So, this is not really a flip-flop, but more of a guy standing at the 50 yard line, unsure of which direction to go.

- “Where will they get jobs?” See above. They will have more earning power than most of their countrymen.

- “Where will they live?” Have you seen the physical size of Mexico’s landmass? Many large cities. Tons of land. Nonissue.

- “How will they eat?” They’re eating now, right? Are you supposing a blockade to keep food products out of Mexico? Ever eat a banana in January? It probably came from Chile. Foodstuffs are traded all over the western hemisphere. So Mexicans start buying a little more and we buy a little less. Nonissue.

-”Do you know how much electricity…” Like I said above. Everybody following this thread knows that the vast majority of illegals are not here out of “plasma envy.”

I hate it when commenters say “Strawman! Strawman!” but the plasma TV/HALO hyperbole is getting darned close…

RIIIGHT… They’ll all pack up their plasma TV’s, X-boxes, and tax payer funded college diplomas, head back to Veracruz where they will all get high paying jobs so they can afford the next iteration of HALO.

Where would you put 20 million people? Where will they get jobs? Where will they live? How will they eat? Do you know how much electricity it costs to run a plasma TV — even when in stand by mode?

20 million poor back to Mexico
tommylotto on February 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM

But by Mexican standards the ones returning there from here won’t be poor. For Mexico it would be a major influx of goods and capital (what the returning folks bring with them), skills acquired here, and a taste of our form of governance. It all works out to a win-win for both countries if we could just stop settling for status-quo.

Your prior post did reek of a Paul supporter who thinks he will win adherents with the undeniable logic of his Socratic reasoning.

tommylotto on February 1, 2008 at 2:57 PM

OMG! A Ron Paul supporter?! I need a shower….

That said,
1. An ass kickin’ military leader willing to lead our armies all over the world to maintain our empire.
tommylotto on February 1, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Good one.

Now I want to hear all the McCain bashers vow not to vote for Romney….

1. An ass kickin’ military leader willing to lead our armies all over the world to maintain our empire.

Next…

kcd on February 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Your prior post did reek of a Paul supporter who thinks he will win adherents with the undeniable logic of his Socratic reasoning.

I suspect you’re setting a trap to highlight the positions of your candidate of choice.
With my having said that I’ll take a nimble on it.

I agree that we should start by looking into the meaning of the US Constitution but without the somewhat macabre interpretations by people with an Esq. after their names. So tell us what you think some of the major planks should be. And you might as well tell us who currently supports them. Again, I think that’s where you’re going so….elaborate.

jerrytbg on February 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Actually, that is not at all what I was going to do. I meant what I said. I simply wanted to see what conservatives would consider the perfect platform for a presidential candidate.

innominatus on February 1, 2008 at 2:07 PM

I am not going to call you any names whether they apply or not.

However, look at the political mindset of our country. We can barely fund our troops in time of war due to political bickering. The concept that we would have the will to force — either by deportation or economic coercion — 20 million poor back to Mexico is, frankly, silly. Our people (as a collective, conservatives, moderate and liberals) will not stand for what you propose and you know it.

Maybe we can prevent the border crossers from ever getting citizenship. Maybe we can force them to live in the shadows and a grey economy until they die to be buried by their US citizen children. Maybe we should give them some legitimate status in exchange for paying taxes and a fine. There are a lot of things that we can do with the 20 million among us. Expecting them to go home is not one of them.

Tommylotto – “it would cripple the shaky Mexican economy creating chaos and starvation. It cannot happen and it never will happen.”

So sorry.
Just like the stock market has to suck up a “correction” after a period of irrational exuberance so must the US and Mexican economies. Sometimes the medicine is bitter. But instead of whining about how their economy might be crippled, how ’bout thanking us for keeping them afloat for so long!

Maybe the chaos and starvation will bring forth some actual reform! Right now we’re basically subsidizing Mexico’s corruption. There are just enough dollars going south to perpetuate it. Enough!

I dunno about the rest of HA’s readership, but where I am the unassimilated illegals are two-faced weasels. They’re all polite and demure when bussing tables or mowing lawns(bucking for a big tip) but rude and obnoxious and threatening the rest of the time. Want to picnic in the park? Better wait ’til the drunks finish their soccer game. I know enough Spanish and have seen enough fights that I won’t risk it.

/bracing for barrage of “nativist” name-calling

If that were true, you’d have something more substantial to say than causally stating “straw man” and then not giving any back up.

natesnake on February 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM

The reason your argument is a straw man is because nobody, (or few, anyway), is actually suggesting we deport 15 million illegal aliens. Most everybody apposed to amnesty supports attrition through enforcement, not deportation. In spite of this, amnesty supporters continue to base their arguments on the false premise of how cruel and unrealistic deporting millions of people will be, even though the fact is that they’re the only ones even suggesting it. Thus it is a straw man argument. They build up a straw man and knock it down because it’s much easier to do than addressing their opponent’s actual arguments.

