Report: Romney nudging Graham to strike immigration deal before election?

posted at 5:42 pm on July 30, 2010 by Allahpundit

A tantalizing bit of 2012 gossip dropped way, way down in an otherwise fun piece about amnesty shills boo-hooing over having (temporarily) lost McCain. Note to Politico: This is what’s called “burying the lede.”

Their hope now is that Republican presidential candidates and former operatives under Bush, a reform proponent, can convince GOP congressional leaders that the issue needs to be dealt with before 2012 — or that they could risk alienating the burgeoning Hispanic vote in the crucial swing states of New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Florida.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a front-runner for the nomination, has signaled quietly to Graham that Republicans must address immigration before the campaign heats up, according to several sources familiar with the conversation.

Graham’s push against birthright citizenship prompted this response on POLITICO’s Arena from Cesar Conda, a former domestic policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney: “If the Republican Party embraces ending birthright citizenship, then it will be assured losing Latino and ethnic voters — and presidential elections for the foreseeable future.”

Now I’m more confused than ever about why Graham’s pushing the birthright citizenship amendment. If he really is thinking about trying to settle the immigration issue before 2012 — which may be do-able, given the electoral pressure from Latinos that the GOP leadership will be feeling — what does he gain by staking out a position further to the right than he’s ever gone before? I have to assume that it’s precisely because he thinks a deal is likely that he wants to stockpile conservative demands now so that he can give up on them early in the interests of “compromise.” If he sacrifices birthright citizenship in the interests of “being reasonable” but stands firm on securing the border first, it’ll give the Dems some cover on agreeing to the latter. In fact, Politico notes that his comprehensive bill co-written with Schumer already would have made amnesty contingent on first reaching certain benchmarks vis-a-vis border security; Graham’s now insisting that that’s no longer enough, that he wants a separate “borders only” bill before amnesty comes back on the table, but I’ve got a crazy hunch that he’s just staking out a bargaining position there too.

As for Mitt’s role in this, it’s not like he’s nudging Graham to strike a deal on his behalf. Getting immigration off the table would, in theory, benefit whoever the eventual nominee is. But suspicions about him among the righty base plus the fact that it’s Grahamnesty, of all people, that he’s coordinating with here instead of, say, Jim DeMint isn’t going to win him any new fans. Exit question: Any fallout over this for him, or no biggie?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3 4

ON SEPT. 11, 2001, one of the hidden and shockingly high costs of America’s immigration policies was put on the books. Porous borders and governmental abandonment of virtually all interior controls had allowed terrorists to glide easily in and out of the country for periods of their choosing, as they trained in this affable society for their suicide missions against it.

Those who threw out the national origins system in 1965 and liberalized U.S. immigration law had repeatedly assured the public that they were making no changes that would result in larger numbers or a shift in source countries. But they had done both.

http://www.otisgraham.com/otis_graham_writings/art_ronald_reagans_big_mistake.html

Ronald Reagan called himself a conservative, but on immigration, he was not, and neither were thousands of Republican operatives he installed in places where they could implement his revolution. The Republican Party had two souls, one devoted to law and order and respect for the institutions of family, church, and nation; the other and more animated one steering not by those cautious and preservative instincts but by a libertarian, free-market, government-hating ideology. The latter quickly understood that immigration reform meant strong government somewhere, so with religious conviction they moved quickly from a total lack of interest in the subject to vigorous opposition. This struggle for the soul of the Republican Party did not last long because Ronald Reagan’s heart was not with the conservatives, but with the rightist ideologues. Indeed, the reality was more startling. Reagan swam comfortably in a sea of liberalism. Yale law professor Peter Schuck has argued that the 1980s produced expansionist policy changes despite much public sentiment in the opposite direction: the genuflection to “diversity,” universal humanitarian principles of human rights, a muddled notion that global free labor markets offer a sort of economic free lunch, and the idea that national sovereignty is obsolete.

So it came about that President Reagan, and those who shared his gut-level sentiments that immigration policy should be decided with reference to core beliefs in weak and frugal government and sunny California optimism, kept the nation on the road the Democrats put them on with the Immigration Act of 1965 and subsequent lax policing of borders. That road amounted to what Harvard sociologist Christopher Jencks has called “a vast social experiment of the kind that Republicans normally detest.” Liberal Democrats, whose mission it is to launch social experiments, sent down the rails in the ’60s this vast social experiment in essentially open borders and fought off ill-focused efforts by conservative Republicans in the ’80s and ’90s to question and slow it. On this issue, conservative Ronald Reagan, in a moment of critical import, lined up with the liberals, and his historical reputation should reflect this.

rightwingyahooo on July 30, 2010 at 9:31 PM

ON SEPT. 11, 2001, one of the hidden and shockingly high costs of America’s immigration policies was put on the books. Porous borders and governmental abandonment of virtually all interior controls had allowed terrorists to glide easily in and out of the country for periods of their choosing, as they trained in this affable society for their suicide missions against it.

Those who threw out the national origins system in 1965 and liberalized U.S. immigration law had repeatedly assured the public that they were making no changes that would result in larger numbers or a shift in source countries. But they had done both.

http://www.otisgraham.com/otis_graham_writings/art_ronald_reagans_big_mistake.html

rightwingyahooo on July 30, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Ronald Reagan called himself a conservative, but on immigration, he was not, and neither were thousands of Republican operatives he installed in places where they could implement his revolution. The Republican Party had two souls, one devoted to law and order and respect for the institutions of family, church, and nation; the other and more animated one steering not by those cautious and preservative instincts but by a libertarian, free-market, government-hating ideology. The latter quickly understood that immigration reform meant strong government somewhere, so with religious conviction they moved quickly from a total lack of interest in the subject to vigorous opposition. This struggle for the soul of the Republican Party did not last long because Ronald Reagan’s heart was not with the conservatives, but with the rightist ideologues. Indeed, the reality was more startling. Reagan swam comfortably in a sea of liberalism. Yale law professor Peter Schuck has argued that the 1980s produced expansionist policy changes despite much public sentiment in the opposite direction: the genuflection to “diversity,” universal humanitarian principles of human rights, a muddled notion that global free labor markets offer a sort of economic free lunch, and the idea that national sovereignty is obsolete.

So it came about that President Reagan, and those who shared his gut-level sentiments that immigration policy should be decided with reference to core beliefs in weak and frugal government and sunny California optimism, kept the nation on the road the Democrats put them on with the Immigration Act of 1965 and subsequent lax policing of borders. That road amounted to what Harvard sociologist Christopher Jencks has called “a vast social experiment of the kind that Republicans normally detest.” Liberal Democrats, whose mission it is to launch social experiments, sent down the rails in the ’60s this vast social experiment in essentially open borders and fought off ill-focused efforts by conservative Republicans in the ’80s and ’90s to question and slow it. On this issue, conservative Ronald Reagan, in a moment of critical import, lined up with the liberals, and his historical reputation should reflect this.

Reagan’s immigration policy was a mistake. CA is now blue because of it.

rightwingyahooo on July 30, 2010 at 9:34 PM

I don’t know if it’s tattooed, but hell it’s a good HuffPo smear so I’m going with it! And she’s had a boob job too!
ddrintn on July 30, 2010 at 9:08 PM

The boob job is something I know nothing about and would not speculate on. The lipliner, well, there’s no denying that it looks like a tattoo. The woman has a seemingly permanent ring around her lips that is very visible. Why is that such a touchy topic? Are you afraid that people will find tattooed lipliner to be super-tacky?

