http://www.floridapoliticalpress.com/2011/02/10/head-of-hsr-coalition-al-cardenas-named-new-chairman-of-acu-9877

High-speed rail opponents here in Florida may recognize Cardenas’ name. His firm represents one of the consortiums angling to bid for the high-speed rail contract, and he does lobbying work for Associated Industries of Florida, whose president chairs the recently formed High-Speed Rail Coalition.

Which begs the question, can the chairman of ACU, an organization that promotes ‘limited government and fiscal responsibility‘, also head an effort to promote high speed rail using federal dollars at the same time? Is there a conflict of interest going on here?

Amid the grumblings that Cardenas is not ‘committed to conservative values’, is his willingness to spend money that this nation does not have, which only adds to the national debt further solidify those concerns?

Congresswoman Sandy Adams (FL-D24) referred to the rail initiative as “a misguided attempt to expand the reach of the federal government and spend limited taxpayer dollars on projects that our nation cannot afford.”

The full court press is so on to shove Jeb Bush’s lapdog, balding Marco down our throats.

The corruptocrats are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO transparent, duh!

In 1996, an unknown Rubio offered to help Bob Dole’s campaign and Dole’s Florida director, Al Cardenas, was immediately impressed with Rubio’s potential and hired him. Rubio availed himself well, and two years later, he decided to get into campaigning for real and ran to become a commissioner in West Miami — a position that doesn’t sound like much of a position.

Rubio won, and on election night got a call from Jeb Bush, who by this time was aware of Rubio and his electoral potential no matter how inchoate.

[Dusty on February 7, 2013 at 4:27 PM]

Alaska appears to be more a mixed issue. Both sides opposed Alaska, but for different reasons. Dems, mostly southern, opposed it because it would be more pro-civil rights, while Repubs were against it because out fear it would be a welfare case.

It sounds to me like Cardenas’ view is based mostly on the fleeting attitudes in 1954 and before not what they were when they were actually allowed to join the Union, which matched up more closely with what they are now.

Do you obey the laws of the U.S.?

If you do then why do you wish to allow citizens of another nation to disobey the laws of the U.S. and in fact get rewarded with U.S. Citizenship due to in part the orginal crime?

At that time, in order for there to be bipartisan support for Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, it was essential to admit both states simultaneously since political “experts” deemed that Hawaii would be largely Republican given our history in the Pacific wars

Funny that. I thought I’d look to find corroboration of that (and Alaska leanings). Guess what? I never thought it would be that easy.

Now I’ll look for Alaska.

I wonder if this Cuban American would be talking like this if the vast majority of those 10 million illegals were Chinese. I suspect he wouldn’t. Which brings me to the nativist slur he bandied there. Seems to me he’s guilty of tribal exclusivity just as much as anyone else we’ve heard from.

Any special consideration for illegal aliens (ANY consideration at all!) other than following existing laws is a form of amnesty, reward, benefit, and/or accommodation for illegal behavior.

As such, it will be a giant magnet for more illegal behavior.

This is simple human nature.

I resent all these GOP mouthpieces ASSUMING that we have to accept these 12 to 20 million illegals staying here — why not try enforcing the damn laws and getting them to go home??? As Georgia did (and see how it works here.)

The 1996 federal law against sanctuary cities is unenforced. LA’s Special Order 40 is a travesty. In-state tuition for illegal aliens mocks federal law.

Our federal government, both donkeys and elephants, is a joke, enforcement-wise.

Heath Shuler’s SAVE Act died in the House twice. Lamar Smith’s HR 2885 mandatory E-Verify died in Dave Camp’s Ways and Means, with Boehner’s consent. The GOP establishment is PART OF THE PROBLEM.

All the while, attrition through enforcement is the most economical, just, humane, fair, and POPULAR policy.

Anyone who thinks any form of accommodation is a solution would also advocate that, if a ship is sinking, declaring the incoming seawater to be cargo is also a “solution’.

BUT – In EVERY case – Conservatives who oppose immigration reform oppose based on a very lazy arguement – that somehow Hispanics are programmed at birth to be Dimmocrits and there is no way that conservatives could EVER possibly make them become conservatives.

No, this is definitely not true. However, the current state of the illegal immigrant community guarantees the current generation will always vote for Dems.

The way the melting pot is supposed to work is that you move here legally, you learn the language and basic civics, you get a good education, and you go on to become a productive citizen. These are the immigrants Republicans have a real chance at reaching out to (Asian immigrants who do this are ripe for pickup and I never understood why we aren’t targeting them).

The way the system is ACTUALLY working is that an illegal crosses the border, and they typically have no money or resources or education, can’t speak English, and can only get low wage jobs that are nearly slave labor. In order to supplement their income (if they have any), they get into various welfare programs (illegally). We also aren’t allowed to the deport them, ever. The Democrats are the party of welfare, and thus the Hispanics are naturally going to turn to them.

The GOP plan seems to be to legalize them and put them on welfare before the Democrats do, thus ensuring a permanent captive voting bloc. I think this plan is infantile and stupid, and completely ignores history.

Any criticism of this idea is, ironically, lazily derided by its proponents as “racism.”

There’s probably other reasons I haven’t thought of but I think I covered most of them.

Doomberg on February 7, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Well, there IS a lot of racism in SOME of the comments here on HA on this topic. Not all the opposition is based in race though – I’ll give you that.

BUT – In EVERY case – Conservatives who oppose immigration reform oppose based on a very lazy arguement – that somehow Hispanics are programmed at birth to be Dimmocrits and there is no way that conservatives could EVER possibly make them become conservatives.

And – that’s the key here. Forget making them Republicans, hell – the Republican part has already LOST most of us out here. The GOP is simply an old party on Hospice care now.

You don’t want to make them Republican – you want to convince them to become CONSERVATIVE.

But this notion that Hispanics can’t be sold conservatism also betrays something else – that conservatives feel their ideology REALLY IS inferior. Why do I say that? Hell, if we all thought that conservatism was the SUPERIOR philosophy, we’d all be fired up to sell it to EVERYBODY. Instead … we just check people off the list … Blacks … check ‘em off. Hispanics … check ‘em off. Northeasterners … check ‘em off and give ‘em some RINOS.

LOL

You’re LOSING because you’re running away from things – not running toward them.