I saw in your subsequent posts that you support a wall followed by soft-amnesty of some sort. Personally, I don’t support a wall; not because I’m apposed to the idea but rather because a wall will not turn off the magnets that draw illegal aliens here in the first place. As long as the job/entitlement magnets remain and illegal immigration is rewarded and encouraged through the use of repeated amnesties, illegal aliens will find ways over, under and around any walls we might build.

That’s OK, your entire argument was poor.

Suggestion. The word “execute” has even more impact in straw man arguments than “deport” does. Next time consider saying, “The logistics of deportation executing 15 million people is daunting.”

FloatingRock on February 1, 2008 at 11:36 AM

If that were true, you’d have something more substantial to say than causally stating “straw man” and then not giving any back up. Please spare me your remedial knowlege of debating.

I also appreciate your word substitution. Because that’s exactly what we are talking about; executing illegal aliens.

Jackass.

Hollowpoint–any hopes for a brokered convention? Fred/Rudy ticket emerges from the dust?

Yeah, I know, no chance. sigh

funky chicken on February 1, 2008 at 12:28 PM

I’m all for a brokered convention- not because it would give Fred a second chance (it wouldn’t), but because it would sow disharmony and discontent within the party, hopefully driving the conservative base to rally around the flag of conservativism that so many seem to have abandoned.

Welcome to the Republican Scorched Earth Society, of which I am a charter member.

How does this differ from what illegal immigration hawks have said? Has Michelle Malkin ever said that we need to deport all 12 million, or has she leaned towards a combination of solutions which would lead to attrition?
Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 12:31 PM

I don’t speak for Michelle, but I seem to remember her being more than a bit displeased with the bill- be it the 2005 or 2007 version, as were the vast majority of conservatives in 2005.

What Romney said in 2005 and again in Sept 2006 when he supported amnesty aka “a path to citizenship” isn’t what he’s saying now. That’s the point of this entire thread.

Exit question: Is Mitt Romney the conservative messiah?

No, he’s more like John the Baptist and he’ll most likely meet the same fate. But in the meantime, perhaps he’ll help kick off a new conservative movement.

I suspect you’re setting a trap to highlight the positions of your candidate of choice.
With my having said that I’ll take a nimble on it.
I agree that we should start by looking into the meaning of the US Constitution but without the somewhat macabre interpretations by people with an Esq. after their names. So tell us what you think some of the major planks should be. And you might as well tell us who currently supports them. Again, I think that’s where you’re going so….elaborate.

Might work, but seems pretty big government not not very true to conservative principles. Why do I envision a gestapo like guy saying “let me see ze paperz” oh and gimmie you PIN.

Additionally, if you can steal a SSN or an ATM pin why not an ID PIN. Crooks will always adapt. I’m reminded of sony’s million dollar anti-piracy coding that we thwarted by a sharpie.

Hollowpoint on February 1, 2008 at 12:13 PM

How does this differ from what illegal immigration hawks have said? Has Michelle Malkin ever said that we need to deport all 12 million, or has she leaned towards a combination of solutions which would lead to attrition?

Romney also said in the interview that it was not “practical or economic for the country” to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. “These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society,” he said. “In some cases, they do not. But that’s a whole group we’re going to have to determine how to deal with.”

Yeah, I know, no chance. sigh

I repeat:

Wait a minute…the quotes about the plans being “reasonable,” and “quite different” from amnesty were about the 2005 proposals for immigration reform, not the 2007 legislation.

JustTruth101 on February 1, 2008 at 10:45 AM

What is your point? What are the significant differences between the 2005 proposal and the 2007 bill? Does it really matter? The point is that Mitt said that a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who work for six years and pay a fine is reasonable and not amnesty. That IS very different from his position now and makes his attacks on McCain extremely disingenuous, er fraudulent.

As for Mitt’s record on immigration, he was putting on a kabuki dance as governor paving the way for his presidential run. He took actions that he knew would never go into effect and would be reversed as soon as he was out of office — like the state trooper thing. No state trooper in Mass. ever enforced immigration laws, but that doesn’t stop Mitt the fraud from touting that as part of his record. And I didn’t even mention the fact that illegals were caught cutting his grass, not once, but twice!!! Sanctuary mansion. That has a nice ring. Thanks Rudy.

Look. Most red meat conservatives want to use economic coercion to force 20 million poor out of the US and back to a shaky third world economy. They have not really thought it through. A population wave like that over any reasonable time frame is impossible. Mitt talked in the debate about allowing them time to make arrangements and allow their kids to finish the year of school that they were in. He made it seem like it could be accomplished in about 1 year. For those with calculators, that is about 57,000 people every day for 365 straight days. Exactly where are they all supposed to go? Ignoring the impact on the US economy, property values, etc., it would cripple the shaky Mexican economy creating chaos and starvation. It cannot happen and it never will happen. That was why in 2005, Mitt said it was a reasonable proposal. It was a reasonable proposal. But Mitt the dopplegangler will morph to what he thinks the voters want. If the voters are delusional about the ability to economically coerce 20 million poor back to a third world cesspool, then Mitt is all for it, and anyone talking reason is an amnesty lover or a sanctuary mayor.

Exit question: Why could Mitt take a position on this as governor but not on the surge?