JA on July 30, 2010 at 9:45 PM

It appears the only true and pure non-RINO is RightWingYahoo. Everyone must be a RINO and pro-amnesty, even those like Brewer and Palin who are fighting for Arizona SB 1070.

bw222 on July 30, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Exit Question: Romney Blowz !

sonnyspats1 on July 30, 2010 at 10:22 PM

. Why is that such a touchy topic? Are you afraid that people will find tattooed lipliner to be super-tacky?

JA on July 30, 2010 at 9:45 PM

I couldn’t care less. You’re the one that brought it up when someone mentioned the plasticity of your hero.

ddrintn on July 30, 2010 at 11:40 PM

You fool, she is against amnesty as she defines it, but would allow current illegals to stay, she even mentions immigration reform….

That’s amnesty. How STUPID and GULLIBLE can you be? What a fool.

She opposes amnesty, but then goes on to say that if current illegals would register and work, she would allow them to “stay and contribute”…

That is amnesty.

LOL, I guess you’re so shocked you can’t get it thru your head. Sarah Palin is for amnesty.

By her own words.

rightwingyahooo on July 30, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Look clown, I know a hell of a lot more about Sarah Palin and her positions than you do.

You are just a troll trying to deflect attention off of Romney by hijacking the thread.

Palin is NOT for amnesty. She has no problem with deporting them all, if necessary, and has said so.

Of course, rational people know that probably will never happen.

Her STATED position is to allow those who have broken no laws, except coming here in the first place to apply for WORK VISAS, NOT, I repeat NOT CITIZENSHIP.

Those that don’t do what they are supposed to do to get a work visa will be deported.

One would think even a moronic mouth breather like yourself could understand this, but maybe not.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 12:02 AM

Notice how there have now been two instances of “anonymous sources” quoted in the lib media within the past week or two, both involving Mitt Romney? All part of the lib media’s plan to push Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee, just like they pushed McCain in 2008.

JA on July 30, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Yeah stupid, that’s why the media has spent every waking moment since September of 2008 trying to completely destroy her, and her family, and friends, so they can push her in 2012 for President.

You are truly a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 12:08 AM

You are missing the bigger picture. More than anyone else, Romney would get the economy back on track and set us on a course similar to Ronald Reagan. You should note that many of the same criticisms that people are making of Romney were made against Reagan, including criticisms with issues related to immigration.

One last thing: if Romney had run against Obama, he would have been ruthless in a way that McCain refused to be. Among other things, he would have found a way to make the Rev. Wright thing stick, and he would have run circles around Obama on economic issues.

Romney is not perfect, but he can win the White House, and he will be a very good President.

If you want the perfect candidate, you might as well vote for Obama in 2012.

P.S. Is it really necesssary to refer to Romney as a “whore”; he is probably the most ethical candidate from both parties on a business and a personal level.

RedSoxNation on July 30, 2010 at 7:37 PM

How DARE you mention the great Renaldus Magnus is the same breath as that worthless, pandering coward Mitt Romney. How DARE you.

Romney has, on more that one occasion, spit on Reagan’s memory.

Go do some research on Romney’s time as Governor, he was one of the very worst in the nation. Ran on creating jobs but was dead last at actually doing it.

He couldn’t balance the budget, or get control of his statehouse.

That Mitt Romney is some financial genius is a bigger lie than the damned tooth fairy!

The guy was pathetic, and that’s BEFORE you factor in RomneyCare, which is destroying the state.

THAT’S the big picture!

You want someone who has a record of ACTUALLY getting something done? That’s Sarah Palin. She kept EVERY campaign promise she made, and did it in only two years.

She took down a corrupt machine that rivaled Obama’s Chicago (mostly Republicans) and didn’t bat an eye.

She stood toe to toe with the CEOs of the largest corporations on earth, and made them tow the line.

She balanced the budget, cut expenses to the bone, including her own office. She refused a huge $25,000 raise, to stay the course, and put billions of dollars in a rainy day fund.

Sarah Palin left her office with Alaska in a hell of a lot better shape than she found it (as she had every single post)

Mitt Romney all but destroyed his state.

Romney is a loser and a joke. He represents absolutely positively EVERYTHING that is wrong with American politics. He needs to go away. PERIOD!

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 12:22 AM

The lipliner, well, there’s no denying that it looks like a tattoo. The woman has a seemingly permanent ring around her lips that is very visible. Why is that such a touchy topic? Are you afraid that people will find tattooed lipliner to be super-tacky?

JA on July 30, 2010 at 9:45 PM

I think people are sick of lies and rumors about her. What, are you trying to get a spot in the Green Room?

Dongemaharu on July 31, 2010 at 12:22 AM

Gary, you ignorant ****….

Read her words, she is for immigration reform, allowing people to stay and work, how stupid and naive do you have to be to think that is not a path to citizenship?

I can’t stand Romney, so you need to give that up. Romney is for touchback amnesty.

Gary, some people are fooled because they are fools, and some are fooled because they want to be.

I guess you’re in slot #2….

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 12:24 AM

Gary, you are an out of control maniac.

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 12:25 AM

Hey, at least he doesn’t have tattoed-on lipliner like some other famous Republican.

JA on July 30, 2010 at 8:24 PM

If you’re trying to say Palin does, then EPIC FAIL loser, cause she doesn’t!

You Romney cultists are pathetic.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 12:34 AM

Oh, one more thing. Mitt Romney’s legacy is a destroyed state left in his wake.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin’s legacy, AGIA, and the Trans-Canada pipeline are still moving forward. And this comes from the far left Anchorage Daily News.

Alaskan’s wanted a natural gas line to the lower 48 for 50 years. Every Governor had promised one, including Sarah.

Sarah literally one the first day at work started in on this project. In less than two years she had created AGIA, and secured commitments for the largest construction project in North American history. And she arranged it where most will be done with private money.

THAT’S getting stuff done.

Romney is a joke, Palin is a leader.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 1:16 AM

Gary, you ignorant ****….

Read her words, she is for immigration reform, allowing people to stay and work, how stupid and naive do you have to be to think that is not a path to citizenship?

I can’t stand Romney, so you need to give that up. Romney is for touchback amnesty.

Gary, some people are fooled because they are fools, and some are fooled because they want to be.

I guess you’re in slot #2….

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 12:24 AM

.

Whose ignorant?

Gary, you are an out of control maniac.

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 12:25 AM

Hey I’m not the one spouting absolute nonsense at warp speed and refusing to hear the TRUTH!

As I posted ABOVE, Sarah Palin is NOT down with amnesty, in ANY shape or form.

She has stated that illegals who have not broken ANY OTHER laws, might be allowed to obtain WORK VISAS if they qualify, and follow the rules.

That’s a LONG way from amnesty and a REASONABLE position. It is NOT granting them citizenship.

She is also on record saying anyone that can’t follow the rules would be deported.

She has also said every bit of this is contingent on SEALING THE BOARDER!

You sir are a blithering idiot.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 1:29 AM

All that, plus she’s a supporter of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

That is AWESOME.

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 1:30 AM

She is ignoring her sworn duty to uphold the laws as POTUS by doing so, and cheating Americans out of jobs.

Whatever she has stated, I dont know because you don’t link it.

What she has stated is that current illegals who “follow the rules” (hey wait, they didnt when they came here) get to stay.

That is amnesty. Don’t be a fool.

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 1:33 AM

Boy those Palin cultists sure are something!

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 1:36 AM

Today on his radio program, Sean Hannity asked Democrat Anthony Weiner if he would make a commitment to read every bill in the House before he voted for it. Instead of saying yes or no, Weiner then attacked Hannity for not reading a recent bill that had come up in Congress, implying that Hannity had no right to ask him that particular question because of his own shortcomings. By the way Hannity is NOT a member of the House, never has been and thus has no vote on any pending legislation before it. Obviously this is specious or convoluted reasoning meant to obfuscate.

Now with the Romney and the allegation he had the conversation with Graham about the immigration issue, the same strategy is being attempted here, that if Sarah Palin can be accused of favoring amnesty, that somehow means that Romney is innocent of favoring amnesty or did not have this particular conversation or communication with Lindsey Graham. Again the entire dialogue on this thread is meant to obfuscate and muddy the waters.

There are many things in this world which are MUTALLY EXCLUSIVE, and whether Palin favors amnesty or not has absolutely nothing to do whether Romney had this conversation with Graham or communicated with him in some manner regarding advancing the amnesty position sooner than later.

rightwingyahooo, you still refuse to deal with the topic of this thread and your failure to do so leads me and others to believe that like Anthony Weiner today,you do not want to address the issue whether Mitt Romney could have participated in this communication with Graham and the continued failure to do so provides us more evidence that you are a Romneybot.

technopeasant on July 31, 2010 at 1:52 AM

She is ignoring her sworn duty to uphold the laws as POTUS by doing so, and cheating Americans out of jobs.

Whatever she has stated, I dont know because you don’t link it.

What she has stated is that current illegals who “follow the rules” (hey wait, they didnt when they came here) get to stay.

That is amnesty. Don’t be a fool.

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 1:33 AM

Sarah is not POTUS (yet).

Which POTUS HAS NOT ignored their sworn duty to uphold these laws and hasn’t cheated Americans out of jobs? Is this a brand new standard you are holding Palin to but nobody else?

….as for your ‘follow the rules’ comment you seem to have missed the BIG BOLD ALL CAPS that Gary left for you.

She has stated that illegals who have not broken ANY OTHER laws, might be allowed to obtain WORK VISAS if they qualify, and follow the rules

Mr Purple on July 31, 2010 at 2:22 AM

Heck yeah!!!! I know why Graham is all of a sudden pushing for the 14th amendment change! I won’t say because but wow!

conservador on July 31, 2010 at 2:56 AM

Politico has been doing hit pieces against Romney for a while now.

Allahpundit, Politico is liberal now. Keep that in mind.

This is the second anonymous source hit piece in as many weeks and you’re reporting it as real news.

I’m starting to doubt why I check Hot Air every day.

scotash on July 31, 2010 at 3:19 AM

Those who threw out the national origins system in 1965 and liberalized U.S. immigration law had repeatedly assured the public that they were making no changes that would result in larger numbers or a shift in source countries. But they had done both.

Thank you Ted Kennedy for the 1965 immigration act that allowed all the s*** to come into this country. Prior to this complete travesty ONLY educated immigrants were allowed into this country.

xler8bmw on July 31, 2010 at 8:20 AM

Politico has been doing hit pieces against Romney for a while now.

Allahpundit, Politico is liberal now. Keep that in mind.

This is the second anonymous source hit piece in as many weeks and you’re reporting it as real news.

I’m starting to doubt why I check Hot Air every day.

scotash on July 31, 2010 at 3:19 AM

“Hit pieces”? LOL Wow those Romney supporters are thin-skinned. Let Mitt get a little bit of the Palin treatment and they’ll all have one mass aneurysm.

ddrintn on July 31, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Hey, at least he doesn’t have tattoed-on lipliner like some other famous Republican.

JA on July 30, 2010 at 8:24 PM

I did not know that Graham wore eyeliner.

kingsjester on July 31, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Game show host.

yubley on July 31, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Hey, at least he doesn’t have tattoed-on lipliner like some other famous Republican.

JA on July 30, 2010 at 8:24 PM

I did not know that Graham wore eyeliner.

kingsjester on July 31, 2010 at 10:23 AM

That is some funny sh!t right there.

Brian1972 on July 31, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Whoever our new CA governor eventually is, illegals will be legalized. The end is near, folks.

Ads in Spanish

PattyJ on July 31, 2010 at 10:29 AM

I meant lipliner, of course. So, when did these to have a confab about this situation? Over chocolate martinis at the DC Country Club?

kingsjester on July 31, 2010 at 10:29 AM

I too am starting to question why I check in with Hot Air on a regular basis. Some comments on this particular thread remind me of the character assassinations usually reserved for liberal Democrats about Republicans. Will we do away with the name calling and rise above please?

psychocyber on July 31, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Some comments on this particular thread remind me of the character assassinations usually reserved for liberal Democrats about Republicans. Will we do away with the name calling and rise above please?

psychocyber on July 31, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Are you kidding? “You Palin cultists are just like the O-bots!!!” is a staple here. It won’t be going away anytime soon.

ddrintn on July 31, 2010 at 11:25 AM

that he wants a separate “borders only” bill before amnesty comes back on the table, but I’ve got a crazy hunch that he’s just staking out a bargaining position there too.

THAT’S THE PROBLEM.

As if we need MORE legislation.

“Borders Only Bill” What? To determine where the borders are? To forfeit border states to become transnational regions?

JUST ENFORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW.

maverick muse on July 31, 2010 at 11:29 AM

All that, plus she’s a supporter of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

That is AWESOME.

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 1:30 AM

No she’s not you lying freak.

She is for allowing those who qualify to APPLY for WORK VISAS.

You can keep spouting your lies, but no matter how many times you spew them, they are still out and out LIES.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Boy those Palin cultists sure are something!

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 1:36 AM

Boy this lying trolls sure is something!

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Politico has been doing hit pieces against Romney for a while now.

Allahpundit, Politico is liberal now. Keep that in mind.

This is the second anonymous source hit piece in as many weeks and you’re reporting it as real news.

I’m starting to doubt why I check Hot Air every day.

scotash on July 31, 2010 at 3:19 AM

Are you KIDDING me?

The Romneybots over at POLITICO have have been making up crap about Palin for over two years, and attacking her on Willard’s behalf.

Also, THIS POLITICO story isn’t a hit piece IN THEIR MINDS. Remember, these worthless slabs of humanity WANT amnesty and think it’s a GOOD THING that Willard is on their side!

Remember, the purpose of the article was to beg John McCain to come back to the dark side. The little blurb about Willard is just a shout out to a fellow traveler.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 11:38 AM

If it is true…..Romney just became McCain II and will never win the nomination in this political climate. I have doubts about him winning anyway, he was the ultimate candidate in 2008 when the parties were jockeying for economic credibility….now that the Dems have flushed theirs down the jon, any GOPer with a good speech will seem like a better alternative than Obama’s incompetence storm.

Romney just isnt Conservative enough for this election cycle, and i think he knows it….ploys to shape the campaign issues for 2012, now, will only backfire though.

alecj on July 31, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Romney keeps finding new and exciting ways to push conservatives away from him. An interesting strategy, but will it work in his favor? Will independents and “moderates” flock to him for doing so? The indies are trending more conservative these days and the moderates…well, who gives a sh*t what the moderates are doing. Yeah, that’s right, Romney does. Good luck with that, Mitt.

Extrafishy on July 31, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Romney really wants to win the nomination in 2012. He pretty much has been running since he left the race in February 2008. Would he quietly talk to those in the senate who could help him win? Yes. Did Romney have a hard time with the immigration issue in 2007 when he and Giuliani were attacking each other on the issue? Yes.

I sincerely hope that Romney is not our nominee in 2012. We can’t get rid of Obamacare under Romney/Romneycare.

texasconserv on July 31, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Note to Politico: This is what’s called “burying the lede AP.”

Or floating a boat

Or floating the rope-a-dope

This is how to take Romney down. His weakest legs are the aura of privilege and detachment from the little people. Tie him to amnesty and he shrivels, unless he thinks he can win with hispanics only, cause he isn’t appealing to blacks or leftists.

Now I’m more confused than ever about why Graham’s pushing the birthright citizenship amendment. If he really is thinking about trying to settle the immigration issue before 2012 — which may be do-able, given the electoral pressure from Latinos that the GOP leadership will be feeling — what does he gain by staking out a position further to the right than he’s ever gone before?AP

I watched the interview where he insisted we had to end anchor babies. The interviewer asked Graham what action he would take and Graham’s lame replay was we just have to

If the game is an end to anchor babies in return for amnesty for the 20-30 million illegals, it is a rigged game.

Amnesty takes only bill in Congress while ending anchor babies will take a constitutional amendment if not a constitutional battle and that will not happen when 20-30 million former illegals start voting

One thing for sure, he aint doing this to get re elected. IMHO Gramnesty is either seeking political love or McCain needs a proxy until the election is over

Exit question: Any fallout over this for him, or no biggie?

Depends on who floated the carcass. If they are trying to force Romney to take a stand, no biggie. If Romney is floating a barge he gets all the RINO votes he can muster and nothing more.

Expect more of these fork in the belly sneakers up the next Presidential. Shame the big issue is whether citizens have a right to control immigration into their own nation

entagor on July 31, 2010 at 12:43 PM

There’s nothing wrong with our immigration laws now.

Ronnie on July 31, 2010 at 1:12 PM

She is for allowing those who qualify to APPLY for WORK VISAS.

No, she is for allowing ILLEGAL ALIENS to APPLY for WORK VISAS, which will eventually lead to citizenship, as surely as night follows day.

Unless you send them home later. But if you can’t send them home now, how will you send them home later?

It’s amnesty bub. I’m sorry you cant understand.

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 2:21 PM

She is for allowing those who qualify to APPLY for WORK VISAS.

No, she is for allowing ILLEGAL ALIENS to APPLY for WORK VISAS, which will eventually lead to citizenship, as surely as night follows day.

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 2:21 PM

What does that have to do with whether Romney supports amnesty or not? Every time Romney steps in it, here come the Mittbots like clockwork to go after Palin. It’s amusing.

ddrintn on July 31, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Graham’s opposition to anchor babies is just boob bait for bubbas. It has no chance of passing and he knows it. That is why he opposes the fence and supports amnesty, they have a chance of passing and are dear to his heart.

federale86 on July 31, 2010 at 2:30 PM

What does that have to do with whether Romney supports amnesty or not?

I’m not for Romney for the hundredth time. He is detestable to me. I was for Palin, but now I’m reevaluating….

But on immigration, there is little difference. He wants touchback amnesty (at least he did in 2008) and she wants immigration reform.

No real diff….

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 2:57 PM

But on immigration, there is little difference. He wants touchback amnesty (at least he did in 2008) and she wants immigration reform.

No real diff….

There’s a big difference. Romney has not committed to an enforcement first position, he apparently wants “comprehensive reform” (amnesty) passed as soon as possible and is pressuring Lindsay Graham to deliver it for him. Whereas Palin says we should secure the border before even talking about allowing some illegals to stay and work.

Jon0815 on July 31, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Exit question: Any fallout over this for him, or no biggie?

Exit answer: no biggie. He still has very presidential hair.

bitsy on July 31, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Hah! I told you, I have consistently warned that Romney, aka; Plasticman, is nothing more than $10K smile in a $4k suit & $1k pair of shoes that will sellout on any stand in the name of expedience. If the GOP nominates this azzclown they’ll only be dropping down a gear down the road to self-immolation.

The primary reason we ahave a burgeoning latino constituency is our failure to enforce our immigration laws. If the libbies truly want “diversity” we should implement a quota system in our legal immigration policy balancing the ethnicities we allow in. To truly ensure a continuation of a melting-pot society that encourages assimilation into the broader public we must have set-asides for more Europeans, Asians, etc instead of permitting cultrural invasion from Latin America.

You adjust to the current enviroment, not kow-tow to it! If RomneyCare is not enough warning of the disaster of putting this Gumby-doll of principle in the oval, perhaps this behind the scenes collaboration with Gramnesty will wake people up!

Archimedes on July 31, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Hah! I told you, I have consistently warned that Romney, aka; Plasticman, is nothing more than $10K smile in a $4k suit & $1k pair of shoes that will sellout on any stand in the name of expedience

hahahahahahahahahahhaha

Simona on July 31, 2010 at 4:06 PM

It seems to me that Allah is just trying to stir up some trouble here. I wonder why.

Terrye on July 31, 2010 at 4:11 PM

I’m so sick of the stupid “if we act on immigration we’ll lose Latinos” meme. It’s simply not true. Latinos do not vote or think as a monolithic thinking group. A 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation Hispanic-American is more concerned about other issues. Stop acting like the Democrats who treat every race that isn’t white as a stereotype who makes decisions based on their race instead of their individual circumstances.

cpaulus on July 30, 2010 at 5:47 PM

with you there…

cmsinaz on July 30, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Yes, with you there, also.

Graham is not to be trusted, too, and I think that’s clear from the Right.

After listening to him present this “bargain” concept (about a week ago, on FOX), he sounds like he’s trying using the tried and busted method of promising a good thing that he’ll never fulfill (or won’t support) based upon the voters buying his bad thing.

The 14th needs to be readdressed — an end to “anchor baby citizenship” — before any “guest worker program” can ever function (if for the one reason that we can all expect any guest worker program to be massively exploited, so eliminating all possible exploits before launching such a program is the only practical option that smart voters will or should support).

But Graham has been consistent in his intent for amnesty – so he’s trying to sell voters on the idea that there’ll be great security (“borders will be secured first” and similar) so he can wrangle amnesty and keep his Liberal voter support (and stick it to Conservatives).

I wouldn’t trust much of anything Graham was involved in.

But the same about Politico, who has never encountered a wedge issue as to the GOP they won’t fan into a new Oprah Drama.

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Hey, at least he doesn’t have tattoed-on lipliner like some other famous Republican.

JA on July 30, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Lipliner isn’t the only thing Sarah has got tattooed! Day-um. Not work safe. /cautionextremesarc

bitsy on July 31, 2010 at 4:15 PM

There’s a big difference. Romney has not committed to an enforcement first position, he apparently wants “comprehensive reform” (amnesty) passed as soon as possible and is pressuring Lindsay Graham to deliver it for him. Whereas Palin says we should secure the border before even talking about allowing some illegals to stay and work.

Jon0815 on July 31, 2010 at 3:48 PM

We should all face facts and that is that ALL OF THESE THREE — Graham, Romney AND Palin — are using phrases that various “voter blocks” find appealing but that are inexact and somewhat misleading indicators.

Starting with “secure our borders first” — it’s never going to happen, not really, not unless there’s a big security border fence/moat/barricade constructed all the way across the Southern Border, ports in CA, Oregon and Washington are — what, mined? — trolled by Coast Guard intensely, etc.

Since no one in Congress seems capable of actually building any border barricade that is functional for to “secure our borders,” just how, specifically and practically, is that ever going to happen?

I complained loudly years ago when the whole “electronic border security fence” idea was being sold (by Romney, by McCain, by Bush, by Graham, etc.) and said that, if it was deployed, ALL WE’D END UP WITH FOR BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WAS A LOT OF VIDEO TAPE OF ILLEGAL ALIENS CROSSING INTO THE NATION.

And, presto, that’s exactly what happened. Billions spent on the “technology,” and D.C. started announcing last year that it had “failed” as a method, that all we had was a lot of tape of illegal aliens entering the nation and complaints that we didn’t have enough man-power actually stopping the illegal crossings.

So the sales pitches are not working with me (by any of these politicians in this post). Until and unless they start talking the dirty details of building obstacles that man won’t or can’t cross, staffed 24/7 year round with enough manpower who are armed and capable, our “borders” are not going to be “secured first” or second or third or ever.

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 4:21 PM

The key is securing the border now. The number 12-13 million illegal aliens has been thrown around for more than a decade. It’s probably closer to 20 million or more today.

The longer we debate this issue without securing the border, the worse the problem becomes.

bw222 on July 31, 2010 at 4:24 PM

All that, plus she’s a supporter of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

That is AWESOME.

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 1:30 AM

No she’s not you lying freak.

She is for allowing those who qualify to APPLY for WORK VISAS.

You can keep spouting your lies, but no matter how many times you spew them, they are still out and out LIES.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 11:30 AM

I agree with the word-parsing: that Palin isn’t “for amnesty”.

BUT, the parsing suggests duplicity there (or clouded message) what with the “working visas” support — that’s simply “a guest worker program”…

The COMPROMISES HAVE TO BE FIXED/REMEDIED FIRST, **THEN** promises made for “work visas” and whatnot. Until the loopholes are remedied in security, borders and illegal immigration, no “work visas” are ever going to modify or solve anything.

Honest people do things honestly — dishonest people do things dishonestly.

Illegal immigration, despite many sob stories, is essentially a problem of a lot of dishonest people determined to do things dishonestly. All the complaints about the nation, us, the Right, fairness, ‘rights’, whatever, by illegal aliens and the Left, just distracts people from reality…because the problem is the people engaged IN illegal immigration, which they will continue regardless of “work visas” for some or not. They’re not going to stop, the U.S. has to secure it’s self and better contend with hordes of dishonest people from wherever doing whatever they want to and can get away with.

I’d like to hear SOME people on the right in political careers start being frank about these big issues and knock off all these attempts to court-and-spark with inexact promises.

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 4:28 PM

That applies to ALL the politicians…Romney, Palin, Graham, ALL of them.

At this point, I’d only vote for Romney if he was the nominee and then I’d have to apply the “McCain voting method” if that was the only option.

Palin’s far more appealing as a Presidential nominee but I’d like to hear her talk some heart and soul grit about these problems as to solutions and avoid any more side-stepping statements about “work visas” and whatnot.

We already have “work visas” and such, they’re called visas and Green Cards.

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 4:28 PM

All the GOP candidates are going to come out for border security. The question is going to be, which one is most likely to follow through to any meaningful degree?

ddrintn on July 31, 2010 at 4:31 PM

She is for allowing those who qualify to APPLY for WORK VISAS.

No, she (Palin) is for allowing ILLEGAL ALIENS to APPLY for WORK VISAS, which will eventually lead to citizenship, as surely as night follows day.

Unless you send them home later. But if you can’t send them home now, how will you send them home later?

It’s amnesty bub. I’m sorry you cant understand.

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Right, it IS amnesty.

Someone has to step up and announce that illegal aliens must leave the nation. THEN apply for re-entry if they want to come back here for citizenship or “work for two years” and then go back home afterward.

SOMEone has to start telling the illegal alien population that they have to leave. If they want to be a U.S. citizen or simply return “later” to “work,” then they have to do so legitimately.

Obviously, there are a lot of people who are never going to do that. In which case, SOMEone in politics has to start applying whatever pressure or method is necessary to make illegal aliens go home.

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 4:34 PM

ddrintn on July 31, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Good point. In 2007 Congress passed funding for construction of a border fence. the Bush administration did everything in its power to delay it. Obama totally abandoned it even though its construction would put people to work.

bw222 on July 31, 2010 at 4:37 PM

I’m so sick of the stupid “if we act on immigration we’ll lose Latinos” meme. It’s simply not true. Latinos do not vote or think as a monolithic thinking group. A 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation Hispanic-American is more concerned about other issues. Stop acting like the Democrats who treat every race that isn’t white as a stereotype who makes decisions based on their race instead of their individual circumstances.

cpaulus on July 30, 2010 at 5:47 PM

This is not just a meme. In 2004 Republicans got 44% of the hispanic vote..2 years later it was half of that. That is not a meme, that is a fact. I do think that this issue has hurt Republicans with hispanics already. That does not mean people have to change their attitudes, but it would be ridiculous to pretend there would not be a political cost with that demographic. In truth I think that some of that has more to do with the rhetoric surrounding the issue rather than the issue itself. Sometimes how you say something is as important as what you say.

In fact the other day I was listening to Charles Krauthammer talk about immigration and he made the point that the feds have a responsibility to secure the border and it was a dereliction of duty not to…he also said that if that border was secure then it would be possible to normalize some of these people. I have no doubt that there are some conservatives who would agree with Charles here, but there are others who would call him an amnesty shill for even considering any kind of normalization for any illegals at any time. By the same token there are some people on the left who could care less about border security at any time. I just don’t see a lot of these people changing their positions.

Terrye on July 31, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 4:28 PM

All the GOP candidates are going to come out for border security. The question is going to be, which one is most likely to follow through to any meaningful degree?

ddrintn on July 31, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Yes, I agree as to the GOP candidates coming out for border security (finally, they got the message but McCain and Graham — and maybe Romney and even Palin — are still trying to say, “yes, but…”).

BUT so did Reagan. His better nature was used against him — he actually expected what he’d requested in his “amnesty” plan (somewhat what Graham is now trying) (and McCain tried it, too) to happen, overlooking or perhaps being naive enough to fail to recognize human nature for what it was.

The nation was SUPPOSED to have “border security” (“our borders secured”) TO JUSTIFY amnesty, as Reagan imagined and expected it would happen. All that happened, instead, was amnesty. Everyone quickly forgot the other part, “border security”.

Politicians just have to be held to task to face facts: illegal aliens are belligerent in their behavior and their illegal activities are not going to stop by their own changes toward legitimacy…there are just a lot of people in other nations who are going to persist in breaking-in. And who will the demand just about anything they want to, including citizenship.

So that’s the essential and big issue that has to be addressed — how to address the chaotic, dedicated illegal population (that isn’t going to stop unless it’s made not possible to happen).

We have to address the behaviors of people who are illegal aliens, not why they are but that they ARE in the first place and look at how they respond after arriving to requests to legitimize themselves (most won’t).

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Krathammer is a neocon, not a conservative. He worked for Mondale at one time. He is strong on defense, but really squishy on social issues.

bw222 on July 31, 2010 at 4:42 PM

The key is securing the border now. The number 12-13 million illegal aliens has been thrown around for more than a decade. It’s probably closer to 20 million or more today.

The longer we debate this issue without securing the border, the worse the problem becomes.

bw222 on July 31, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Allowing that population to remain here in the U.S. (and I agree it’s far more than the “12 million” some people continue to refer to) is harming our country — as long as they’re here, they’re disruptive, causing so many political, social, economic problems…

Eisenhower understood this and acted accordingly when he quickly got most of them in one quick campaign and sent them home. That’s really the first place we have to start and then do it. Eisenhower understood this and acted accordingly, and correctly.

Send this population back to their own nations AND SIMULTANEOUSLY stop more from arriving.

THEN remove the “anchor baby citizenship” function.

THEN create a “guest worker program” calling it “worker visas” or whatever…

AND separate immigration from “guest worker program/s” — keep the two pathways entirely separate because unless they aren’t separated, people will continue to exploit “we’re just here to work” for purposes of gaining a permanent foothold here illegally.

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Bwahahahahaha!!!

Nudging Grahmn toward amnesty is like nudging liberals to look down their noses at red staters.

csdeven on July 31, 2010 at 4:49 PM

That does not mean people have to change their attitudes, but it would be ridiculous to pretend there would not be a political cost with that demographic. In truth I think that some of that has more to do with the rhetoric surrounding the issue rather than the issue itself. Sometimes how you say something is as important as what you say.

In fact the other day I was listening to Charles Krauthammer talk about immigration and he made the point that the feds have a responsibility to secure the border and it was a dereliction of duty not to…he also said that if that border was secure then it would be possible to normalize some of these people.

Krauthammer supports amnesty and he’s not strong on social issues except to indulge many of them — a number of the spokespersons the Right refers to often (Krauthammer, Barnes, Ben Stein, etc.) are Conservative on many a defense and economic issue yet seem to lose their center entirely on social issues, indulgent, even.

AND, is it really supportable when politicians are concerned about what’s appealing to a voter block versus what’s good for our nation? I mean by that, illegal immigration is bad for our nation, so why indulge it?

Not all Hispanics support amnesty nor want illegal immigration. The GOP will get more than enough voter support if it comes forth strong on acting ethically and Constitutionally. Then let the chips fall.

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Another demand should be that no illegals, once legal, can file tax returns for previous years. Or we need to deny them the EITC and other tax credits that will give them money back that they never paid in. They will mostly be lower income and therefore eligible for those credits. I’d bet Grahmnesty and the other RINO turds aren’t even considering that if they allow the illegals to take those credits it will bankrupt the country. And I am positive the demrat8astards are fully aware and couldn’t care less as long as they are all guaranteed demrat voters.

csdeven on July 31, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Terrye on July 31, 2010 at 4:37 PM

First the 44% figure that Bush supposedly got of the Hispanic/Latino vote in 2004 has been a subject of intense debate for some time.

faculty.washington.edu/mbarretopapers/2004vote.pdf

Many academics now place the figure more in the high 30′s or mid 30′s range.

McCain got 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008 to Obama’s 66%

I am a simpleton by brain power but I don’t think that equates to McCain losing half of the Hispanic vote even if you cite the high figure of 44%. More like 30% by my calculation.

But far less if you go by the revised numbers of the academics.

I know many RINO’s have made the argument that if the GOP doesn’t actively court the Hispanic vote it is doomed, but here is an alternative thesis put forward by Tino Sanandaji (TS) who has a completely different take on the Hispanic vote:

http://wallstreetpit.com/26321-michael-medved-gets-the-math-wrong-about-white-vote

1)Sanandaji was refuting Michael Medved’s argument that the GOP had to go after the Hispanic vote and de-emphasize the white vote. In contrast to Medved’s claim that the white vote will be only at most 72% of the total electorate by 2012 (down from 73.4% in 2008)TS argues that with the present enmity to Obama from white voters it will be no surprise that WHITE turnout reaches over 75% in 2010 and 2012 and reach levels early in the 2000′s. In fact Chris Cillizza wrote that in 2006, the last midterm election, white voters made up 79% of the electorate.

2)Thus Obama did not win because of the Hispanic or for that matter an increased A/A vote but simply because about Obama increased the share of the conservative vote for the Democratic nominee to 20%, 1/3 higher than Kerry in 2004 and millions of white conservatives stayed home rather than vote for McCain who has never been considered a friend to conservatives.

3)So TS argues that the best strategy for the GOP is to increase WHITE turnout in 2010 and 2012 and increase the share of the white vote (McCain got 55% in 2008 while Obama got 43%), and with Obama presently sitting somewhere between 37%-38% approval among white voters in most polls, it is not inconceivable our side could garner 60% or more of the white vote in 2010 and 2012. And assuming even A/A and Latinos vote Democratic in the same proportion as 2008 (95% A/A, 66% Hispanic), our side would still win big.

4)And finally for 2012, the piece de resistance: Hispanic voters are concentrated in NON-BATTLEGROUND STATES. Only around 5% of BATTLEGROUND STATE VOTERS are Hispanic in 2008 compared to 81% who were non-Hispanic white.

Now this begs the question why is the GOP so gung ho to attract the Hispanic vote? Two words: political correctness.

technopeasant on July 31, 2010 at 5:26 PM

And I am positive the demrat8astards are fully aware and couldn’t care less as long as they are all guaranteed demrat voters.

csdeven on July 31, 2010 at 4:53 PM

I’m really sure at this hour that the Dems don’t have this nation’s interests in mind or heart. They’re interested in their party, their socio-political feedback loops (Goldman Sachs, Fannie/Freddie, Citi and other schemes whereby they “redirect wealth” to Demo donors and politicians), and Obama’s interested in “his” nation’s future, the one — the nation — he defines as himself. Thus, Dems (and Obama) are essentially pursuing an anti-American objective.

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 5:28 PM

4)And finally for 2012, the piece de resistance: Hispanic voters are concentrated in NON-BATTLEGROUND STATES. Only around 5% of BATTLEGROUND STATE VOTERS are Hispanic in 2008 compared to 81% who were non-Hispanic white.

Now this begs the question why is the GOP so gung ho to attract the Hispanic vote? Two words: political correctness.

technopeasant on July 31, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Excellent and informative post, technopeasant.

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 5:31 PM

If the feds would JUST enforce the current immigration laws, all would be well with the nation.

But the lying, seditious, corrupt, traitorous scum are gaily undermining the country and selling our future for a mess of money in their secret accounts and tons of sleazy power now.

Sweep out the slime and vote for those who love America.

A NATION WITOUT SECURE BORDERS IS LIKE A BODY WITHOUT SKIN.

profitsbeard on July 31, 2010 at 5:39 PM

profitsbeard on July 31, 2010 at 5:39 PM

America used to be governed by the RULE OF LAW that separated it from most nations on earth but with the Obama administration, these folks do NOT observe or enforce the RULE OF LAW but the LAW OF THE JUNGLE where they win and survive and we lose and perish and that includes all of Obama’s Leftist minions who now sit in courts as judges.

Our problem: not enough people on our side yet think we in a war of survival, that we either destroy the Left or they will eventually destroy us. There is no compromise with unadulterated evil. The Left is our enemy and we must treat them as so.

technopeasant on July 31, 2010 at 5:52 PM

A NATION WITHOUT SECURE BORDERS IS LIKE A BODY WITHOUT SKIN.

profitsbeard on July 31, 2010 at 5:39 PM

Touché

Obama’s administration works to disembody the nation and disembowel our citizenry. Dinner is served.

maverick muse on July 31, 2010 at 6:14 PM

There’s a big difference. Romney has not committed to an enforcement first position, he apparently wants “comprehensive reform” (amnesty) passed as soon as possible and is pressuring Lindsay Graham to deliver it for him. Whereas Palin says we should secure the border before even talking about allowing some illegals to stay and work.

Jon0815 on July 31, 2010 at 3:48 PM

McCain – Kyle – Flake – Graham AND ROMNEY are in this ‘fake em out’ together.

Repubs are using the “border secure first” bs in order to cajole Americans into accepting Amnesty {by any name.} The ‘birthright citizenship’ was just a bone to avoid…………..

CHAIN MIGRATION something these bums do NOT want out in the public conversation.
Approx 300 more people will be sponsored per every 2 Illegals. Actually, it’s INFINITE!!!

lilspitfire on July 31, 2010 at 6:50 PM

She is for allowing those who qualify to APPLY for WORK VISAS.

No, she is for allowing ILLEGAL ALIENS to APPLY for WORK VISAS, which will eventually lead to citizenship, as surely as night follows day.

Unless you send them home later. But if you can’t send them home now, how will you send them home later?

It’s amnesty bub. I’m sorry you cant understand.

rightwingyahooo on July 31, 2010 at 2:21 PM

You are clinically stupid!

AMNESTY
(granting illegals citizenship) and allowing them to apply for WORK VISAS are two quite different things moron.

Look, If it was up to me, and probably her, we’d round em all up and send em home, but realistically, that ain’t gonna happen. NEVER.

So what do you do? FIRST you secure the border, which is number one on Palin’s list too.

THEN you make is very tough on anyone who HIRES an illegal. I mean lose business tough if they are habitual. Make it a felon, where at some point business owners and managers can spend serious time in the federal hoosegow.

AFTER THAT
, you allow all of those illegals who have broken NO OTHER LAWS a chance to come forward, register and APPLY for WORK VISAS.
There won’t be any guarantees.

Remember, you have already made it a felony to hire one without a work visa, a felony that has mandatory prison time.

Those who don’t register by a certain date will be, when caught, jailed, then deported. Since you’ve closed the border, they ain’t coming back.

Oh, and make crossing the border illegally a felony as well.

Hell, under THOSE conditions, a large number of illegals will self deport.

That’s a REASONABLE plan stupid. One that’s workable.

What ever idiocy you have thought up won’t.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Lipliner isn’t the only thing Sarah has got tattooed! Day-um. Not work safe. /cautionextremesarc

bitsy on July 31, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Jeeze.

I’m sure you know this, but Sarah does NOT have lipliner tattooed on. That bullshit came from the sweathog bloggers in Alaska. The same ones who created the Trig troofer industry.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 9:26 PM

I agree with the word-parsing: that Palin isn’t “for amnesty”.

BUT, the parsing suggests duplicity there (or clouded message) what with the “working visas” support — that’s simply “a guest worker program”…

The COMPROMISES HAVE TO BE FIXED/REMEDIED FIRST, **THEN** promises made for “work visas” and whatnot. Until the loopholes are remedied in security, borders and illegal immigration, no “work visas” are ever going to modify or solve anything.

Honest people do things honestly — dishonest people do things dishonestly.

Illegal immigration, despite many sob stories, is essentially a problem of a lot of dishonest people determined to do things dishonestly. All the complaints about the nation, us, the Right, fairness, ‘rights’, whatever, by illegal aliens and the Left, just distracts people from reality…because the problem is the people engaged IN illegal immigration, which they will continue regardless of “work visas” for some or not. They’re not going to stop, the U.S. has to secure it’s self and better contend with hordes of dishonest people from wherever doing whatever they want to and can get away with.

I’d like to hear SOME people on the right in political careers start being frank about these big issues and knock off all these attempts to court-and-spark with inexact promises.

Lourdes on July 31, 2010 at 4:28 PM

You need to pay closer attention to Sarah then. She has been crystal clear on this deal. EVERYTHING is OFF THE TABLE, until the border is secure, COMPLETELY.

Hell, she was wearing REAGAN’S ass out the other night for falling for the deal he did. REAGAN!
I mean holy crap!

Look, if you haven’t figured out by now that Sarah Palin says EXACTLY what she means, and means EXACTLY what she says, then there is no hope for you, and you never will.

Like I stated above, there is no what you are gonna send 20 million people home at once. Absolutely no way.

The only thing you can do is have a very deliberate process they must go through in order to WORK. That’s NOT granting them citizenship. If they want THAT they have to leave the country, go to the back of the line and wait their turn.

If people want to work, and frankly, most of these people ARE hard workers, and there is a place for them, why not. Hell of a lot better than the alternative.

The key though, is a SECURE BORDER and laws that make employers live in fear if they hire illegals. After that, it’s all good.

Maybe I am different. I don’t HATE illegals. Man if I had to live in the $hithole countries they come from I’d be trying to escape as well.

I do however have a real problem with the communist agitators, and the lowlifes who sneak in and don’t respect our country. The ones who carry Mexican flags and refuse to speak English. The ones who talk about reconquista. They should be jailed as spies and either shot, or sent home.

The vast majority though are just people who want a better life. It’s just as much our fault for not being collectively pissed off years ago, and demanding this mess be fixed.

The ONLY workable solution for these people here, the ones who have broke no other laws, is to allow them to work, if there is a job for em.

This is better for them as well. Currently this situation is little more than slavery. They work for low wages, and have no rights as a worker. They are treated like $hit, and have no recourse.

No one, except the employers, wins.

Oh, and one other thing, illegals granted work visas would NOT be allowed to join labor unions, and any labor union caught signing them up would be immediately dissolved, and it’s assets taken. Prison time for union thugs could be optional.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 9:50 PM

You guys sure do fall hook, line and sinker for the lib media quoting anonymous sources. How about holding yourselves to a little bit higher standard and getting some proof before starting your hysterics?

JA on July 30, 2010 at 6:30 PM

I wonder how Palin people would feel if all of a sudden…politico started publishing articles from “unnamed sources” about Palin and that no one can verify the source or the veracity of the article…

Conservative Samizdat on July 31, 2010 at 10:04 PM

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 9:50 PM\

Pipe dream. You can’t have generations of second class citizens. Eventually they will be offered cit, and then you have 40 blue stats and nothing you can do about it.

What you propose is lunacy. No one believes you.

The only solution that will work and keep us free is to enforce current laws.

Palin said we will offer immigration reform. Wrong answer.

I like how hard you went to work on this, but you have failed. Tell your girl that people who take the oath of office must see the laws are faithfully executed.

rightwingyahooo on August 1, 2010 at 12:04 AM

I wonder how Palin people would feel if all of a sudden…politico started publishing articles from “unnamed sources” about Palin and that no one can verify the source or the veracity of the article…

Conservative Samizdat on July 31, 2010 at 10:04 PM

You’re joking, right?

ddrintn on August 1, 2010 at 12:37 AM

Like I stated above, there is no what you are gonna send 20 million people home at once. Absolutely no way.

gary4205 on July 31, 2010 at 9:50 PM

This is a tired old debate trick used by the Libs when they can’t come up with an actual argument.

The ploy is called the “false choice”.

This trick begs the question and then goes on to assert (with no justification whatsoever) that the alternative to doing the right thing (sealing the border) is doing an impossible thing (rounding up all the illegals at once).

Of course this is silly: there are many more effective alternatives. Arizona has already proved that the only thing necessary to rid the country of illegals is to turn off the magnets which draw them here!!! It’s happening on a large scale (300,000 self-deportees and counting) even before the new AZ law went into effect!! No need to “round up 20 million illegals”…just quit giving them jobs, welfare, licenses and government freebies and announce that you are going to enforce the law: they will voluntarily go to someplace else where life is easier for them.

And who really cares if the illegals “go home”? This is another “false choice”: we just need them to leave the US.

The Libs are also working hard to convince weak-kneed legislators that you either have to give illegals amnesty or you’re a racist. But this is yet another “false choice”.

landlines on August 1, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Reagan’s immigration policy was a mistake. CA is now blue because of it.

rightwingyahooo on July 30, 2010 at 9:34 PM

You should try to do a bit more reading…Reagan’s immigration policy was exactly what was needed at the time. He had all the necassary triggers in the bill to make it happen, and this was when there were 1/10 the amount of illegals’…he created a path, and it was reasonable.
What you article did not point out, Reagan had absolute promises from the dems that the bill would be retained, absolute assurances on record…then the dems (who controlled) gutted it and took out what was the “paths”.
Reagan stated “He would never trust the word of a democrat again”, and he stuck to that.
Read a little more history, rather then this little quote you found, and you will see a different story.
California (I ran a very large business at the time) would have resolved most all the problems we have now if the democrats would have held to their word.
It wasn’t Reagan, it was the democrats who destroyed California…

right2bright on August 1, 2010 at 7:30 AM

Let me add, Reagan’s solution was heavily embraced by the Hispanic community, they felt it was fair, equatable, and put them in a true “immigration” status.
That is what the dems feared most, Republicans winning the Hispanic vote.

right2bright on August 1, 2010 at 7:32 AM

landlines on August 1, 2010 at 1:26 AM

Excellent.

maverick muse on August 1, 2010 at 7:41 AM

I wonder how Palin people would feel if all of a sudden…politico started publishing articles from “unnamed sources” about Palin and that no one can verify the source or the veracity of the article…

Conservative Samizdat on July 31, 2010 at 10:04 PM

That has been the common reporting technique for Palin from day one…
Romney is a great guy, nice family man, intelligent, good business man, knows how to raise money from his friends, wealthy, good looking…and can’t get the voters to vote for him.
Great VP material, great cabinet material, but never a person for the number one slot…maybe in a liberal state like Mass, where he can “wiggle” around…but not as a conservative Republican, he just doesn’t connect with the voters, and he just hasn’t shown he is conservative enough.

right2bright on August 1, 2010 at 7:44 AM

I’ve heard “delegate responsibility” reference Reagan’s administrative style.

Get it in writing. Reagan knew that any “trust” on political agreements was illusive. He settled for his duration.

The Congressional immigration decision in the ’60s was meant to sweep the problem down the road, excusing their refusal to enforce law regarding illegal aliens as compassionate. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

maverick muse on August 1, 2010 at 7:54 AM

maverick muse on August 1, 2010 at 7:54 AM

Your post is confusing…Reagan’s bill was in the 80′s not the 60′s.
It was “in writing”, the dems “unwrote” it and withdrew funding.

right2bright on August 1, 2010 at 9:26 AM

http://bit.ly/c5J3pZ

Senator Lindsey Graham wants Immigration Overhaul next year.

The proof is in the pudding.

technopeasant on August 1, 2010 at 10:54 AM

The Sarah Palin bashing continues. Who really cares if she had or didn’t have a boob job or the other asinine remarks about a so called tattoed on lipline. The Country under Obama continues to deteriorate right before your eyes and concern is about her boobs. With the present slate of GOP possible candidates for the 2012 Presidential election, I am afraid that we will have Obama for another four years. Palin,Romney,Huckabee,Newt don’t have a chance in hell of winning. Romney is a weak candidate. When he teams up with L.Graham of SC- tells me that he is just another RINO.

flintstone on August 1, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Reagan’s immigration policy was exactly what was needed at the time. He had all the necassary triggers in the bill to make it happen, and this was when there were 1/10 the amount of illegals’…he created a path, and it was reasonable

And yet, if he hadn’t done it, and simple enforced the immigration laws, CA might not be a communist superstate, yes?

Sorry. Liberals crow about their intent, conservatives look at results.

Reagan was stung by a scorpion he expected to behave like a fly? That’s nobody’s fault but his.

rightwingyahooo on August 1, 2010 at 1:38 PM

You’re joking, right?

ddrintn on August 1, 2010 at 12:37 AM

I am serious.

If people don’t believe what “unnamed” sources said about Palin yet people are willing to believe what “unnamed” sources said about Romney…I have a problem with that.

Either you believe the credibility of the unnamed sources from a liberal press or you don’t. But you can’t reject unnamed sources for Palin and accept unnamed sources for Romney.

Conservative Samizdat on August 1, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Refer to my post at 10:54 AM

QED

Game, set, and match!

technopeasant on August 1, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Either you believe the credibility of the unnamed sources from a liberal press or you don’t. But you can’t reject unnamed sources for Palin and accept unnamed sources for Romney.

Conservative Samizdat on August 1, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Point out the post where I said I believed it or where I thought it was harmful. On the other hand, how many Romney supporters routinely repeat media memes that came from the same sort of “unnamed sources” and then delight in the fact that Palin is “damaged goods” due to the press savaging?

ddrintn on August 1, 2010 at 3:21 PM

You guys are really sifting the pepper for flysh*t on trying to figure out immigration positions. I have a much simpler method.

Romney was the gubenor of Massholechussetts. Therefore, he cannot be trusted on any given plank of the GOP platform. Broom him.

Palin supports Backdoor John McCain, aka ‘Captain Amnesty’. She cannot be trusted on immigration. Dump her as well.

Amnesty will benefit the GOP not at all; we’re handing votes to the Dems. You support a GOP politician who supports Amnesty, you might as well vote for Obama. All you’re doing is handing them power. It’s that simple. Either enforce the laws we have on the books, or just give up and let the tide wash over. This issue will change our country for good. At least pretend like you’re thinking about it.

austinnelly on August 1, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Looks like a lot of the Huff Post & Daily Kos people are now visiting Hot Air and they are bringing their venom with them.

flintstone on August 1, 2010 at 5:38 PM

If the R party goes along with amnesty I will never, ever, vote for another R again for the rest of my life.

FloatingRock on August 1, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Sen. Lindsey Graham made headlines last week, telling Fox News he’s considering a constitutional change to revise the right, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, that grants automatic citizenship to any child born in the United States. He would revoke this right for children of illegal immigrants.

Source.

We need to end birth right citizenship. Many people illegally come to America because they know that at least their kids become citizens.

By eliminating birthright citizenship, it will reduce one of the incentives for people to come here illegally.

Conservative Samizdat on August 2, 2010 at 12:52 AM

Romney is just another greasy, dirt-bag liar.

RomneyCare!

joshlbetts on August 2, 2010 at 11:13 AM

“I’m so sick of the stupid “if we act on immigration we’ll lose Latinos” meme. It’s simply not true”.

Most of us know that phrase is, or has been, a scare tactic (in the genre of labeling a person or group as racist) used by racialist elites and their sycophants to frighten the weak minded and give craven politicians and pundits cover.

And like the racist name-calling tactic, the power of those words have decreased significantly and are fading fast.

What these politicians really need to fear is the very real prospect of losing something far, far bigger and much more powerful.

We need to make it crystal clear that as undocumented immigration and CIR/amnesty are existential threats to our nation’s future, We will target vigorous and visible campaigns against any politician who votes for, who in any way, shape or form even appears to less than vigorously and earnestly campaign against CIR/amnesty.

And, if they want to know who We are, tell them to look at the polls on ‘undocumented immigration’…

DrDeano on August 3, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4