Walker: I support a path to citizenship in comprehensive immigration reform
posted at 8:01 am on February 26, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
If Scott Walker is thinking about seizing the momentum of his groundbreaking conservative reforms in Wisconsin to set himself up as a presidential candidate in 2016, you’d never guess it from his interview yesterday in a Politico conference. That’s not so much because of his position on immigration, which essentially supports that of Marco Rubio — a path to citizenship that puts normalized candidates at the back of the line — but from his suggestion of who would make a great candidate for the GOP in the next cycle. But first, Governor Walker states that the entire immigration system is broken and badly needs reform to make it effective at attracting people to the US, and that normalization should be part of any reform effort:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Friday that he supports a pathway to citizenship to illegal immigrants but said that people who are waiting in line should have “first preference.”
“You’ve got to find a way to say that people who are in line right now have first preference,” the Republican governor said at POLITICO’s third annual State Solutions Conference in Washington. …
“We just have a broken system. And to me, if somebody wants to come in and live the American dream and work hard … we should have a system that works and let’s people in,” Walker told POLITICO’s Jonathan Martin at the event.
Again, that’s the Rubio position, which doesn’t exactly represent the conservative wing of the GOP but has some significant traction among the general public.
What about 2016? Walker declined to comment on his own prospects, but offered a suggestion about who might have the best credentials to run — except for the last name:
“I think it would have a major impact just because he’s a great performer. And I mean that in the best of sense,” Walker said. “You look at his two terms of governor of obviously a tremendously large and significant state — and he turned things around in terms of the economy… He’s got a great record of success.”
And if it wasn’t for his last name, Bush might’ve been talked up to run for president sooner.
“I think frankly in this election and in the past, if you took your finger and covered his last name and just talked about Jeb, there’d be a lot of us who would be talking about him running for president a lot sooner than now,” Walker said.
Walker also told Politico that he had no plans to follow up on his victory in PEU reform to pursue a broader right-to-work statute in Wisconsin, saying that he “essentially did it last time” in targeting just the public-employee unions where the problem is greatest. Right now, Walker seems more concerned with his upcoming re-election bid in 2014 than in a 2106 bid for the top job, and wants to focus on assuring Wisconsin voters that a second term will chart a more bipartisan course.
Related Posts:
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
How much of a debate or amendment process will the Senate allow? I thought they were trying to ram this thing through.
Doughboy on April 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM
Schumer…smarmy smug sob.
d1carter on April 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM
The current system couldn’t successfully vet TWO. Yet those liberal asses in Washington think vetting 11 MILLION will be easy.
GarandFan on April 23, 2013 at 12:08 PM
The Dems want it rushed through to get the votes needed to keep the senate and take over the House. Let’s be honest for once.
Deano1952 on April 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM
1. Immigration moratorium NOW.
2. Secure all the borders.
3. Repatriate everyone here illegally.
4. Repeal the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act and replace it with something based on REALITY and not on WISHFUL THINKING.
5. Amend the 14th to get rid of the anchor baby loophole.
6. THEN AND ONLY THEN, re-instate immigration.
Imagine our “representatives” had the interest of American citizens at heart, and not their own political power / hatred of the USA?
ex_machina on April 23, 2013 at 12:10 PM
I can guarantee you that the $4.5 billion won’t be spent as stated, but will be finding its way into the pockets of corporate cronies instead, with little or nothing worthwhile done for the transfer of funds.
hawkeye54 on April 23, 2013 at 12:13 PM
The drive for 11 million docile Democrat serfs continues.
profitsbeard on April 23, 2013 at 12:15 PM
In talking about the the relationship between the Boston bombing and comprehensive immigration reform, Ed adds a non sequitur about non sequiturs.
The bill is supposed to be comprehensive reform. If the bill does not address the immigration problems found as a result of the Boston Bombing then it won’t be comprehensive. There are several things that may never be agreed on addressing later, if they aren’t included now. It is wise to delay the bill.
Dusty on April 23, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Has there ever been any “Comprehensive” legislation that did solve the problem as intended or that didn’t cost several orders of magnitude more than promised?
I’ll never trust any comprehensive legislation – it’s always full of unrelated boondoggles.
