s elections, I don’t see how Rove should have any credibility at all. Why are they still listening to that idiot?
PRCalDude on November 14, 2006 at 11:42 AM
Slublog, we’ve tried doing exactly that with the enforcement-first approach (which is exactly what the house bill was) and have received nothing but grief from open-borders RINOs and complete opposition from the WH.
The ‘86 immigration reform was a classic case of bait-and-switch. We were promised vigorous border enforcement in exchange for amnesty, but when it came time to enforce the border, it was business as usual. Therefore, those of us “nativists” or “hardliners” (or whatever other pejorative one wants to use) simply don’t trust the comprehensive approach because we’ve been screwed on it before and the problem now is worse than ever.
Furthermore, despite the disingenuous attempts to complicate the issue by the open-borders advocates, enforcement is not a complex issue at all. It is merely a matter of will. But either for a lack of will, for cheap labor, or for future constituency building in the pursuit of political power, the open borders advocates are seriously lacking the will to secure our borders.
If you can’t secure your borders, you have no sovereignty and eventually you will have no country. If you want the “hardliners” to make compromises on the issue, then compromise with us on our first, highest priority, and have the good sense to delay other measures (e.g., the guest worker program) until we have made real progress on securing the border. Otherwise, no sale - and that’s one priority on which none of us should compromise.
P.S. puritan1648, your posts above on the issue are dead on. Good job.
thirteen28 on November 14, 2006 at 11:44 AM
I’ was pretty sure the “skull and bones” guys took over…Or are they working together now, illuminati, and S &B?
/sarc
shooter on November 14, 2006 at 11:45 AM
Puritan, I’m not sure if I understand what you are getting at. Who is suggesting that the government should treat them as second-class menials?
There are radical, even violent elements. Ethnic gangs, La Raza, Reconquista, you name it. There are some who have no desire to become citizens of the United States, just to take advantage of entitlement benefits.
I think this stuff develops opportunistically because of our PC policies here in America - not because of madrassas South of the border. It is NOT a giant death cult.
RushBaby on November 14, 2006 at 11:46 AM
Then there’s the question of Hispanic voters. If they’re legal, which you really ought to be if you’re voting, are you pro-illegal immigration? Probably not, as amnesty is a slap in the face to those who bothered to obey our laws when they came here.
You know, if they’re all going to come here and we’re going to take care of them anyway, I don’t see why we don’t just move our border about 1500 miles south. Maybe we could defend it then, using those who will do the jobs Americans won’t.
Pablo on November 14, 2006 at 11:47 AM
“Why The Majority Of Mexican Immigrants Are Not Going To Vote For The GOP”
http://www.vdare.com/awall/mexicans.htm
Liberal economist, Dean Baker, makes an excellent point. Those who argue we are in need of more unskilled workers are ignoring the most basic law in economics - the law of supply and demand. (Funny how libertarian-oriented economists appeal to this law when it suits them and ignore it otherwise):
http://beatthepress.blogspot.com/2006/05/immigrant-labor-and-supply-and-demand.html
tommy1 on November 14, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Well, then we’re just done then. Why bother trying to articulate a message, or deliver on policy?
Let’s just give up and continue to stew in our own fetid brew of pity, recriminations and anger at our party.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 12:14 PM
So reach out to independents and conservative Democrats. Newt proved one thing - articulate a strong, simple, positive message and people will follow.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 12:16 PM
…that’s how it’s sold. That’s one of the first things you hear, usually before the hackneyed “nation of immigrants” line. “Do you want to buy $10 heads of lettuce?”
That, and “They’re willing to do the jobs that Americans won’t do”. Someone pointed out in an opinion piece I wish that I could find again that Marines in Falluja were digging jihadis out of spiderholes for about $7.00 p/hr or so. Point: there’s *NO* job an American isn’t willing to do. So…unless they’re willing to stay serfs in perpetuity, importing a class of people who’ll “do the jobs you don’t want to do” is impractical.
For one thing, I don’t need serfs. I have kids. “Get Daddy a beer!” …and they eat less than servants would.
But, you’re right. It’s been opportunistic since the Mexican Revolution, when the impetus was to avoid becoming one of the 10% who died ultimately doing nothing for Mexico.
After that, continuing a long history of cross-border travel, things got serious. As the post-WWII hit high gear, and transport became more practical than schlepping through the desert in your huaraches, it became even more attractive.
Now, they don’t even have to learn English. There’re jobs galore, no shots or customs checkpoints, and there’s a handy industry developed for making it easy to send cash back to Chihuahua or Morelos, Tamaulipas or the Yucatan…that being the second-largest source of foreign capital entering the Mexican economy.
You’re right…it’s the policies here…and the “Willie Sutton” factor: “Why are you going aaaaaaaall the way up to El Norte, Paco? Why risk the desert, the coyotes, the drug lords, the mordida to the rurales and federales?” “Because the US is where the money is.”
The funny thing is this: why can’t Mexico be where the money is? Why is there a convenient (and lucrative) “bleeder-valve” for Mexico (and the rest of the Third World) to send its surplus souls up here? Is it that poxy poem on that putrid plaque on the Statue of Liberty? Well…Mexico…keep your “wretched refuse” and “tempest-tossed” to yourself.
…after all…a poem is poor policy….
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 12:18 PM
Let’s see. Some of our fine elected officals want to give “amnesty” to the people in the country illegally. Then the same elected officals want to turn around and raise the minimum wage by around $2.00. It will be like hitting the lottery for illegals, legitimacy and more money and benefits…Just wonder who’s going to pay the bill?
SPIFF1669 on November 14, 2006 at 12:20 PM
…excellent notion…don’t they have rather tasty oilfields up north of Vera Cruz? We could make this pay. Lazaro Cardenas expropriated American oil infrastructure. Go south…take it back.
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 12:24 PM
“The New Colossus” by Jewish American poet Emma Lazarus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles.
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“”Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!”” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
RushBaby on November 14, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Puritan, I live about 70 miles north of you. I don’t know what experiences you have had in San Antonio, but based on the ones I have had, I am puzzled by your anger.
I am an immigrant to this country (adopted by Americans at age 3 from an orphanage in Europe). I was naturalized in court in San Antonio at age 12. I live in Texas and am married to a decorated Viet Nam veteran. I ‘won the lottery” over and over, it would seem.
And I love that poem.
RushBaby on November 14, 2006 at 12:40 PM
There is a simple, but impossible solution to the illegal alien crisis: blanket amnesty for anyone accused of committing a crime - any crime - where an illegal alien is the victim. They’ll rush back home.
Excerpt from “How the Irish Saved Civilization”
The U.S. was based largely on the Roman Republic. That we follow them in decay is not surprising.
’nuff said.
Hiraghm on November 14, 2006 at 1:03 PM
Yet.
Laura on November 14, 2006 at 1:04 PM
Puritan1648,
They’ve got just about everything a country could want, except a government/economy that works. Oil, excellent land for agriculture, gorgeous natural attractions…they’re up to their eyeballs in natural resources. Trouble is, they’re everything the left likes to think we are. They’re corrupt to the bone, and the handful of rich people run roughshod over everyone else.
Pablo on November 14, 2006 at 1:12 PM
Well, then we’re just done then. Why bother trying to articulate a message, or deliver on policy?
Let’s just give up and continue to stew in our own fetid brew of pity, recriminations and anger at our party.
Republicans can always go as liberal as Arnold Schwarzenegger in a desperate bid for Hispanic votes. He managed to grab a whopping 34% of the Hispanic vote during his first election. Of course, that was during a time of great crisis for the California Democrats. Still, that is an amazing 11 points higher than the Mexicans’ most hated California governor, Pete Wilson, who snagged 23% of the vote. Woo-hoo!
Thanks to our immigration policies, they will all be RiNOs soon enough.
tommy1 on November 14, 2006 at 1:17 PM
…well, to start with, I am *NOT* mad at the invaders themselves.
I’m not mad them the way that I don’t get mad at people who can work “special deals” around city statutes, find insurance loopholes or win because the other guy beats himself.
As Pablo quite correctly points out, Mexico has resources, capital, and I’d also opine that it has people who’ll work their maracas off for family and community.
They just didn’t dodge the “Democratic bullet”…they’ve had plutocrats in charge since he Peninsulares left…and Democratic plutocrats in charge since the dawn of the PRI.
…after Tuesday, I sympathize.
The guys *I’M* angry with are *MY OWN*!
I’m royally teed-off at the “bleed for the world”, “bleed for the poor” ideologues who’ve never themselves even *SEEN* a block of “gub’mint cheese”, let alone had to eat any. They want “social justice”, and can’t see why we should “exclude” anyone…so long as they can keep their plump, juicy gigs.
Some wag needs to poll So. Cal. and suburban Southwest gated communities — those with faux-Spanish names like “Casitas del Sol” and “Las Barrancas de Las Cucarachas” — to see how many open-borders advocates live there.
I’m not p.o.’d when someone tweaks the system…I’m rampantly near-homocidal when I see weenies trying to dismantle the system to its component parts for the furtherance of their careers in “public service” or “public advocacy”. A *LOT* of folks on the oper-borders side of this “discussion” simply want to “import” constituents.
By and large, this sort of “social justice” has not only a price tag — which the advocates will dodge — but the utopian expectation that it’ll all work if it’s “just given a chance”…regardless of the fact that it’s been an utter failure for the same pie-in-the-sky, detached-from-reality reasons in France, Belgium, Holland and Germany.
For the record, I’m most decidedly *NOT* an immigrant, nor am I a son or even a grandson of immigrants.
The latest person to arrive and slip into my gene pool did so 150 years ago. My first relations to join the party, on both sides of my family, came here before the civil war…the *ENGLISH* Civil War. One was on the Mayflower. One was a *late* arrival, pulling into New England in 1635.
…none of us was ever a big wheel, a war hero, or a captain of state…although an indirect relative, a great-great-ditto-ditto grandfather’s brother still holds the disctinction as the *WORST* person as regards attendance, campaigning methods and character *EVER* to serve in the US Senate. William Sharon…look it up.
So, this whole “nation of immigrants” thing falls flat with me. We’ve been here so long that the Indians buy trinkets from *us*.
We’re a pretty well-travelled lot, as well.
In about 1791, one direct grandfather and his brood was the first over the Appalachians from New Jersy to Ohio. As that that “other”, ill-named “civil war” was drawing to a close, that guy’s great grandson or so took his chil’lens to Nebraska…when Red Cloud and his posse were still at large.
Somewhere in there, somebody took part in the Colorado Gold Rush of 1859…and if they found anything, they didn’t leave any to me.
One generation after another, no two generations spending their entire lives in one spot, always moving west until they reached California, these folks *NEVER* had the sense to sink roots deeper than a salad carrot. They kept going, only to ricochet back into Nevada for a while, then back to California…where some of ‘em could probably be seen glowering over the ocean at Australia….
…so, in our own modest way, my family built this nation…one leaky-roofed, a$$-outta-yer-britches log or sod or gingerbread cabin at a time.
I can sympathize with emmigrants and immigrants, but not *AT ALL* with these pasty-white arrivistes who want to tell me to shut the heck up…that this country belongs to whomever shows up with a “greater need” than I’ve got.
..as I said before…somebody thinks that because they saw poverty when they went to “coeds-gone-wild” in Cancun during spring break in college, that Mexicans, etc., have some sort of eminent domain.
…I reserve a little vitriol, by the way, for the Mechistas, the Reconquistadores and other assorted faux-Aztecs who want to “recover” “Aztlan” by fiat of birth. They’re not to be counted in my book on the same ledger as the working stiffs braving a trip in the back of a semi-trailer. They’re hack-pols. They’re scum of the lowest order.
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 2:20 PM
…and, I *HATE* that poem.
It’s not that it’s a bad poem. It’s not very good. All metaphor, and a bit over-blown. What I despise is that it’s brought up, again and again, as some sort of justification for immigration.
We *DON’T WANT* any more tired or poor or homeless, no matter how they want to breathe. They can breathe at home. If Europe or Mexico or Lower Whackistan has any surplus “huddled masses”, common courtesy dictates that they keep ‘em on *THEIR* side of that tossing tempest, thank you very much. We don’t need any “wretched refuse”…we generate enough of our own.
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2006 at 2:20 PM
We have and we will continue doing so. But it’s damn frustrating when others refuse to hear you.
thirteen28 on November 14, 2006 at 2:35 PM
I think what we’re lacking is an articulate, passionate spokesperson.
Slublog on November 14, 2006 at 2:42 PM
The appointment of Mel Martinez to the RNC chairmanship, was not only a backhand to the Republican Party’s base, but an ugly preview of coming attractions.
Make no mistake, George W. Bush’s guest worker plan means amnesty to over, IMO, 30+mil illegal aliens. Why is our benevolent president doing this to America? Well we found out after he was reelected, that he’s an avowed Bilderberg Globalist, tied tighter to the New World Order, than to his oath of office, and the U.S. Constitution of which he falsely took a vow to defend .
Before his term is up, watch for Mr. Bush to destroy U.S. sovereignty for a “North American Union,” that will throw both borders wide open to anyone that wants to enter, and an end to America as we now know it. Also, watch for a change of currency from the “dollar” to the “Amero.”
byteshredder on November 14, 2006 at 2:49 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »