Time to cut a deal on immigration

posted at 9:41 am on November 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Has the time come to cut our losses on immigration reform and try to get what we can in a deal? In my column today at The Week, I argue that the prospect of another four years of divided governance in Washington means another four years of unsecured borders and a broken visa system without agreeing to compromise, which should be unacceptable to everyone.  Nearly a decade of waiting for total control and an insistence on a hard-line solution hasn’t brought us any closer to political victory, either:

Republicans have expressed considerable interest in moving forward now as a way to address their credibility deficit with Latino voters.  Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has already announced new bipartisan talks with New York Democrat Chuck Schumer. That has the GOP base worried that Republicans will cave on amnesty, especially without any enforcement at all. However, even those proposals that did come forward over the last few years had staged rollouts, which required  enforcement milestones before any kind of normalization started. The Schumer-Graham talks appear to be following the same pattern, at least according to National Journal report, which describes a four-part process: border security, revamping Social Security identification and verification along with employer penalties, starting a temporary worker program, with normalization left to the end.

That may still be anathema to the GOP base, but it’s becoming clear that the base’s approach won’t work. The insistence on demanding nothing but the hardline approach creates big problems for the nation and the GOP itself. First, the issue of border security has been left in limbo for more than 11 years after 9/11, and more than seven years after the 9/11 Commission rightly demanded better security on both borders, and the broken visa program that offers no follow-up on expired entries. If we continue to punt rather than compromise, we will be left waiting for at least four more years to get any kind of solution.

Plus, continued obstruction means that immigration reform will continue to hang around the GOP’s neck like an albatross. Hardliners argue that a Republican compromise won’t convince Latinos to shift to the Republican Party, and they’re correct in the short run. However, it’s difficult to make the kind of free-market and family values pitches that might make some serious inroads with Latino voters when Republican candidates and activists talk about deportations — self-initiated or otherwise — of family, friends, and others within their communities. That conversation has lasted far too long, and it has caused significant damage.

Frankly, I’m more concerned about the border issue than winning Hispanic voters at this point.  We’ve been fortunate so far that we haven’t had more infiltration than we’ve seen across either border, but that good fortune won’t last forever.  We need to address both that and the visa system that doesn’t produce any follow-up on violators.  We have waited since 2007 to win back control of Washington to win a solution on our terms rather than a compromise that would both pass more quickly and spread the political risk.

Now that we’ve lost the presidential election, we won’t have that opportunity for another four years.  We still have the House, though, and that gives us leverage to insist on prioritizing border security and visa reform ahead of normalization for those illegal aliens in the US.  In two years, on the current trajectory, we may not even have that much, and there is no guarantee that a Republican will win the presidency in 2016, either.  If we continue to punt on border security over an insistence that 11 million people will have to leave the country in order to stay here, we risk losing any influence over the solution with another bad electoral cycle.

Will that win Hispanic voters?  Not in the short run, as I note in my column.  Ramesh Ponnuru makes a good point in his column today at Bloomberg:

Republican views on immigration, and the way they express those views, must play a role in how poorly Republicans do with Hispanics. Republicans haven’t found a way to reassure conservative voters that the country will respect the rule of law without also making Hispanics think that the party is hostile to them. A way out of this predicament doesn’t immediately suggest itself.

Even if a solution were found, though, the growing number of Hispanic voters would continue to mean trouble for Republicans. Hispanics are disproportionately poor and uninsured. And like people of other races in similar situations, they tend to have views on economic policy that align with the Democrats. In California, for example, Hispanics helped get Democratic GovernorJerry Brown’s tax increases approved on Election Day. A Republican Party that is associated with repealing Obama’s health-care legislation — and not with any alternative plan to get people health insurance — is going to get trounced among these voters.

Public support for same-sex marriage has risen a lot, among young people especially, and the Republican Party will have to soften its opposition to it. Again, though, there is an economic dimension to the party’s trouble. Young people are also less economically secure than the middle-aged and the retired who vote Republican more frequently. That has to play a role in the way they vote. What have Republicans up and down the ticket offered to address the concerns of economically stressed young people? A vague promise to create more jobs; an entitlement reform that, even viewed charitably, would do nothing for them here and now.

The long-term solution to winning Hispanic voters is economics, without a doubt.  But as one Hispanic Republican from Arizona wrote yesterday, these voters won’t listen to the economic pitch while the party insists on hard-line solutions that will negatively impact their communities by deportation, self-initiated or otherwise:

Growing up my father (a Mexican national) taught me the importance of having three basic priorities that should govern my life. These priorities were to always place God first, family second, and work/school third above everything else. After the spanking the Republicans  received this last election day, it seems as if we as a party could benefit from considering these priorities, especially when it comes to the family.  I understand that not every Hispanic person is the same, nor is every Mexican American for that matter. But I do believe that these priorities are important and relatable to the Hispanic and Latino community. While the GOP tends to do a great job at defending religious liberty and is the most active in the defense of the unborn, it seems to neglect one of the most important priorities – family and fails miserably at communicating the third – work/education.

If Republicans wish to gain back the support of the Latino vote, especially that of the Mexican Americans in many southwestern states, then we need to end the rhetorical attacks on their families. Hispanics are not going to vote for any candidate whom they  think is going to deport their abuelita or go after their parents, husbands or wives.  They also will not support candidates of a party who want to end birthright citizenship. If we are to be the party of family values which I believe we are, then we must let go of our rhetoric and reach out in good faith to work towards some form of immigration reform just as George W. Bush tried to do. Conservatives seem to think and fear that Hispanics are inherently liberal. I disagree. The Democratic party does not hold our values; but neither do they pander to the immigration enforcement only crowd as republicans tend to do. I am not calling for open borders or lax enforcement. I am suggesting that we use our enforcement resources on the border and go after the criminals and the cartels, meanwhile, finding a humane way to keep families united and help build a better future for America and the Republican Party. When the Republicans finally embrace pro-family policies and cease the rhetoric that has been perceived as anti-Hispanic, then the door will be opened for further dialogue.

We have a limited window for an immigration reform package that addresses the most pressing conservative concerns of national security and regulatory reform.  Waiting another four years and hoping that Democrats disappear from power is not a strategy that is likely to bring us closer to success on those issues.  While we still have a seat at the table, we need to get immigration reform resolved and off the table so that we can start addressing economic policies — and give voters an opening to listen.

Addendum: Bear in mind that while we’ve waited for years to impose our own solution to this issue, all of the attendant problems of a porous border and failed visa program continue to accrue.  Shall we wait through four more years of that?

Update: I’m seeing various forms of comments like this: “I think a lot of this emanates from the unspoken fear of an Obama second term and its ramifications for conservative blogs…”  Like I responded in the comments, that can only come from an ignorance of practically everything I’ve ever written on this issue.  I have always had a borders-and-visas-first, all-else-is-negotiable position on immigration reform.  The reason I’m writing this now … again … is that our window for even getting that much is closing.


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 4 5 6

But I didn’t say anything about regulations, let alone insist that your actions be regulated to protect others.

Nice straw man.

Dante on November 13, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Then I’m going to dam the river and sell you the water. Because that’s a free market. How will you stop me?

AJsDaddie on November 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Do-gooders on both sides want to interfere with the natural progress that the free market creates.

updog on November 13, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Here is where your “logical” argument and others fall apart…

You may be right to say not to interfere, at one time our nation was built on exactly the same thing…however, our companies are now competing with those others that allow conditions we do not condone, in fact have laws against (not true a hundred years ago, the global economy was minimal compared to today)…

So our companies are at a huge disadvantage, and add to that that the countries know that and leverage it even more.

So we buy from countries with work standard we would never allow our companies to have, thus we are “taxing” or regulating our companies out of the competitive arena.

We allow China to pollute, and sell products…we don’t allow our manufacturing to pollute, therefore not sell products because the cost of production is so much greater.

Free market? Great, but we either force other countries to have like companies follow our regulations, or we give up our regulations and let the free market flow…

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 2:58 PM

This artyicle can be summed up as “Surrender! Surrender!! Surrender!!! I have not yet begun to surrender!

VorDaj on November 13, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Free market? Great, but we either force other countries to have like companies follow our regulations, or we give up our regulations and let the free market flow…

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 2:58 PM

That’s it exactly. And Dante is all for letting the free market flow! No more regulation! No protections! Everybody works shoulder to shoulder in the great Anarchist Paradise!

AJsDaddie on November 13, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Amnesty of any sort cements the Democrat party into power for many decades. The idea that Republicans can out-democrat the Democrats to gain enough votes to be significant is not sane – it is desperation of the most cowardly sort.

Do we, as a nation of free people, still have the unalienable rights to self-determination and to form and maintain a sovereign nation? Do we have the right to establish our Constitution govern that nation by the laws that flow from it?

With all due respect, “the Hispanic vote” is only an issue because of illegal immigrants having children here who grew up to have their votes be organized by leftist, Democrat community activists, aided and abetted by Democrat and Republican business interests that benefit monetarily from cheap labor pools.

Tell me, why is it wrong to expect citizens of foreign nations to respect our rights as a sovereign nation of people? And why is right to give in to illegal-immigration extortion?

Affirmative action tells some Americans to step aside and let others pass. With “amnesty” soon my son will have to step aside for someone who *chose* to violate the laws of our sovereign nation and so violate the human rights of Americans, including him.

Is that just? Is that right?

I live in California, born and raised here. I worked for six years as a teen in the orchards of the Central Valley side-by-side with immigrant workers, both legal and not. I found them by and large to be good, hard-working people.

But it is also true that there are lots of good, hard-working people who want to come and live here and will do so without violating our nation and our rights.

If it is immigrants we want, let’s make it easier for them to come here. If is it just votes and the money and power those bring, let’s “compromise” and aid and abet the coming amnesty.

DrDeano on November 13, 2012 at 3:04 PM

That’s it exactly. And Dante is all for letting the free market flow! No more regulation! No protections! Everybody works shoulder to shoulder in the great Anarchist Paradise!

AJsDaddie on November 13, 2012 at 3:00 PM

“Libertarian’s” always look good on paper, but it doesn’t work, because at some time, liberties have to be curtailed…the right to own a company and pollute the river is “liberty”, or the right to store harmful bio products on your land without any safeguards…than when the “owners” die off, or dissolve the business, the land is sacrificed for generations because of “liberty”?

We allow our businesses to fold up and bankrupt, while promoting other businesses in other lands to pollute and use child labor…so our “sacrifice” of profits and our economy goes to countries without those values…and that is called “free market”?

It’s more complex than to say “I believe in free markets”…

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Someone tell Ed that every border security/amnesty deal has meant more amnesty and less security. It won’t work. Democrats will just ignore and not enforce the law. What makes you think this will change? A deal has to have two honest participants. This only has one. Wake up and smell the enchiladas.

gitarfan on November 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Yup. It’s funny how quickly every anarchist is all about complete freedom up until the time you take away their stuff. Then they’re all about “not denying someone’s rights” meaning of course their rights.

Because as soon as you stop someone’s behavior based on your definition of property rights, faux Libertarians like Dante leap right over Conservatism and straight into Statism, except they get to be the State because they get to define what is and isn’t “natural property rights”.

AJsDaddie on November 13, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Wow. This is one ignorant post, but at least you’re consistent in your ignorance. Keep building those straw men.

Dante on November 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

“Libertarian’s” always look good on paper, but it doesn’t work, because at some time, liberties have to be curtailed…the right to own a company and pollute the river is “liberty”, or the right to store harmful bio products on your land without any safeguards…than when the “owners” die off, or dissolve the business, the land is sacrificed for generations because of “liberty”?

We allow our businesses to fold up and bankrupt, while promoting other businesses in other lands to pollute and use child labor…so our “sacrifice” of profits and our economy goes to countries without those values…and that is called “free market”?

It’s more complex than to say “I believe in free markets”…

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Here’s AJs’ example of someone jumping straight to Statism and tyranny. Take note that it isn’t the libertarian doing so.

Dante on November 13, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Then I’m going to dam the river and sell you the water. Because that’s a free market. How will you stop me?

AJsDaddie on November 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM

But that isn’t the free market. I wonder why you insist on ignoring all of my responses to your questions and instead choose to build straw men?

Dante on November 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM

We allow China to pollute, and sell products…we don’t allow our manufacturing to pollute, therefore not sell products because the cost of production is so much greater.

Free market? Great, but we either force other countries to have like companies follow our regulations, or we give up our regulations and let the free market flow…

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Really? We, a sovereign nation, “allow” another sovereign nation to do something?

Look at you arguing against the free market, arguing that liberties must be controlled and restricted by the state, and arguing that we should use force against other countries.

These are not the words of a conservative; these are the words of a statist.

Dante on November 13, 2012 at 3:24 PM

I’m seeing various forms of comments like this: “I think a lot of this emanates from the unspoken fear of an Obama second term and its ramifications for conservative blogs…” Like I responded in the comments, that can only come from an ignorance of practically everything I’ve ever written on this issue. I have always had a borders-and-visas-first, all-else-is-negotiable position on immigration reform. The reason I’m writing this now … again … is that our window for even getting that much is closing.

Ed, Some hardliners just do not like being told they were wrong. The thing is Bush got 44% of the hispanic vote, Mitt Romney got 27%. That is a big decline in 8 years. Now some conservatives say that hispanics are all liberal anyway, but look at the Cubans in Florida. They still voted for Romney in big numbers. I think I read that the numbers were 58 for Romney and 42 for Obama.

Maybe Republicans will never get the majority of the hispanic votes in the rest of the country…but they do not need to go out of their way to alienate an entire demographic, especially when they do not have the political power to force through the kind of policies they want. If we do not get a decent compromise now, the Democrats could very easily come up with something that does not require compromise.. And if that happens, Republicans will probably never get the hispanic vote. It will be like the black vote.

Terrye on November 13, 2012 at 3:26 PM

But that isn’t the free market. I wonder why you insist on ignoring all of my responses to your questions and instead choose to build straw men?

Dante on November 13, 2012 at 3:21 PM

My point is how do you enforce your so-called “free” market? By relying on the kind and beneficent nature of the human animal? When there are no laws, each man is his own law. When there is no regulation, the strong regulate all.

AJsDaddie on November 13, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Look at you arguing against the free market, arguing that liberties must be controlled and restricted by the state, and arguing that we should use force against other countries.

These are not the words of a conservative; these are the words of a statist.

Dante on November 13, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Conservative: another word you don’t know the meaning of. It does NOT mean libertarian. Conservatives believe in the Constitution, something you evidently would rather get rid of.

AJsDaddie on November 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM

If we do not get a decent compromise now, the Democrats could very easily come up with something that does not require compromise.. And if that happens, Republicans will probably never get the hispanic vote. It will be like the black vote.

Terrye on November 13, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Been there. Done that. 1986.

Give me the borders I was supposed to get then, and we can talk. Until then, forget it.

AJsDaddie on November 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM

If they won’t secure the border now why will they do it post amnesty?
They won’t, so NO!

ncjetsfan on November 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM

My prescription for what ails the GOP is to moderate on the social issues. If you could close the gender gap with female voters the GOP would be unbeatable.

BradTank on November 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM

The gender gap was widened by MSM. George Stephanopolous started the theme (probably in conjunction with the White House or the Obama campaign team) at the NH GOP primary debate.

How can the GOP be dumb enough to agree to Stephanopolous as a moderator? The GOP had far too many promary debates, which provided MSM and the Dems to use against them.

bw222 on November 13, 2012 at 4:31 PM

If we do not get a decent compromise now, the Democrats could very easily come up with something that does not require compromise.. And if that happens, Republicans will probably never get the hispanic vote. It will be like the black vote.

Terrye on November 13, 2012 at 3:26 PM

It’s not about amnesty Terrye. It’s about free stuff. Who supported civil rights legislation in the 1960s? The GOP. Which party’s President signed off on the 1986 amnesty? The GOP; and Bush41 received a smaller percentage of the Hispanic vote in 1988 than Ford did in 1976.

Unless the GOP rivals the Dems in providing entitlements, it will never be competitive in getting Hispanic or black votes. If the GOP does that, it has no reason to exist. The sooner people like you realize that, the better.

bw222 on November 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Okay,okay, okay…I’m trying to figure out how I need to go about making choices in this new world order.

If I vote for Democrats, I’m going to get proposals I don’t like…and if I vote for Republicans I’m going to get proposals I don’t like…but if I don’t vote for Republicans, like the Latinos, …I’ll get more of what I want.

I got it now.

lynncgb on November 13, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Can we treat all laws this loosely?

tom daschle concerned on November 13, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Can we treat all laws this loosely?

tom daschle concerned on November 13, 2012 at 4:48 PM

It depends. Does the law presuppose the old moral code, or the new one?

Axe on November 13, 2012 at 4:54 PM

That’s what I intend to ask my members of Congress.

Cindy Munford on November 13, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Can we treat all laws this loosely?

tom daschle concerned on November 13, 2012 at 4:48 PM

With a big enough team of lobbyists in Washington you can do anything in this great nation… I think it’s called American exceptionalism. The law can be written to apply to everyone except you.

BoxHead1 on November 13, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Ed, this is NOT about immigration. It’s about the gravy train. Republicans gained nothing after the Reagan amnesty. And they’ll gain nothing after this one either. It’s about the NANNY STATE.

Murf76 on November 13, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Can we treat all laws this loosely?

tom daschle concerned on November 13, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Obviously an inadvertent Rorschach Test. :)

Axe on November 13, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Really? We, a sovereign nation, “allow” another sovereign nation to do something?

Look at you arguing against the free market, arguing that liberties must be controlled and restricted by the state, and arguing that we should use force against other countries.

These are not the words of a conservative; these are the words of a statist.

Dante on November 13, 2012 at 3:24 PM

I would never think or assume that someone like you could take a quote in the context it was given and understand it…and I was correct.

They can do whatever the “sovereign nation” wants to do, that was not the point…the point being that “free trade” is not “free” if we don’t have a level playing field…if we demand from our companies to be “clean” than we should demand that from other companies so ours is not at a disadvantage.

If we say we reject the philosophy of child labor, than why would we promote it by buying from companies that do it…we don’t allow our companies to exploit, and thus make more profit, so encourage others so they can make a profit and drive us out of business…child labor, pollution, safety, lighting, rest facilities, workers rights, equal opportunity, OSHA, etc., all hamper us.

Karl Marx was a proponent of the “free market”, so don’t be so secure in your belief of a free market, their are other things to consider…but I don’t have time to further educate you…

“But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade”

If you are for a “free market” make sure you have your reasons in order, and not just throw out some bumper sticker comment.

You are welcome, my pleasure to help you understand a little better of something you are woefully unprepared to discuss intelligently.

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 5:18 PM

The thing is Bush got 44% of the hispanic vote, Mitt Romney got 27%. That is a big decline in 8 years.

Terrye on November 13, 2012 at 3:26 PM

You cherry picked our best year with Dems. How bout the fact we only goy 21% in 1996 with Bob Dole. Why did that happen? Hey, we added 6% in the last 16 years……we are making progress. See how that cherry picking works.

And McCain was pro amnesty and got only 4% more then Romney.

Here is what most conservatives understand. The DEM getting 71% of 11% is better then the DEM getting 67% of 18%. Giving illegals voting rights will eventually end the Republican party.

Also, border security? What kind of border security are we talking about? A big fence from coast to coast? Then atleast we can talk. Because a fence is permanent and tough to beat if built properly. The crap we are already doing now that can be easily removed? Bull crap. Thats not border security. Thats just more illusion of accomplishment.

I have no problem with work visas or some other temporary compliance that makes illegals legal. They just can’t EVER vote.

KMav on November 13, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I truly don’t understand why Conservatives are always branded the bad guys on issues like this. You come into this country illegally and you get deported and the cry is we’re separating families. No responsiblity for the law breakers. Conservative politicians need to start fighting this with facts. For every illegal Grandma Gingich is worried, they need to cite statistics for crime victims by people who should not even be here to begin with. For every “hard working, law abiding undocumented immigrant” story they need to throw out the stats of those hard working American citizens who aren’t working because their job was taken by an illegal alien. For every family allegedly torn apart by deportation, list the stats of those who have had their identities stolen. For every poor “undocumented immigrant” make a list of all those who overstay their visas and the trouble they cause -the 9/11 terrorists come to mind. This is ridiculous. We aren’t wrong here and to award illegal behavior is only going to encourage more of it. What happens when the illegals are given a path to citizenship? Then they need to be paid on the books at minimum wage with all the benefits. So they’ll be a new round of illegal immigrants to do the work off the books.
We need to close the dang border, pass e-verify and then talk about how those still here illegally can get to the end of the line like everyone else.

hopeful on November 13, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Here is what most conservatives understand. The DEM getting 71% of 11% is better then the DEM getting 67% of 18%. Giving illegals voting rights will eventually end the Republican party.

KMav on November 13, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I don’t get your figures…71% of 11 is 7.81, 67% of 18 is 12.1…what am I missing?

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Hell ya, let ‘em all in, who cares . . . in ten years this country will just be the northern most province of Mexico. This is what the fools voted for so bring it on.

rplat on November 13, 2012 at 5:47 PM

More from the resident surrendercrat at Hot Gas. Sorry Mr. Morrissey, the window closed on Nov 6th. We have laws, either enforce them, or you are surrendering. With Cryin’ John Boner, you won’t get anything acceptable.

Quartermaster on November 13, 2012 at 6:10 PM

‘Cutting a deal’ on immigration is a bad, bad idea. It’s an ‘albatross’ only because the Dems hung it on us, and we are too clueless to get rid of it.

WE are not the reason for the gridlock. The Democrats refuse to give in on border enforcement, and have made us the scapegoat.

We will not reap the Hispanic vote by caving in, any more than we were able to reap the black vote in the ’60s by doing the right thing on Civil Rights law.

Give in on this, and in 2-3 election cycles US will effectively have 1 party rule. Look at California. I lived there for 10 years – and this is exactly why I moved to SC. My voice was completely drowned out by the tidal wave of illegal immigration and the politicians pandering to it.

For whatever good it will do, I’m calling my Senator (Grahamnesty) tomorrow to remind him that he’s up for re-election, and that it’s not eternal glory he’ll reap but eternal shame if he lets Schumer have his way on this issue.

SCsteve on November 13, 2012 at 6:12 PM

I don’t get your figures…71% of 11 is 7.81, 67% of 18 is 12.1…what am I missing?

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Its 11% or 18% of 120 million overall national voters.

Which is either 13.2 or 21.6 million Latino’s
voters depending on whether illegals are given the right to vote.

We lose by an extra 7+ million votes nationally if the DEMS get 67% of 21.6 million Latinos instead of 71% of 13.2 million.

Do you wish to lose by and additional 7 million plus votes? Do you wish to lose by 9% nationally instead of 3% like we just did? Give illegals the right to vote and that is what likely will happen.

But hey, we will get that extra 4% Latino vote. Yay.

KMav on November 13, 2012 at 6:18 PM

KMav on November 13, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Just like a liberal, you’re scoring things statically and not dynamically.

The line we’ve taken against illegals is what’s making them and anyone sympathetic to their plight turn away from us. The Democrats are professional race baiters and we’re handing them a club to beat us with. Get immigration handled and we take that away from them. Turn illegals into taxpayers and send them the bill for Obamacare and see what they think of the Democrat Party message then.

alchemist19 on November 13, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Take that away and they find something else. BTW, we took that away already once in 1986 and we lost an even larger percentage of Latinos in 1988.

If you think we will ever get near 50% ever again with the new media bias, especially with hispanic TV you are not too bright. Its similar to how we have lost the black vote, only not quite as extreme.

It should be about cutting the damage down. Give them their humanity. Food and jobs, the reason they came here. But don’t give them the vote. EVER!

KMav on November 13, 2012 at 6:31 PM

What else can the Republican party roll over on? How about this darned Second Amendment? Maybe they can win an election if they roll over and take the Bloomberg position to ban weapons.

Let’s compromise on taxes. Since our poster child for everything Conservative (at least for the second half of this year) Mitt Romney lost, perhaps it is time for the GOP to embrace the Obama idea of raising taxes on small business owners. Yeah, that will get some Hispanic votes.

With guys like you and Bill Kristol holding up the platform, the GOP will go far.

Inignort on November 13, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Here’s a few logic questions for you, Ed:

If you were a Hispanic and you saw an entire party cynically flip-flop purely to acquire more votes, rather than truly “reach out”, do you think they wouldn’t feel even more insulted?

Do you assume Hispanics do not read yours and other punditocracy musings? Or that the D-Rats somehow did not anticipate this move? “Hey, let’s Hispander for some “long-term” gains. BTW, act natural about it. Double BTW, don’t tell the media or any Democrats you know about what we’re up to.”

If the Alynskite Democrats told the Hispanics that the GOP are merely Hispander-ing and will sell them out on everything from welfare to amnesty once they got the votes they need, do you think they will believe them or you?

Finally: aren’t you amongst the experts that so expertly unskewed those polls, or something? How did that work out?

BTW, the “hard-line” stance on immigration you bemoan has:
-Held the line on all sorts of liberal multi-kulti, including bilingual education
-Forced most of the open-borders crowd like Voto Latino to give in to some sort of security increase (or at least be more public about wanting “Reconquista”)
-Kept the neoliberals from destroying the country more than they already have
You’re welcome.

smiley on November 13, 2012 at 6:50 PM

The gender gap was widened by MSM. George Stephanopolous started the theme (probably in conjunction with the White House or the Obama campaign team) at the NH GOP primary debate.

How can the GOP be dumb enough to agree to Stephanopolous as a moderator? The GOP had far too many promary debates, which provided MSM and the Dems to use against them.

bw222 on November 13, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Because the GOP will betray you

True_King on November 13, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Has the time come to cut our losses on immigration reform and try to get what we can in a deal?

No.

Lourdes on November 13, 2012 at 7:01 PM

More logic questions, this one around, heh, “outreach”:

More so than any blogger here, you were hard on the Ronulans and Ron Paul, especially during the primaries. Like much of the GOP establishment, they were effectively sneered at as much as the Hispanics apparently were. Yet there’s no outreach them, and they are much more likely to vote “R” than poor Hispanics and illegals that have been Boss Ruled and on welfare for years.

If we are in the outreaching mood, why not the Ronulans?
Who else does the GOP need to outreach to? Public unions? Big Government/statist environmentalists (very popular with young voters)? Centrists?

What about the black vote? I see one commentary after another out there from the black community furious that the GOP essentially passed them over to Hispander. That is one serious diss, I might add.
Blacks voted 95% with the D-Rats. There’s no need for any outreach at all here?

smiley on November 13, 2012 at 7:02 PM

If a deal is struck to gain voters, that’s one thing. But why would one believe that a deal would lead to actual enforcement of the border?

rlyle on November 13, 2012 at 9:44 AM

The GOP **WON’T** gain voters, not of any volume or number, EVEN IF they agree to an amnesty for illegal aliens.

It’ll simply be rationalized by those promoting it that somehow the GOP will “gain” whatever but it won’t ever happen, the amnesty may get rammed through but there won’t be any “gain” for the GOP if it does AND the nation will only flounder worse than now.

**IF** the GOP is serious about the economy, they’ll oppose any amnesty. Amnesty will only harm our economy more than it has been harmed already — it will ONLY result in more votes for the Dems, more illegal aliens afterward and another huge burst in crime related to both, just as history has already shown us will happen.

This is madness to even consider amnesty for illegal aliens.

I also note the entirely ethnic-defined rationalization by those who are pushing for amnesty. It’s all defined as something “Hispanic” or “Latino”. It’s an ethnic supremacy movement, this amnesty idea, it pleases Obama to see our nation harmed farther thna it has been and it’s a corruption of just about all the values in our Constitution, has nothing to do with the integrity of immigration and is all about a Hispanic ethnic supremacy movement. Which means it’s wrong, it’s ugly, it’s a disgusting idea when examined more closely than the lies we’re being told daily to try and sell the idea.

No border will ever be “sealed”. Politicians claiming that’ll happen are lying. No increase in security will ever happen in conjunction with an increase in amnesty — the two things are antithetical to one another.

The GOP will get one thing if they agree to pass an amnesty: they’ll lose more voters than they have already.

Lourdes on November 13, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Someone explain to me, please, why the US needs more “Hispanics” and “Latinos”.

I ask this because this idea of “amnesty” is ALWAYS some compromise this nation is told to make to appease “Hispannics” and/or “Latinos”.

So it’s an ethnic supremacy movement by that generalized ethnicity, in it’s name and for it’s own.

I look around, even nationwide, and see no shortage of “hispanics” and/or “Latinos”. One-third of Mexico’s (a Hispanic ethnicity by majority) adult population is already in the US, so what’s “fair”? Three-quarters of them? I don’t see any need for the US to somehow bring in more of that general ethnicity, I mean, what’s with the idea of a specific ethnicity anyway, in any context other than an emergency save of some people suffering political doom from some troubled country. Just to indulge an ethnicity’s demands for increased numbers based on their ethnicity and only that is just wrong and contrary to what the US is meant to be.

Lourdes on November 13, 2012 at 7:12 PM

And what South, Central and Latin America in general want is a removal of border restrictions to enter the US. So does China. So does Islam. What’s wanted is some sort of “ask no questions” policy by the US for them and theirs.

So they manufacture ploys by which they continue to leverage our laws and conditions and the public’s hearts. But it’s for exploitive reasons.

Lourdes on November 13, 2012 at 7:15 PM

The only way this would work is if we started turning all those Catholic hispanics into values voters.

That way either they’ll vote GOP to stop gay marriage and abortion or the Dems will wall-up the border themselves.

Mr Snuggle Bunny on November 13, 2012 at 9:49 AM

It will never happen. They are Socialists first and Catholics when the ceremony requires them to be.

They’ll always by high majority vote Leftwing just as Blacks do now. For Hispanics by majority, they’re Socialists first, then Catholics for special occasions. They’ll never by high numbers vote for the GOP because they “believe” that the DNC “cares about them” and that the GOP “doesn’t”.

By “caring about them,” they mean, they’ll get more stuff from the Dems, which is why they vote for them.

Lourdes on November 13, 2012 at 7:19 PM

I’d vote for amnesty if the proponents lived on the border.

Strange thing is, none of them seem to.

CorporatePiggy on November 13, 2012 at 7:23 PM

The trouble with these agreements is that they are always front loaded with lots of illegals and never get to the security measures or streamlining and prioritizing immigration reform issues.

Let the liberals make an offer, a four year ladder of promises and when they are achieved then check them off. The deal for illegals who came here as children, before 2012, can be conditional only on achieving the yearly goals. Conservatives get to write the list, liberals have to make it work.

Show us the fences. Show us the new rules, and everify, and tracking down people who overstay their visas. No actual rewards for immigrants until year four. It’s an election year? all the more reason to complete it on time.

The Obama administration is HORRID on keeping up with the rules and orders themselves, they will never get the border secure and the criminals out of here in time for their deal, they are so inefficient and tardy.

Fleuries on November 13, 2012 at 7:36 PM

This says it all and does so very well:

November 13, 2012 3:00 A.M.
The Latino-Vote Obsession
The GOP is right to worry, but the wrong solution would be worse than none.
By Victor Davis Hanson

Lourdes on November 13, 2012 at 7:37 PM

The opium wars were fought because the British wanted to pay for Chinese goods with cheap opium from India, and the Chinese considered that a really bad idea. You got your bad guys (in this case) mixed up.

Mu on November 13, 2012 at 2:40 PM

I was being sarcastic. I don’t normally consider Chinese bad guys. If I did I probably wouldn’t be living in China.

DarkCurrent on November 13, 2012 at 7:59 PM

It will never happen. They are Socialists first and Catholics when the ceremony requires them to be.

Lourdes on November 13, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Same as Jews.

bw222 on November 13, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Someone tell Ed that every border security/amnesty deal has meant more amnesty and less security. It won’t work. Democrats will just ignore and not enforce the law. What makes you think this will change? A deal has to have two honest participants. This only has one. Wake up and smell the enchiladas.

gitarfan

Ed knows it won’t work. He doesn’t care. He’s a shill for the GOP.

Ed, Some hardliners just do not like being told they were wrong. The thing is Bush got 44% of the hispanic vote, Mitt Romney got 27%.

TerryE

And John McAmnesty McCain got 31%. Bush 1, who was part of the administration that GAVE THEM AMNESTY got 31% and 25%. Maybe us hardliners are attached to reality, unlike people like you who are reduced to using outlier data that occurred ONCE in the history of the country to prove your point while ignoring every other piece of data in the history of the country that shows you are WRONG. It’s the same kind of stupid arguments the left uses for things like global warming, or the magical Clinton tax rates. Speaking of which, I guess we need to cave on those too, right?

And here’s the ultimate kicker for you morons….even if we pretend there is support to be gotten from passing amnesty, Obama, a DEMOCRAT, is president right now. If we pass amnesty, who the hell do you think is going to get credit for it, solidifying their support amongst Hispanics forever? The democrat party, geniuses.

If we do not get a decent compromise now, the Democrats could very easily come up with something that does not require compromise.. And if that happens, Republicans will probably never get the hispanic vote. It will be like the black vote.

Terrye

Newsflash…even if we get a decent compromise, they can STILL do that, and they will. We got a “decent” compromise in 1986, and yet, here we are. You folks are as dumb as the left. And I don’t say that lightly.

xblade on November 13, 2012 at 8:04 PM

And what South, Central and Latin America in general want is a removal of border restrictions to enter the US. So does China. So does Islam.

Lourdes on November 13, 2012 at 7:15 PM

They all want free stuff. Muslims are the group least likely to assimilate and most likely to cause the biggest headaches. Look at Britain and France.

bw222 on November 13, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Same as Jews.

bw222

\

Perfect example. The left hates Jews. Obama sat in an anti-Semitic church for 20 years, and despises Israel more than any president ever has. He still got 70% of the Jewish vote.

Speaking of Obama, he spent the last couple of years BRAGGING about deporting more illegal immigrants than anyone, and pretended to be a real hard-liner on illegal immigrants. Did he lose the Hispanic vote? No.

xblade on November 13, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Weak post, even by Republican standards.

james23 on November 13, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Just like a liberal, you’re scoring things statically and not dynamically.

The line we’ve taken against illegals is what’s making them and anyone sympathetic to their plight turn away from us. The Democrats are professional race baiters and we’re handing them a club to beat us with. Get immigration handled and we take that away from them. Turn illegals into taxpayers and send them the bill for Obamacare and see what they think of the Democrat Party message then.

alchemist19

And just like a liberal, you score things in fantasy land, and your solution is stupid. Democrats have clubs to beat us with because we believe in different things, genius. Maybe we should take that tax increase club from them too, and cave. Maybe we should take that global warming club away from them and cave. Maybe we should take that gay marriage club away from them and cave. Maybe we should take all their clubs away, and just cave on whatever they want.

xblade on November 13, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Weak post, even by Republican standards.

james23

Pfft. Truth sucks, doesn’t it?

xblade on November 13, 2012 at 8:26 PM

If you think that giving a minimum of 11 million people amnesty will satisfy the open borders lobbies, you are dreaming. Please don’t offer to capitulate without doing your homework on this issue. I have fought illegal immigration for the past 10 years. I switched from Democrat to Republican for this very reason. The GOP will lose millions of its base for whom this is THE issue for them and they will fail to win many Hispanic votes to replace the loss.

Every few years some wishful thinkers in the GOP think that amnesty would be a good idea. But as always, the devil is in the details. The last Kennedy/McCain amnesty proposal allowed a mere 24 hours for criminal background checks on applicants. If the background check wasn’t completed within that time frame, the application was approved by default. Gang members only had to sign an affidavit that they had renounced their gang membership.

And as far as I’m concerned, the most poisonous consequence of any amnesty is that it leads to chain migration. Let me quote from http://www.numbersusa.com: “Until the late 1950s, America’s immigration tradition of family unity had only included spouses and minor children. But since then, immigrants can also send for their siblings, parents and adult children. These non-nuclear family members actually get precedence over an immigrant’s nuclear family. This ill-conceived system also creates incentives for illegal immigration because adult relatives of legal residents are known to overstay their visas (becoming illegal aliens) in hopes of becoming legal immigrants. Moreover, since hundreds of millions of people in the world have a relative in the U.S., the migration chain can eventually reach them all.”

Whole villages in Mexico have emptied out due to chain migration. Think it through and do your research before you blithely recommend amnesty.

rroseto on November 13, 2012 at 8:57 PM

My point is how do you enforce your so-called “free” market? By relying on the kind and beneficent nature of the human animal? When there are no laws, each man is his own law. When there is no regulation, the strong regulate all.

AJsDaddie on November 13, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Interesting that you use the word “enforce” rather than “protect”. You don’t enforce the free market.

Conservative: another word you don’t know the meaning of. It does NOT mean libertarian. Conservatives believe in the Constitution, something you evidently would rather get rid of.

AJsDaddie on November 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Funny how you scoff at natural rights but hold the Constitution in such high regard. The Constitution is based upon protecting natural rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” These are libertarian ideas.

Dante on November 13, 2012 at 8:58 PM

We need to secure the southern border.

Why is securing the border subject to the need to reach an understanding on how to address the roughly 11 million plus illegal immigrants that are in the country?

While one can have empathy for those who came here illegally, the problem is that these individuals made that decision.

Oh, but I can hear the cries, what about the children who were brought here illegally by their parents.

Tough as it may sound, but the parents bear responsibility for the plight of their children.

The solution is straight forward. Secure the border and apply the law.

Existing law allows an immigration judge to allow someone who is here illegally to stay in the country if he or she meets certain criteria.

Now, if people want to discuss changing existing law to make it easier for legal immigration from India and countries in the European Union. Fine.

But as to the illegal immigrants, the short answer is No.

john.frank on November 13, 2012 at 8:58 PM

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Funny stuff. Genuinely funny stuff. All you’re doing is arguing for government intervention in the market, and your misguided use of Marx is another example. Marx was not in favor of the free market; Marx viewed the free market as an “anarchy of production,” falsely believing that the free market led to war and slumps (slumps are not intrinisc to the free market; they are a result of interventionism), and argued for central planning.

Dante on November 13, 2012 at 9:13 PM

GOP — A Solution Nobody Has Offered.

A mess of people turned on you and voted for Dracula. So you talk about rewarding them and that makes sense to you.

If you must, how about two things, first:

1) Do a good post mortem on the defeat.

2) Study this issue and the nature of the electorate you are chasing.

This is something we should do as Americans. After all, we are talking about millions of folks who already broke one law.

The goal should be fairness for ourselves and our guests but both political parties are too busy counting votes.

How about some concern? Issues like economics, culture, precedent, and the message to the folks who obey the immigration laws are surely to be considered.

We might also look at other, alternative immigration waves such as PhD’s and MD’s from all over the globe who would kill to just come and stay. Better yet, they hail from nations who actually like the US and don’t feel that they founded and built it.

Having a well off friend or admirer as a roommate makes a heck of a lot more sense than giving an impoverished trespasser who can’t stand you a bunk.

I suggested letting us bring two Kurds, Russians, Poles and etc. (who love the USA) in for each of the Latinos.

I brought this idea up with a staff person/supporter of a GOP presidential candidate in the primaries.

They said this would insult the Latinos and give them the idea that they were not welcome. They were sure Mitt would think so, too, but this was before the “self deportation” remark.

IlikedAUH2O on November 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Funny stuff. Genuinely funny stuff. All you’re doing is arguing for government intervention in the market, and your misguided use of Marx is another example. Marx was not in favor of the free market; Marx viewed the free market as an “anarchy of production,” falsely believing that the free market led to war and slumps (slumps are not intrinisc to the free market; they are a result of interventionism), and argued for central planning.

Dante on November 13, 2012 at 9:13 PM

On the contrary, once again, or I should say as usual, you have a built in defense system that does not allow you to read a post and analyse it correctly.

What I am saying is in a real free market we let our companies compete on the same “carpet” as the other companies.

You are not suggesting that if the feds, regarding two companies that manufacture the same item, that they it’s a free market to punish one with restraints in regulations and taxation, and allow the other not to… we would never allow that by the feds.

However we do allow other countries to do that…so you are protecting those other countries, by over regulating ours…get it?

Now you don’t and won’t…but it’s for others to consider…

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Does this ever work? Seriously… does it? You cut a deal, you do anything… what it’s a static environment and they can’t still paint you as the evil obstructionist trying to capitalize on suffering?

Here’s a thought – how about we play the game like the Dems are playing it. We get what we want upfront in exchange for the the possibility of doing something you want… years down the road. This means no more cutting the budget… spread out over ten plus years and requiring future folks who have no reason to make any cuts, it means no more backing off on sorely needed cuts because we’re afraid of being called racists… and then being called racists, and certainly no more granting amnesty for the possibility of securing the border – that’s been there, done that, been there again, hoped it’d work differently this time, been there more times doing this supposedly already done thing… and didn’t even get a t-shirt.

In short, let’s try something really different – it’s called unrepentant conservatism.

Ukiah on November 13, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Basically your argument is because it didn’t work the first time,then we shouldn’t try again.

His argument is we already know amnesty will not solve the problem, so it’s kind of silly offering it as a solution…AGAIN. It’s like those idiots on the left who say communism can work if you just let us try again. By all means, let’s try to do a better job with Hispanics, but let’s try something different for change instead of doing things we already know will not work.

Bush failed to get social security reform, does that mean we shouldn’t try again?

HarryBackside

Flawed analogy. Reagan succeeded in getting amnesty, and it failed miserably. If Bush had succeeded in getting SS reform passed and it failed miserably, would anyone be arguing that we need to do the same things again?

Ironically, Obama just won an election saying we don’t need to go back to the failed policies of the past, yet that is just what Republicans are offering…an undeniably failed policy of the past.

xblade on November 13, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Flawed analogy. Reagan succeeded in getting amnesty, and it failed miserably.

xblade on November 13, 2012 at 9:50 PM

On the contrary, Reagan plan was successful, that was the problem, the dems couldn’t allow that, so they dismantled it…there was no part of the program that was a failure…

The failure was that the dems had complete control of congress, and did not want the Republican’s to own that issue…not unlike Eisenhower proposed almost the identical plan for minorities, that was soundly defeated by the dems, and embraced when Kennedy was in power…

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM

The failure was that the dems had complete control of congress, and did not want the Republican’s to own that issue…not unlike Eisenhower proposed almost the identical plan for minorities, that was soundly defeated by the dems, and embraced when Kennedy was in power…

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Unfortunately, your knowledge of American history isn’t too “bright.” The GOP controlled the Senate in 1986 (Bob Dole was Majority Leader). So the Republicans controlled the Presidency and one house of Congress and was out-maneuvered by the Democrats.

bw222 on November 13, 2012 at 10:44 PM

If we give up sovereignty by refusing to control our borders and granting rights of citizenship willy-nilly, we no longer have a country.

If government cannot provide basic protection of its citizens and enforce its laws, we effectively have NO GOVERNMENT!!!

landlines on November 14, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Keep it up folks. Another 4 years of this and the Hispanic vote will be nearly as Democrat-cemented as the black vote is today. You just all stand there with your fingers in your ears yelling la la la la…Democrats will win every significant election for the next 25 years unless you wake up and face reality.

independentvoice on November 14, 2012 at 1:14 AM

independentvoice on November 14, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Alright, let’s negotiate. What laws can I break and be rewarded? How about a bank robbery, I could use some cash? Renewable work permits, no citizenship.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2012 at 1:28 AM

What I am saying is in a real free market we let our companies compete on the same “carpet” as the other companies.

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM

In our own country we don’t even compete on the same “carpet”. Some states have right to work laws, while others are open shop. How can heavily unionized companies in Michigan compete with non-union companies in Alabama? Should Michigan stop trading with Alabama because Michigan perceives Alabama to have lower labor standards, hence an unfair advantage?

Your argument ignores the law of comparative advantage. For all the reasons you have stated, China has an advantage over the US when it comes to low skill labor. But the US has an advantage over China when it comes to high skill labor because we have the best University system in the world. Where is the Chinese equivalent to Apple, Google or Microsoft? It doesn’t exist. The Chinese have a difficult time innovating because the same government that allows what we would consider poor working conditions, also suppresses innovation and entrepreneurship. Should we place restrictions on small business owners who innovate new products so that we can compete on the same “carpet” as China? Should we refuse to trade with China until the government institutes reforms that make it easier for Chinese innovators to develop newer products? No, because in either case the US would be giving up our comparative advantage over China.

HarryBackside on November 14, 2012 at 2:16 AM

Everyone’s talking about “credibility” with “Latino voters” and “Hispanic voters”. But there’s nothing intrinsically “Latino” or “Hispanic” about this problem except insofar as there’s something intrinsically “black” about the horrible perversion of culture that is that of African Americans today. That is — it’s not about race, but about culture, and you don’t bow down to a flawed and perverted culture — you CHANGE it.

Let’s be real and hold to the principles of this nation — one of laws, and not men! — and talk about political parties’ “credibility” with “the flagrantly breaking the law is okay so long as it’s my family that does it” demographic – and why you shouldn’t WANT to have credibility with such a group. The REAL solution is reducing the numbers of that group by converting them to an intellectually honest ideology, not by flirting with criminality.

CanofSand on November 14, 2012 at 2:29 AM

My take.

kingsjester on November 14, 2012 at 6:20 AM

And so once again, the Establishment kicks into overdrive and starts spouting how it wasn’t their fault, it’s just that we’re too hardline.

Why? Don’t get me wrong, there are people who are just too extreme on our side, but so is there on the left, Yet they never apologize. Every election year, in which some major candidate of the Republican party, the mea culpas begin from Established elite, that if only our side wasn’t to “Extreme” we’d do so well. “If only we could go along to get along, the world would be so much better.”

When ever I hear those words… my brain is able to filter out all the sunshine and rainbows and hear what’s really being said to me:

“Step aside peasant, we’ll never accept fault for our messes. For we are the modern age nobility, who are more privileged than you. We want to be allowed to all the MSM talk shows, the wine parties, the social gatherings, the lobbyist big wigs dinners.”

Ok, you Establishment types want to have a discussion on immigration? Ok, when are we going to actually look at the immigration laws and the system, and fix that? Where are the problems that makes putting your life in the hand of a human smuggler, enter illegally, and find a suitable sanctuary city/state so tempting (Along with the free schooling, healthcare, aid money, etc). Because I can tell you, we’ve tried Amnesty many times before, and that didn’t fix the issue. We still had illegal immigrants after, and now even more. All Amnesty does, is tell others “Sure, hop on to the Free Ride Train. Why deal with all that annoying paper work, when all you have to do is wait for the next wave of Amnesty.”

So, let’s stop playing “kick the can down the road” and actually look at real reform, to improve the legal pathway towards citizenship and temporary visas.

Razgriez on November 14, 2012 at 8:12 AM

What I am saying is in a real free market we let our companies compete on the same “carpet” as the other companies.

You are not suggesting that if the feds, regarding two companies that manufacture the same item, that they it’s a free market to punish one with restraints in regulations and taxation, and allow the other not to… we would never allow that by the feds.

However we do allow other countries to do that…so you are protecting those other countries, by over regulating ours…get it?

Now you don’t and won’t…but it’s for others to consider…

right2bright on November 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM

There is no “we let” in a free market; you are operating from a position of interference and control. Your words, that you probably have no idea you’re using and certainly do not realize the implications, give it away.

Allow, allow, allow …. control, control, control. That’s all you have, which amounts to complete ignorance of what the free market is.

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 8:53 AM

When the bloggers become the trolls… reminds me of HA after the Giffords Tuscon shooting.

WordsMatter on November 13, 2012 at 10:13 AM

God, you said it. And here I was starting to think this site was on the upswing again with MKH and Erika Johnsen…this is vomit-inducing.

Cylor on November 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Even if I did think compromising with the Dems is a good idea (and I certainly don’t)…

… “compromise” to the dems means about the same as “compromise” did to my ex-wife. They demand their way and we “compromise” our principals, values and good judgement and give them what they want.

Can we not see the steady march to the left via compromise? The left runs as far left as they can then say “meet us in the middle.”
As soon as we do (and we seem to time after time) they run as far left as they can again and start the process over. We’re already living in leftist land. “The middle” is somewhere to our right, but we keep marching left in the name of compromise.

and yet, we’re the a-holes for not letting them have their way, again.

WhaleBellied on November 14, 2012 at 3:14 PM

When you make a deal with the Devil, it is still a deal with the Devil and you will eventually lose.

rgranger on November 14, 2012 at 5:57 PM

No. No deal. No surrender. No betrayal of the White working class.

David Blue on November 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6