Curtiss on April 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM
The energy spent going after law-abiding and gun owning citizens to do what they can to disarm them would be better spent on enforcing our current immigration laws and eliminate anything that attracts illegal invaders and America haters to stay here.
hawkeye54 on April 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM
Or not:
Fenris on April 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM
True. And that is part of the problem. The Senate isn’t considering immigration reform which would, in fact, touch immigrants like the Tsarnaevs. The Senate is working on a comprehensive amnesty bill for the illegals. But amnesty isn’t the only part of immigration that need reform. Why is the rat-eared coward’s illegal aunt still in the country? Why was Tamerlan Tsarnaev allowed to stay as a resident alien after citizenship was denied? Why was the Tsarnaev family granted political asylum and yet they weren’t so dire to prevent the father to move back? Or more locally, why was an illegal facing deportation free from detention and on the road drunk (killing three nuns in the process)?
In short, if the goal is comprehensive immigration reform there is far more to the issue than fast-tracking Democrat voters out of the current population of illegals.
Happy Nomad on April 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM
I like Rand Paul but I will not say that he has transcended demagoguery. That being said, I do not totally agree with you Ed. Our immigration system is very germane to the failures with the older brother, Tamerlin. He could have been shipped back two to four years ago.
mwbri on April 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM
I always thought the political definition of “comprehensive legislation” WAS “boodoggle”.
hawkeye54 on April 23, 2013 at 12:20 PM
In GovernmentSpeak, Reform is latin for – we’re going to magnify our incompetence and our efforts to lord over you.
I despise every political pig in perpetuity.
OhEssYouCowboys on April 23, 2013 at 12:20 PM
The bill requires Republicans to trust Democrats to not gut the enforcement measures later even though liberals know legalization is a political bonanza for them. That is all we really need to know. We should be enforcing existing law, the end. I am aghast at the level of stupidity in Republican ranks both in government and the pundit class.
echosyst on April 23, 2013 at 12:20 PM
Status quo ‘R’ pablum…
Gohawgs on April 23, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Comprehensive legislation is right up there with “omnibus budgets.” A little bit of pork for everybody without really solving any single issue. It’s like building a Swiss army knife when what you really need is a hammer.
Happy Nomad on April 23, 2013 at 12:23 PM
What are these mythical enforcement measures of which you speak? And no, forming a commission to study the issue in five years does not count.
Fenris on April 23, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Every senator that has served since 1986 ought to be brought up on charges of dereliction of duty for not enforcing the laws they passed for the last amnesty. At minimum they should be forced from office and have all government benefits confiscated.
I would consider excusing any that actually submitted bills or protested the lack of enforcement as long as its on the record they keep.
DanMan on April 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM
Matt Lewis is wrong:
From the headline thread:
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on April 23, 2013 at 12:25 PM
Yeah, this is one of those pieces where Ed really missed the mark.
Panther on April 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM
Fenris – You won’t get any argument from me regarding the weakness of the bill. I am only saying what little enforcement it does have will be ignored later. The entire exercise is a scam.
ANYONE who supports this mess should resign from public office or admit they are a Democrat. This would be the biggest gift to the left in a generation and would end the Republic as we know it. The pundits who are supporting this should also be ignored FOREVER.
echosyst on April 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM
Sorry if I sounded confrontational. We’re on the same page, and by ‘ignored’ you did mean ‘tarred-and-feathered’, right?
Fenris on April 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM
OT (sort of): Marco Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC called me earlier this morning asking for “another generous donation”. I informed the nice lady that all my GOP political donations for this year have been sequestered.
I can’t be the only one who’s adopting a wait and see attitude on Rubio. Maybe he’ll get the message.
Curtiss on April 23, 2013 at 12:33 PM
I hate to correct you but that 11 million number has been thrown around for far too long and I sincerely doubt the true number is that low. I bet the 11 million number is about right for just California and Arizona.
Ditkaca on April 23, 2013 at 12:36 PM
“Irrelevant”? Are you serious?
Were the bombers immigrants?
Did they at some point have visas?
Were the already in the US when the bombed Boston?
WTF are you smoking over there, ‘irrelevant’?? ffs.
How many of the 11 million (half the real number, likely) are like the bombers in terms of temperament and intent? And you simply want to make them citizens. Great f*cking idea.
Midas on April 23, 2013 at 12:38 PM
People pushing the myth that what the Senate is considering are doing the same thing that was done about gun-grabbing legislation following the Newtown shooting. Doing “something” is the only criteria.
There is a large population of illegals in this country and they are becoming more and more brazen. One illegal even went before a Congressional hearing and whined that he wasn’t being treated with respect by society. An illegal who doesn’t even bother to hide the fact that he has no status in this nation and that he hates America! So, the Dems see an opening to get more voters on the rolls (even though most of them already vote illegally) so they push this amnesty scheme. And traitors like McCain and Graham want to be liked by the left so they push amnesty. But it will be interesting to see what happens to this legislation when it gets to the house because Boehner cannot be trusted to hold the line against citizenship for the illegals
Happy Nomad on April 23, 2013 at 12:38 PM
oh come on ed, how could you read that and come away thinking grassley called for a delay?? he’s calling for caution, same as he was doing before the bombing. are you shilling for “comprehensive reform” or just trying to appear even handed?
chasdal on April 23, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Ok, lets look at the triggers.
http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=adefad85-7f5c-4f3e-a4dc-366a1b71ad38
1) create, fund, and initiate a plan… that’s one down. the plan doesn’t have to work, I just have to have one after all.
2) create, fund, and initiate another plan… that’s two down.
3) Not actually required, skip and go to #4 which is the backup when 3 fails (and it will).
4) Create a committee to create and initiate a new plan… again. 4 down, 2 to go.
And all I’ve done so far is some paperwork, with no actual security required… anyone impressed
5) E-verify implemented… if it happens this is the only part that makes any changes.
6) Check visa on entry/exit (we don’t do this now?) nothing to affect Visa overstays…
And we’re done. In exchange for e-verify and some paperwork we’ll allow 11+ million new citizens.
…
And that assumes you believe they’ll hold things up for e-verify. The rest of it is “someone did some paperwork, trigger achieved”.
gekkobear on April 23, 2013 at 12:39 PM
If it isn’t now, it will be once the provisions for amnesty are established and there is a rush for our unprotected borders.
Happy Nomad on April 23, 2013 at 12:40 PM
Yeah, because Democrats never use unfair argumentation to get what they want. We’re “better than that”….
HB3 on April 23, 2013 at 12:40 PM
This bill is reportedly loaded with more pork than a hog farm. Of course so many of them want this disaster rushed through, for their slice of the Treasury pie.
A lunatic goes nuts with guns at a CT grade school, and we need to ‘rethink’ the Second amendment.
Bloomberg says that, as a result of Boston, we need to ‘reinterpret’ the Constitution.
But taking a pause about this allowance-for-illegals idea is totally out of the question, it’s playing politics. And if they think this will be the last bill for god, they’re either liars are delusional. When this thing is proven to be a failure — and it will be long before the five-year window to see — we’ll be hearing the same song and dance. But with another 12 million illegal invaders.
Liam on April 23, 2013 at 12:41 PM
I’m starting to think that the GOP Establishment Strategy is to let the Senate Democrats write their own bill and help them push it through the Senate as quickly as possible. Then once in the House there will be some modifications that will be acceptable to the Democrats.
The GOP establishment is desperate for amnesty because they think it will make the issue go away so they get more votes. If they negotiate a truly bipartisan immigration bill in the Senate then over in the House it would get watered down perhaps beyond what Democrats would accept or it would leave some unresolved aspects of immigration that Democrats would continue to pound Republicans on during campaigns.
Wigglesworth on April 23, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Thx for reminding me of another weasel and his political BS,Paul Ryan. It is beginning to look like he and Rubio share the same staff! These two are not principled conservatives, no matter what they say…..watch what they do!
tomshup on April 23, 2013 at 12:47 PM
“…The real question about the Senate bill is whether it actually fixes the systems it addresses…”
When do these mega-bills ever “fix” anything?
All they seem to do is to introduce more complexities into everyday life, making one more and more dependent upon the ministrations of the Apparat.
Another Drew on April 23, 2013 at 12:47 PM
chasdal on April 23, 2013 at 12:48 PM
its going to be a boondoggle no matter how you slice it
obamacare 2.0
cmsinaz on April 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM
The problem is not that there are no deportation provisions in our current legislation, the problem is this bastard administration is not enforcing them and is not deporting criminals, regardless of their crimes, and this beats me. Don’t know much about the previous admins, and how/if they enforced deportations of non-citizens who broke the law here or not , but this laxity has to stop. Problem is it just doesn’t require new laws (this particular aspect pertaining to deportations) but enforcing the existing ones.
jimver on April 23, 2013 at 12:50 PM
Thats part of the bill that makes me angry. The Dems want opponents to trust them and that would be the most stupid thing to do. They’ll make some half-hearted attempt at pretending to beef up border security then, after the mid-terms (after the 2016 election at the latest) when they’ll decide that all that waiting time for the illegals is just wrong and fast track amnesty so that overnight a bunch of criminals are signing up for welfare, social security, and Obamaphones. Not that it would matter much by that point because we are essentially giving them amnesty when we “normalize” their status at the very onset of the proposed legislation.
Happy Nomad on April 23, 2013 at 12:50 PM
[Panther on April 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM]
I don’t think it’s sloppiness or that he’s got a lot on his plate and can’t assess it more than superficially, I think Ed has an agenda on this issue and I say that more because of his characterizations of the debate. They are harsher than normal for him and particularly one-sided, the latter being quite out of character for him. He may not see it but it’s there.
I think he reads too much of the MSM viewpoint and not enough opposing views. You can see that in the links he’s providing. I don’t think he read Mickey Kaus, who not only knows this issue backwards and forwards, but has a great knack for gaming the the intents and consequences on this issue.
But even those aside, if your ultimate goal is to have good government, you would wade deeply into the side of delaying this bill so that the public would have the opportunity to fully understand what their representatives are asking them to accept, before they have to accept it. Having seen how pols, on both sides, manipulate issues, and having spent four + years having a the greatest manipulator in American history as President, I can’t believe any True
ScotsmanAmerican would find rushing this bill through Congress acceptable.Dusty on April 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM
This is absolutely germane Ed. It is a ‘comprehensive’ bill which means it includes most if not all aspects of immigration. It is much more than just “What are we going to do with 11 million illegal aliens?” The terrorists were immigrants. One became a naturalized citizen, the other hadn’t quite made it. The older brother was convicted of a crime in 2009, but was not deported. He also had associations with radical clerics and militants, but was still not deported. You realize that he would never have been approved to come here in the 1st place if he had a criminal conviction so why would you let an immigrant stay if he becomes a criminal. Bringing it back to immigration reform, there is nothing in this bill that will mandate enforcement to protect Americans from criminals.
Wigglesworth on April 23, 2013 at 12:55 PM
I can picture the following scene in my mind: an illegal sitting on the border fence and getting a tan while perusing through 500 pages of the immigration law, trying to figure out how to navigate between quazillionths of provisions :) all under the protective and caring eye of our smiley PC border patrols :)
jimver on April 23, 2013 at 12:55 PM
A bunch of lying ba sta rds…
We don’t have a “broken immigration system”.
We have a corrupt government that refuses to enforce the current immigration laws and refuses to consider repairing the immigration laws that need it.
How about we just do this…If the Senate passes this crap sammich, the Hoiuse should strip the bill (remember how they did Obamacare) and insert this:
All current immigration laws shall be fully enforced. No exceptions.
The Border security fence shall be completed in 12 months. No extensions.
All Visa overstayers shall be immediately deported. No exceptions.
All undocumented persons shall be immediately deported. No exceptions.
Future work permits will be granted only for skills deemed necessary. They will expire annually
Maybe 2 pages to do the job.
III
dirtengineer on April 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Putting together a photoshop on illegal immigration. This is what I have thus far. Please make suggestions on what can be added symbolically that says illegal immigration. I would really appreciate your input. ; )
Bmore on April 23, 2013 at 12:57 PM
Yes, you do have to wonder how accurate that “11MM” number is when the BP is apprehending illegals in TX who ask first thing:
Where do I go for my amnesty?
A more accurate number is probably twice that, and has been for some years (there have been a spate of self-deportations with the collapse of the housing industry and related jobs).
Another Drew on April 23, 2013 at 12:57 PM
Why the Rs will destroy the land more than the Ds – they enable the latter.
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM
Analyzing and will suggest, if any thoughts come to mind.
First – it is NOT immigration. All who use the term, may they spontaneusly combust.
It is amnesty.
They are not immigrants. They are illegal aliens.
To use these terms is incredibly insulting to the legal immigrants.
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:00 PM
Bmore, for starters:
1. Make the Mexican flag bigger than the USA flag. The order is correct, Mexican on top.
2. Add, to each end, the two Boston bombers. It’s no longer the gang of ochos. It’s now the gang of 10.
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:01 PM
It needs a “my little pony unicorn” in the corner saying something approving.
Fenris on April 23, 2013 at 1:02 PM
That’s funny. I think an illegal alien climbing over the fence would be a nice touch.
Wigglesworth on April 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM
Bmore, not Miriachi ocho – Diez Mariachis, after you add the 2 from Boston.
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Point taken. I thought you might enjoy that I put Schumer in the girls clothing. ; )
Bmore on April 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Point taken. I thought you might enjoy that I put Schumer in the girls clothing. ; )
Bmore on April 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM
See new name.
You are the greatest, friend.
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Bmore, consider doing a separate one, in the series, with the bombers and the dead one’s wife…they are the new AmeriKa too.
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:05 PM
Bmore, if you don’t put Schumer in a girl outfit, the picture is derelict.
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Sorry, I meant Ms. Lindsey.
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Bmore, must have a “Forward” label, somewhere…
Also one with “Si, se puede”, with Obama’s picture in it…posted on the wall, behind them.
Also, not to miss a marxist hammer/sickle symbol.
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:10 PM
oh yeah…
cmsinaz on April 23, 2013 at 1:11 PM
May all who are for this travesty for the USA spontaneously combust. To Hades with all.
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:12 PM
Excellent points. I like to give Ed the benefit of the doubt but this was a bit of a stretch.
Panther on April 23, 2013 at 1:19 PM
This bill will destroy the USA and you, for good.
All who are for it, combust, from dereliction.
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM
Bmore, pink skirt for Ms. Lindsey
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:29 PM
Wait, wait…two immigrants did an awful thing, and it’s a non sequitur that this has bearing on a bill that will increase immigration?
So, why don’t we say it, then? “Immigration reform” is all about Mexicans, not immigration.
S. Weasel on April 23, 2013 at 1:30 PM
A couple of the tweaks made. Same place. Here.
Bmore on April 23, 2013 at 1:36 PM
Think you are upset, now?
Be happy that the guys I know in law enforcement are too smart to post here. There are those who speak, however.
A word from the ICE union, anyone?
ICE Union President Chris Crane recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, telling them that the Gang of Eight refused to listen to the opinions of law enforcement while drafting its mass amnesty bill, but they did meet with several special interest groups.
Source: Ice union suggested letter/fax/email for congress.
https://www.numbersusa.com/sendfax?id=14645&refer=faxes
IlikedAUH2O on April 23, 2013 at 1:37 PM
This immigration bill is a push for one party rule, pure and simple. We are staring into the abyss of communism.
bitsy on April 23, 2013 at 1:46 PM
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM
This.
(I always enjoy your comments, btw)
bitsy on April 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM
If congress actually considers the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill on its merits, it is dead on arrival.
bw222 on April 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM
You’re welcome, bitsy :)
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM
Ed is an amnesty shill, so stretching on this issue isn’t surprising.
xblade on April 23, 2013 at 2:08 PM
How does an amendment process that addresses other significant issues resolve these significant issues. Unless they are part of the original bill, there is no guarantee that these “significant” issues get resolved.
Vince on April 23, 2013 at 2:22 PM
Even if that number is accurate(and it isn’t), it still doesn’t represent the amount of people eligible for amnesty, because not only does it give amnesty to the “11 million” who are here, it also allows those who have been deported to come back and get amnesty, PLUS it allows those “11 million” to bring in family members. After the 1986 amnesty, the average was 5 family members. If it’s only 1 family member this time, using their own bogus 11 million figure bumps the actual number to over 20 million.
The entire sales pitch for this sham is built upon one lie after another, yet they expect us to take them at their word and believe they are really really serious this time.
xblade on April 23, 2013 at 2:24 PM
Doesn’t that denote a problem with the current legislation? I don’t see where you are getting this non-sequitur argument from. Immigrants attacked us. This is an immigration bill. I think they are most certainly related and you are seriously mistaken.
weaselyone on April 23, 2013 at 2:34 PM
Good on you Ed, at least you put your position on the table for everyone to look at. I don’t agree that stopping it is akin to a BlackHat/WhiteHat red herring. It is more regulation and more law on top of regulations and laws that aren’t enforced. That is the bottom line. BlackHat/WhiteHat should have been on top of the pile for more vetting and investigation. Instead they were lost in the shuffle of a dysfunctional government that now wants more to do to be even more dysfunctional at.
Limerick on April 23, 2013 at 2:36 PM
Yes it is and with republican approval because what the real goal is is to have one political class that rules. The rubes in flyover country are getting too unruly for them so they will work together to stamp-out any push-back to their agenda.
By the way, a story is just breaking that Romney is hosting a retreat in June and three of the invited guests are: Christie, Ryan and Axelrod. Now, do you think that will be a retreat that has the best interests of conservatives in the fore? I really believe that the RINOs are gearing up for a final battle with conservatives over the midterms.
KickandSwimMom on April 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM
of course it doesn’t fix anything. When has anything in the last 6 years made anything better or more efficient? It’s 844 pages that might as well be hung on a toilet stall wall.
kirkill on April 23, 2013 at 2:39 PM
We just had 2 immigrants who passed through our “extensive” immigration process. Now we are going to allow 11million+ people who didn’t follow the normal process in?
At a time like this we should be revamping and enforcing the current laws on the books. The only laws we should be considering is how we make immigration MORE restrictive.
weaselyone on April 23, 2013 at 2:43 PM
I thought Schumer said the Senate was the f-ing “cooling saucer.”
PortlandJon on April 23, 2013 at 2:45 PM
There was a great photoshop during the first time McCain et al tried this, during the administration of President George W. Bush, showing ‘three amigos’ in Mexican outfits and somberos. McCain, Graham, and ?
slickwillie2001 on April 23, 2013 at 3:05 PM
He’s meeting with AXELROD? Wow.
Doomberg on April 23, 2013 at 3:06 PM
Our immigration system is NOT “broken”. Our enforcement of it is.
I’m sick and tired of this particular narrative. They can’t tell us with any credibility whatsoever that we need some new system when the one we have is IGNORED and has been for decades. I don’t know what the heck Republicans think they’re going to accomplish by joining Democrats in their contempt for the rule of law… but I very much doubt it’s going to pan out like they think it will.
I have defended Republicans for these last four years, arguing with third-party, libertarian types that we need to stick together. But if they do this, if they pass that bill over the objections of the law-abiding citizens of this nation… if they ignore common sense in the face of high unemployment and 17 trillion in debt… then I AM DONE.
The GOP can’t keep both constituencies. They’re at odds. You’ve got the one, which flouts our laws, drains our social resources, and as we see in the Boston bombing, threatens our national security. And you’ve got the other, law-abiding, fiscally responsible, and patriotic. This onslaught of immigrants will vote, as they always have, for the guy who offers them the most pandering from our “BROKEN” public treasury. THAT is what it’s going to take to get their votes.
So… good luck with that Republicans. Your new strategy will be to out-spend Democrats. /sarc
Meanwhile, those of us who have had ENOUGH ALREADY… will be getting behind some third party candidate. So instead of fixing your libertarian problem and getting back all those third-party votes and no-shows this past election… you’ve compounded it.
Murf76 on April 23, 2013 at 3:32 PM
Well, not so fast.
Schadenfreude on April 23, 2013 at 4:33 PM
Conservatives used to believe in the rule of law.Any self-proclaimed conservative who supports this bill,which grants amnesty in the form of future citizenship to these invaders is no conservative!
redware on April 23, 2013 at 6:42 PM
Ed, this is not a non-sequitur. Security was supposed to be a bullwark of this bill, but what did we learn from Boston?
Our current immigration laws, enforcement and security aparatus is helpless in its ability to stop the stated (and hidden) enemies of civilization from wandering freely all over this country.
Unless this is addressed there will be more Boston bombings and it will be little consolotation to all the future grieving relatives that at least undocumented hispanics now have “a path to citizenship”.
Don’t you see how unimportant that is relative to evident national security issue posed by lax immigration and visa screening?
If anything, it is the immigration bill that is the non-sequitur.
virgo on April 24, 2013 at 2:32 AM
This would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. Grasley and Schumer between them don’t match the IQ of my cat. Both would knock down their grandmothers if they stood between them and a TV camera. Is it any wonder why Washington can’t pass any legislation except something that lines their own pockets? Really, America, we should be ashamed.
georgeofthedesert on April 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM