Redstate

It will be strange voting against the very people that I helped elect over the past 27 years.

The Party has left me, not the other way around. Time to vote for people who share my beliefs, no matter if they have a chance to win or not. In this case, I'll be at ease knowing that I voted for my beliefs not for the lesser of two evils.

but if Chambliss votes for this, I'll do whatever I can against him in the primary.

Romney or Fred.

I won't vote for anyone that supports this, whether there is a D or an R after their name. NO SUPPORT! They all have to go.

If it passes the Senate, a body designed to give a determined minority a lot of power to kill bills then it will pass the House, which has very different rules.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

We have had immigration fights throughout our nation's history. We have barred entire races and ethnicities from the US for fear they would "Destroy the United States."

Last time I checked we had survived the influx of Catholics, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Poles, Russians, Germans, Irish, Italians, Slavs, Rumanians, and just about every ethnicity/country in the world.

All this doom and gloom is certainly not in the conserative best spirit of Ronald Reagan who was a visionary and optimist. I really think this whole debate comes down to those who are optimistic about the future of the United States versus those who think our best days are behind us.

I believe we need a Reagan optimist not these "we're all gonna die" type conservatives.

and president, he would not be backing this ridiculos bill like Bush is. Once he saw that the bill he signed in 1986 did not work, he would know not make the same mistake twice.

picking apples. Reagan understood that Americans want their children to study hard, get an education and go on to accomplish big things in life. That was part of the American Dream, one generation doing better than the next.

Newcomers to the US, "illegal tourists" in Reagan's word, would take jobs at the lower end of the economic scale and eventually they would work their way up like generations of newcomers before them had done. Reagan understood the genius and beauty of America where hard work was rewarded.

Oh and with near record-low unemployment today, these comments from Reagan are eerily reminescent of the situation we find ourselves in today.

"In one of his radio addresses, in November 1977, he [REAGAN] wondered about what he called "the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion, or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't do? One thing is certain in this hungry world: No regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters."

And another:

"We have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to America. The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and, ultimately, if they choose, they may become Americans."

And to those who think Bush is too close to Mexico:

"Some months before I declared, I asked for a meeting and crossed the border to meet with the president of Mexico. I did not go with a plan. I went, as I said in my announcement address, to ask him his ideas--how we could make the border something other than a locale for a nine-foot fence."

I truly miss Reagan and his optimism for the future of America. Sadly, we are becoming a doom and gloom nation and some quarters of the GOP seem to be supplying all of the clouds.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008406

Bobby...the issue is not immigration per se.

I doubt that Reagan would be complacent about 12-20 million illegals. At the time of your Reagan quotes, there were only a million illegals, and nobody knew that amnesty wouldn't solve the problem, and our government wouldn't enforce our laws. Your quotes are irrelevent.

The issue is the lack of public confidence in our President and Congress to enforce any laws pertaining to immigration.

But his record shows he would probably be in line with Bush in how to go about handling the situation. Punish them, make them register, ensure they pay taxes, pay fines, and tell them to keep their noses clean if they want to stay.

With unemployment below 5% and Reagan's optimism about the future of America, I certainly doubt he would say these people "illegal immigrants" are destroying the country like some on Red State have said.

Reagan would be talking about the jobs illegal immigrants are doing -- jobs which have to be done -- in our great national effort to build that Shining City on the Hill.

His own comments say otherwise. From his diaries;

Al Simpson came by to see if he had my support. After 5 yrs. of trying (during which I’ve been on his side) the House finally passed his immigration bill. They have one or two amendments we could do without but even if the Sen. In conf. cannot get them out, I’ll sign. It’s high time we regained control of our borders and this bill will do this.

Unless you want to say that Reagan would approve of us passing lots of amnesty bills would did not regain contol of the borders. In that case, he was a very bad writer.

And Ed Meese was Reagans right-hand man for decades. He surely knew what Reagan was thinking. He has slammed the current bill. And he said the following;

In the mid-80’s, many members of Congress — pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy — advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants. President Reagan considered it reasonable to adjust the status of what was then a relatively small population, and I supported his decision.

In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened — in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.

Unless you want to say that Reagan was an idiot its hard to believe that he would have made the same mistake twice. No way he would be doing what Bush is doing.

Punish them, make them register, ensure they pay taxes, pay fines, and tell them to keep their noses clean if they want to stay.

None of that has anything to do with the bill W is pushing... unless of course you are using "punish" as a euphemism for "reward."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Is what he said as President. For example "It’s high time we regained control of our borders". Or "This country has lost control of its borders. No country can do that and survive."

Not very optimistic, was he? Not the way you are using the word anyway.

I feel very confident. I am glad to see that this issue has brought so many of us on the RIGHT side together to battle this bill. If this thing does pass in the senate, then we will fight it in the house where it will die. So I really do not see doom and gloom. I see victory. Victory that we as conservatives are coming together and making our voices be heard. So I really see light at the end of the tunnel and I think many others do as well. So cheer up my friend. We can win this thing as long as we ALL stay united and we don't get down thinking it is a lost cause. That is what the open borders/pro-amnesty crowd wants us to do. They want us to be down and hope we will stop fighting. As for myself, I will never stop fighting. EVEN IF IT MEANS I HAVE TO FIGHT TO MY DEATH! and I do mean that!

I will admit that it is very nice to see the movement united.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I believe the worry is that Americans are losing the will and ability to Americanize newcomers. With previous waves of immigration, there was the need to "let go" of trying to bring your country with you when you immigrate and to take on the American way of life.

Over the years, however, there have been politically correct measure put into place to block us from Americanizing our newcomers. There are those who even resist policies that encourage newcomers to speak English.

I want to have faith that our system is still good though. I'm not a Doom-and-Gloom type as you say, but I believe the concern is that we should have a handle on who is coming into the country. Secondly, I think there is a fear of the lack in security.

"Americanization" or assimilation is a historic precedent.

On language, the first generation speaks the native tongue predominantly, the second generation is bilingual and the third generation is totally Americanized. This has happened with many races, languages and cultures. German, Italian, Chinese, French, Portugese, etc.

Also, keep in mind many ethnic groups -- even today -- will never totally give us their heritage.

If you were not Irish but had supported a St. Patricks Day parade in the last 1880's you would have been accused of taking part in a plot to destroy the country. Remember the "Irish Go Home" time in American history?

Today, no matter what "old country" you came from we almost all celebrate St. Patricks Day. Hell, I know Chinese who wear Green on this day and drink green beer. It is what makes America America.

It is no different today.

"On language, the first generation speaks the native tongue predominantly, the second generation is bilingual and the third generation is totally Americanized."

Maybe true then, not necessarily true now, given that these new generations are spending their entire day mixing with each other, not with English-speakers. Especially given the militant ethnic purity being practiced among some politicized groups.

"If you were not Irish but had supported a St. Patricks Day parade in the last 1880's you would have been accused of taking part in a plot to destroy the country. Remember the "Irish Go Home" time in American history?"

I'm not that old. But the symptom is the same today, for the same reason. There was a flood of immigrants from a single culture coming into a rather small geographical area in a short period of time. At least they all spoke and understood English. Today, the flood is washing over the whole country, but it has a lot more "water." Average estimates place the illegal population of the country now at about 7% of the entire population, but that could easily grow to 15-20% or more.

Look around your own neighborhood. Imagine, for every ten homes, two new homes with families from the same country, none of them speaking your language or sharing your customs. If your neighborhood consists of 50 homes, that's ten new immigrant families. Could you assimilate them? Possibly. Now imagine the 10-20,000 families in a small town, and imagine an influx of 2-4,000 new families moving in within five or even twenty years, all of them earning minimum or less wages, none of them speaking English, but all of them speaking the same language you don't understand. Still think we could assimilate them? If you think that (assimilation) will happen, you haven't looked at even the most liberal small towns in the Southwest.

While you're at it, don't forget that the distribution won't be that constant. Hyannisport will get very few of the new folks, but some of the surrounding villages will get a lot more than their 20% share.

There is another difference between "then" and "now." "Then" the Congress was willing to listen to its constituents, and it passed legislation regulating immigration, and the administrations that followed enforced it. "Now" they are obstinately refusing to even acknowledge that we are rational and capable of having an informed opinion on the subject.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

survived many times, but that doesn't mean that he survived the last time. Legalizing the illegals is simply playing Russian roulette with known bullets in the weapon. Why does any American want to play with a loaded weapon?

Both the U.S. and the immigrants are different than in the past.

The differences between prior periods of large-scale immigration and today are that the country is now fully populated and is a taxpayer-burdened welfare state.

In the past, the immigrants were very diverse, but the numbers balanced each other. Today, it is mostly from one country, Mexico. In the past, the immigrants wanted freedom and liberty. Today, they mostly care about making money, with little interest in American values. In the past, we had an educational system that promoted knowledge, equality, the work ethic, and moving up the socio-economic ladder. Today, we have an educational system that promotes laziness, indulgence, entitlement, and indoctrination into group, not individual identities. Instead of a melting pot, we have multi-culturalism which could lead to "balkanization" of parts of the country. We never had a situtation in the past where any one ethnic group could takeover an entire city or state. This could happen in a couple decades.

for the same reason illegals come today -- to make a better life for themselves and their families.

Sure, there were some who were persecuted in their home countries for their religious or political beliefs. No doubt. But let's be clear most of them came because they were dirt poor and realized it wasn't ever going to get any better in their home country.

The hope and promise of the United States is as strong today to people around the globe as it was to our ancestors.

And yes, we do have areas of the country where predominant ethnic groups have already settled. This isn't a new dynamic just confined to Mexicans.

The French in Louisiana
East Europeans in Chicago
Asians in San Francisco
Irish in Boston
Cubans in Miami

Also, if you look closely at a map you will notice there are some small ethnic group areas within states as there is one area of Texas with a strong German heritage.

No one stops them. Other countries deport them or throw them in jail because they broke the laws. Here we tell them if they trash the place bad enough they get what they want. The same thing the democrats are telling the terrorists.

and to be part of the great engine known as the American Economy.

because our nation does not defend its borders. Try sneaking into Mexico and see what their jails are like.

The irish were starving and dirt poor because they were persecuted. It was one of the ways they were persecuted. Same goes for the eastern Europeans. Africans were solicited by force. Cubans, threat of impending persecution or continuing persecution rendering them dirt poor. Scandinavians because they heard minesota had worse weather ;-) Chinese some persecution some forced import and some seeking a better life.

Oh the French in Louisana were there before it was part of the country. Same for the Russians in Alaska, or Spanish in the southwest.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I also seem to recall that many Spanish speaking Mexican citizens supported the Texas independence movement as a means to escape tyranny.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

"But let's be clear most of them came because they were dirt poor and realized it wasn't ever going to get any better in their home country."

How many people do you want to live in the U.S.? If we take your criterion, we will have
half of the world coming to live in the U.S.

You forget that we have immigration for the benefit of the U.S., not for the benefit of the immigrants.

Pertaining to Chicago, the Slavs work it, but the Irish run it, and the Jews own it.

It is designed to address your question. Right now, our immigration system is screwed. Under merit-based we are going to take the world's best and brightest. This is a HUGE change in American immigration policy.

Not everyone in the world will want to come to the United States. Never have, never will.

But I do want American immigraiton to be based on Reagan's view of America where there is "always room for one more."

are to be invited in, and the rest will just come in on their own, because we will not defend our borders.

We already have a "special" visa program for the supposed "best and brightest." It really amounts to a program for India, China, and Eastern Europe to "outsource" engineering jobs into the U.S. The U.S. high tech companies get engineers who work harder, for less money. The companies in India and China make commissions on selecting the candidates. There is no requirement that these foreign engineers have to be any better or brighter than U.S. engineers. Guess what has happened? American engineering schools are now producing 50 percent less engineering graduates. An added benefit is that the "best and brightest" foreign engineers can rob us of our technology, go back to their native countries, and build their own high tech companies to compete with us. This story involves more than just some poor immigrant getting a job in America. Is this the model for the "merit system?"

We actually send our best engineers overseas to teach them the few superior techniques that they don't already know.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

Were not at all happy with the lousy immigration bill. With the H1B program they get to determine what kind of technical skills they need in their employees. With the "merit" point system, there's no such control. The government just decides that a diploma is simply worth a few points, regardless of whether it's an degree in Islamic studies or information technology.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Merit based isn't so merit based. It's just somewhat more merit based than the previous system in which merit counted for exactly jack. Also, there's nothing merit based about the blanket amnesty. Unless by "world's best and brightest" you mean criminals that come here illegally, steal identities, and don't pay their taxes.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Reagan ran those "Bear in the woods" commercials to highlight the dangers we faced from communism. His "optimism" was of the sort which recognized dangers, but felt they could be surmounted by effort. He never felt that everyone in the world was wonderful, or that good things would happen "just because", if we only all held hands and smiled.

The modern self-styled "Reaganite optimists" are a completly different breed. They cannot imagine that anything bad can ever happen. They are more like progressives with their devotion to the idea that change is always for the good, always for the better. They are the kind of optimists who would sink all their savings into lottery tickets. Hey, its optimism! What can go wrong? Don't worry, be happy.

I suppose when a country has gone over a century without a war on its own soil and has not had economic hardship within the memory of most, its easy to slip into thinking that nothing bad can ever happen, as if the normal rules of human behavior don't apply to us. That sort of hubris has only one outcome.

NoKidding
If Reid made a procedural error, it probably was intentional. When a railroad job is going, as here, a procedural screwup can be really bad for the bill managers, in this way:

If you simply rig the Chair's ruling to help the bill, you are threatening the FUTURE power of ALL Senators, including your Yes-bill votes. "Today, they gag and railroad DeMint or Sessions. Tomorrow, it could be ME." Oops. Thus, when a rigged Chair ruling is appealed to the body, the managers are asking Yes-bill Senators to vote for a precedent that can shaft THEM tomorrow or next week, on a different bill.

Further, the Senate is horrified, institutionally, at the idea of having a "dictatorship" of the Leaders. "Why, why, we would be -- the HOUSE! Gasp!!" Messing with the Chair and its rulings (above a certain minimum) points directly to a Senate with two CEOs and 98 hired hands. "Hired hands" have trouble getting treated like kings and queens. They have to work a lot harder to raise money. They don't get nearly as much media space. And so on.

Finally, it isn't nearly as easy as it might sound to rig the Chair, who usually is a Child Senator. When the Chair leans forward on a point of order, he is asking the Parliamentarian or staff how to rule. They are telling him how to rule correctly; the body expects this of the Parl, above all. Then, the Chair's job is to rule as advised. The body really means it in this area: "it's the only way to protect all of us." If this stuff gets screwed with, they all go nuts, fast. The only unwritten "wiggle room" is that the Parliamentarian will give a benefit of doubt to Maj Leader in GENUINELY close or cloudy cases. But Reid is Maj Leader, not Kennedy, and it's not yet clear that Reid cares much if this passes. He's causing huge self-harm by the GOP merely by keeping the show going, and Pelosi surely doesn't want the dead cat tossed her way.

Do note that Reid and Pelosi are providing plenty of evidence that they know this is horrible politics. Not our leadership, baby; clueless, on we march.

to pass this legislation, and it will die there. In the meantime, the foolish visages of Senate Republicans and a president who supported this insanity will be emblazoned in the public's mind, which will vote accordingly and hand the GOP its most devastating defeat since 1932. I believe that the president, Rove, and the party Establishment had decided the Republicans would lose the White House and Congress in 2008 due to Iraq and decided to roll the dice. Bad choice.

You really have to hand it to Sen. Reid, too. He has played the Senate Republicans and the president like violins, and his line "this is Bush's bill" will help Democrats in purple districts, and his claims that the failure in the House was because of GOP evil will secure roughly 90 percent of the Hispanic vote for Democrats in perpetuity.

In the not-so-distant future, we will look back upon the presidency of Hillary Clinton and long for her conservatism.

If this thing succeeds and passes the Senate, what are the possibilities of a primary on Lindsay Graham and Trent Lott? They are both from SOLID red states, and we can do far better than them.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

His career will be over next year. There are primary opponents and his
Kennedy-loving a** will be kicked out of office.

This immigration fight has disheartened me, but it has also given me hope that we can finally take our party back from the "compassionate conservative" country club Republicans. All our major candidates for president (save McCain, who isn't going anywhere) have spoken out against this bill and are (at least now) embracing "true" conservative ideals - not the "Bush variety".

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I simply see this as the final straw for millions of Republican voters. I just looked at the DailyKos thread (I know, but it is representative of those people) and they have generally agreed with my propositions above and the strategy of Reid and Pelosi.

Politics are secondary to my concerns, of course, but they loom very large here.

...from grassroots conservatives and grassroots liberals. The people who REALLY want this thing are the ensconced Washington elite, special interests like labor unions, big business, and liberal activist groups who want open borders. Ordinary Americans are not clamoring for this thing. I don't think this bill have adverse affects on a party as a whole, but it can certainly be detrimental to Republicans who vote in favor of it. There is a huge division in the Republican party over this, and even if the Senate passes it, it will not be portrayed as a "Republican" bill. It will be a "Bush" bill.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

will destroy the Republican Party. For too long they have led the party down a disasterous path when it comes to immigration reform. If we alienate Latino voters like they want to do, you are right, WE WILL look back and long for the days of Hillary Clinton conservatism.

LEGAL Hispanic voters are the fastest growing demographic and they will be able to tip the balance away from the GOP in presidential elections in future years.

The GOP cannot afford to give them the middle finger like Tancredo and Buchanan want us to do.

don't want illegals given what they earned. Legalizing illegals just creates more illegals. Does anyone really think Congress is going to stop illegals? There is no way America can absorb every person from other countries that want to come here. Why pretend we can?

Many Latinos have situations where their friends and family is part legal, part illegal.

It's not at all unusual for the children to be born here and be American citizens but the parents are illegal. The children cannot vote yet but they see and hear their parents talk about the GOP hating people like them. Aunts legal, uncle illegal, cousin illegal, brother legal, etc.

There are many "mixed" family situations and many stories have been written about this.

You live in a fantasy world or maybe you just work for the GOP.

The bottom line is that if the GOP actually appeals to illiterate third worlders and becomes a viable voting option for them the GOP has at that point ceased to be useful for conservatives advocating "small government" political philosophy.

A GOP tent that becomes that big means they become democrats-lite which is equally as useless to me.

When I refer to looking back fondly at the conservatism of President Hillary Clinton, I refer to some time after the country finally does legalize millions of ill-educated and low-skilled illegals who vote socialist once they become eligible.

I actually tried to reply to this GOP employee:

"LEGAL Hispanic voters are the fastest growing demographic and they will be able to tip the balance away from the GOP in presidential elections in future years."

The magical latino "conservative/small government" vote is as non-existent as a real GOP conservative.

you're advocating that we capitulate to extortion in a way that will likely destroy our culture and the foundations of our form of government and guarantee that the fears you express (LEGAL Hispanic voters are the fastest growing demographic and they will be able to tip the balance away from the GOP in presidential elections in future years.) will come true.

Yet, if we stand up to the extortion, we will likely avoid that fate, because then we'll primarily be dealing with legal immigrants who followed the rules and dislike cheaters much the same way the rest of us do, rather than "legal" immigrants who bullied us into submission, and we'll be dealing with a lot fewer of them.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

if we don't do what they want we will never win an election again why you sound like McCain saying that we wouldn't want rioting in the street like in France. I can well guarantee you that Americans do not take kindly to idle threats from anyone let alone people who should not be in this country in the first place. The GOP by the way cannot afford to give the middle finger to those of us who fund and vote for them right this very minute or they will not be around to accept a Latino vote.

Legal latino immigrants don't vote GOP anyway so what difference does it make? Sure, there are exceptions to everything but they vote Democrat overwhelmingly.

Besides, with your rationale, we may as well legalize drugs, gambling and prostitution while we're at. Look at all the grateful voters we'll gain!

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

To stop the vampire bill ...

Very Likely to Switch
Kyl (R-AZ)-coalition member
Lott (R-MS)—pushing hard for bill; willing to “reign in” dissenters
McConnell (R-KY)-pushing hard for bill
Craig (R-ID)—has said he will

Likely to Switch
Boxer (D-CA)—voted in favor of bill last year
Collins (R-ME)—voted in favor of bill last year
Snowe (R-ME)—voted in favor of bill last year
Domenici (R-NM)—voted in favor of bill last year
Murkowski (R-AK)—voted in favor of bill last year
Stevens (R-AK)—voted in favor of bill last year

Could very well switch
Smith (R-OR)—voted for bill last year, but could be up for a tough re-election...
Alexander (R-TN)—voted against cloture last time
Gregg (R-NH)—voted in favor of bill last year
Bingaman (D-NM)—voted in favor of bill last year—but has been a little more critical now...
Bennett (R-UT)—voted in favor of bill last year
Hatch (R-UT)—voted in favor of cloture last year
Cochran (R-MS)—voted in favor of cloture last year

Toss-ups
Warner (R-VA)—up for re-election; voted for bill last time, but, w/Webb, he might not switch
Sanders (I-VT)—who knows! He’s independent!
Coleman (R-MN)—up for re-election; voted for bill last time, but has been more critical now
Isakson (R-GA)— the Georgians are tough: both voted against cloture before
Chambliss (R-GA)— but are more favorable to ultimate bill now....
Pryor (D-AR)—up for re-election; voted in favor of bill last year, but more critical now....

He just might do it, if we put him up to it. As someone who actually lives here, I'll call him tomorrow.

transcripts of the senate floor debate on this issue from Thomas for reference?

I have it ready but thought I would check before I posted it...

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Here's that link I missed above, there is a lot here that is worth reading.

Congress In Action on Immigration, the good the bad and the ugly

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

I really believe letting the debate continue will be well worth the while...

So much of the floor stuff is boring but when they get on an issue like this, it really gets juicy!

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

In the last two weeks I have spent hour after hour learning how badly the system is broken, how businesses are abusing laborers who are afraid to make a complaint because there are hundreds waiting to take their place.

Not to be mean, but those of us following this for a long time are very well aware of the things you learned. We also know that these problems were created by successive Congresses and Presidents. And we know that this President and Congress have absolutely zero interest in fixing those problems, and every intention of making them worse.

Who gets to stay? That's the only issue really, this is where we need to make our stand.

You are not following things very closely if you imagine that is any sort of issue, in the eyes of the people deciding what will be in this bill. They want everyone to stay, and lots more like them to come.

This is not illegals doing jobs Americans don't want, this was illegals displacing hundreds of thousands of decent paying blue collar workers. That's the business owner, either looking the other way, or far worse committing fraud, something I never did in my business.

No kidding. But the bill our rulers want won't do much of anything about that. It will legalize all those current illegals and create a vast guest worker program so that all the millions to follow will not be illegal. It will do nothing for those people you mention, or for those like them in the future.

The President has asked them to get real, to step up to the plate and get the job done. To give him/the administration the tools to get it done.

Sometimes the only thing to do is shake your head in disbelief. In June 2007, there are people in the United States who think that George W Bush is anxious to fix the border problem and needs Congress to give him the tools he needs to do it!

Merciful God, grant these people eyes to see.

for anything to be done?

You see me talking guest worker? Not ever.

If you think that there is no one looking for an alternative to "everyone" being granted citizenship, you have been reading too many blogs and not enough factual data.

Try reading the bill, then the amendments that have been proposed to make it workable. Read the floor debate, I have, all of it. See my link above and be informed, at least a little.

Don't talk to me about informed, go back and read how the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights came about, the debates between Jefferson and Adams, Franklins opinions and "realism". That's is how it's supposed to work...

"[For Franklin], compromise was not only a practical approach, but a moral one. Tolerance, humility, and a respect for others required it. On almost every issue for more than two centuries, this supposed fault has served the Constitution, and the nation that it formed, quite well. There was only one issue that could not, then or later, be solved by constitutional compromise: slavery."

Walter Isaacson

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

you have to realize the probationary Z Visas would issue immediately upon signing to anyone illegally in the country prior to January 1. There are exceptions but few. When you refer to those who won't get probationary visas, to whom do you refer? Seriously?

this is not a done deal, the z visa thing is crap and needs "work", let them work on it.

We are too hung up on the details, yes the details are what make up the bill, but they can be changed, I think if we took more of a proactive stance and said that if the z visa looked like this "......", well then we would be offering something instead of being against everything, like the democrats.

I understand that this is not our job but I'd rather use our voice for something constructive. But hey that's just the way I've lived my life, it's not for everyone.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

There is no detail that can make the Z visa program 'work'. Zip. None. Nada. And any amendment on the Senate floor will be trashed in the confrerence anyway and a more liberal bill will pass and go to the President. LOSE/LOSE for GOP, conservatives, and America. The Z visa amnesty will cost $2.5 trillion and be a bigger expansion of the welfare state that medicare part D.

One one Amendment could save : PASS THE VITTER AMENDMENT TO STRIKE THE WHOLE Z VISA PROGRAM.

barring that, what?
- An amendment to only have z visas for people with 10 years residency, instead of everyone here since January?
- An amendment to change the absurd 24 hour turnaround to something reasonable?
- An amendment to bar criminal aliens? (oops Cornyn tried that, it *failed*)

"I understand that this is not our job but I'd rather use our voice for something constructive. But hey that's just the way I've lived my life, it's not for everyone."

Sometimes the most constructive thing you can to is to stop stupidity and evil happen.

is the entire point of the bill, from the standpoint of the WH and the people who crafted the bill in the Senate. It is not some detail which can somehow be straightened out.

we would be offering something instead of being against everything, like the democrats.

We are not against everything. We are for something. That something is border enforcement and interior enforcement. We are for Congress applying the findings of its own Immigration Reform Commission. They were very good, bipartisan recommendations. Lets ask Congres to act on them.

We are too hung up on the details

It's all those "details" that add up to a horrible bill that's much worse than the status quo. A bill is nothing more than a big pile of details.

but they can be changed,

No they can't. If this bill were somehow "fixed" it would be unrecognizable from it's current form, would not pass the Senate, would not get anywhere in the House, and would be vetoed by the President.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

They have no interest in our suggestions to "improve" their bill. All those things that we call "horrible loopholes and invitations to disaster" they call "working with the opposition" and "compromise."

Besides, how can you possibly offer a reasonable suggestion (by their standards) to change a given provision when you don't know what other provision it was inserted to "offset"?

The best we can do is express our basic principles, and indicate where they might get some slack from us. If they can't see that a "comprehensive bill" in itself is counter-productive to the whole situation, there is little chance they'll agree that any specific suggestion is helpful; in fact, there's little chance that it's one that they haven't already considered. (That doesn't mean you shouldn't make it, though.) They have their own agendas, and they aren't necessarily directed towards solving the illegal immigration problem.

I wish I could tell you how long I've been shouting "Stand-Alone Border Security First" but it's lost in the old system. I can say, however, that there are a lot of people who have joined me, whether they know it or not. Let the "men" work out the details, if they can grasp the concept itself.

When the time comes, the same will happen with the current illegal residents. Agreement will be reached that they'll receive "something," and the details of "how much, how fast, and how long" will be worked out.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

An amendment to strip out the Z Visa failed miserably. The Z Visa is more than a detail, it is the whole point of the legislation. Everything else is a fraud courtesy of the White House and a cabal of senators.

Tell me what makes you think I am unwilling for anything to be done. A cite from a comment of mine perhaps.

See my link above and be informed, at least a little.

You are a comical fellow. Ask around. I know more about this bill than probably anyone here but Bluey.

Don't talk to me about informed, go back and read how the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights came about, the debates between Jefferson and Adams, Franklins opinions and "realism". That's is how it's supposed to work...

Maybe you are just tired. This makes zero sense. We are not drafting a Constiution here. The people writing this bill are not the Founding Fathers. And they sure as hell have zero intention of writing anything like the Federalist Papers in an effort to convince the public of their position. They aim to ram this through with as little public feedback as possible. You can see their exasperation that they have any degree of public scrutiny at all.

No need to ask around, yes the sky is falling, run run.

So you claim to know Trent Lotts intention? Sessions? (Reid and Kennedy I'll give you)

Why can't the Senate proceed with debate on the bill? How is that a bad thing? Let the Senate debate it, amend it, send it to the house. Let the house work on it, send it to conference and then send it back to the Senate for more debate and compromise.

In my link to the debate transcript there is discussion of the "grand compromise" from which those who were involved in the writing of the bill will not bend. That of course means there is some back door deal that Kennedy probably came up with, or someone did, so that the basic concepts were not altered.

Who cares? As it is the bills not going to be enacted into law, so my whole point is let them fix it.

If your position is it can't be fixed, then why are you bothering at all? That's like saying if I typed it wrong, spellcheck isn't going to correct it.

Let them try and get a workable bill, how can you deny that that is a valid point and exactly what I've been saying?

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Not sure what all the snark is for. What is it for? Sky is falling, run, run?

As it is the bills not going to be enacted into law, so my whole point is let them fix it.

Why do you say its not going to be enacted into law? The President and the Senate leadership want it to be, so it may well be.

So you claim to know Trent Lotts intention? Sessions?

Well, I know what they have said and what they have done. Yes, their intentions are pretty clear, to me. Are they obscure to you?

Let the Senate debate it, amend it, send it to the house. Let the house work on it, send it to conference and then send it back to the Senate for more debate and compromise.

Sure. Let the President sign it as well. What is your point here? That the bill which emerges from this process is bound to be good? It's not. It is bound to be bad.

If your position is it can't be fixed, then why are you bothering at all?

Yes. My position is that it cannot be fixed. Why that is supposed to prevent me from trying to kill it is a mystery to me. I have explained at some length here why I think no good bill can or will emerge from this process. I won't repeat it all again right here, read down for the details.

The short answer is that I believe a good bill will be a bill focused on border security and interior enforcment. The people behind this bill have completely different priorities, and have a long track record of being hostile to border security and interior enforcement. I'm not sure how many times and ways I have to explain my position before you stop being mystified by it. Nor do I understand the hostile attitude. You're lucky you are not Thomas!

according to Trent Lott anything they don't like in the amendments voted in they will just strip out in committee so all this talk of debating it is just that talk and a waste of time because nothing that would change the fabric of this monstrosity will remain nor would it pass a vote in the first place, so why bring it back at all? The status quo is by the way working at this time and if the economy takes a downturn as opposed to 12-20 million new citizens being out of work 12-20 million will go back to their country of origin.

Nice attempt at obfuscation.

News flash to GOP kool-aid-drinkers:

There is no "fixing" this bill and anyone that votes for this travesty goes on the "no vote" list for conservatives of conscience.

We won't be suckered by insincere promises to enforce laws that have already been on the books for years.

Bush has exactly 0 credibility when discussing border security and he will continue to enjoy that lack of confidence as long as he remains in office. He should have actually believed the homeland security rhetoric he has been spewing since 9/11 and actually enforced the laws on the books instead of waiting until his SECOND term in office to "address" this issue via massive corporate handouts (amnesty for cheap labor) at enormous expense to the taxpayers who will be saddled with paying for our brand new north-of-the-border underclass.

Nice try Mr. GOP activist but conservatives want PROVEN enforcement not yet another sop to big business and leftist open borders advocates.

5 year minimum moratorium on any asinine Republican even mouthing the word "immigration" until they secure the border - then we can decide what to do with these illegals.

is going to be better at enforcing the current laws which don't work. We'll be dealing with this problem in another 10 years but instead of having 12 million, we'll have 24 million.

We better put new policies in place now. You may not trust Bush, but I trust him a helluva lot more than I trust President Clinton Version 2.0.

Any rational conservative determined not to be suckered (yet again) by the GOP on illegal immigration will insist on enforcement before anything.

The thought of boogey(woman) Hillary being voted into office doesn't scare me in the slightest after having been f-ed over by Bush and the open borders advocates gang of T.Kennedy, J. McCain, J.Kyl and Lindsey (the lisper) Graham.

Could it be any worse? Who cares. If the GOP gets this one wrong they aren't worth caring about anymore. They are only useful to conservatives as a means of advancing conservative policy. If the GOP manages to legalize 12-20 million new welfare recipients they have dug their own grave anyway...

"is going to be better at enforcing the current laws which don't work. We'll be dealing with this problem in another 10 years but instead of having 12 million, we'll have 24 million."

Of course not.

All the more reason to kick the sellouts out of the GOP so that we can actually distinguish ourselves from the pro-amnesty Democrats.

"We better put new policies in place now. You may not trust Bush, but I trust him a helluva lot more than I trust President Clinton Version 2.0."

Clinton is on the record as an immigration amnesty sellout.
Bush is on the record as an immigration amnesty sellout.

Our only hope is to find 40 good senators who will do everything they can to filibuster and STOP THIS BILL.

Is going to lead to any enforcement by HRC. Nothing in this bill is going to lead to any enforcement by W. I also don't agree with your premise that HRC is any worse than W in terms of immigration.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

As republicans might fight liberal hillary on this issue, while some cave now to liberal bush because he has an R after his name.

The "we have to stop hillary clinton at all costs( or John Kerry, or enter name here)" doesn't work anymore. Not after this.

after this episode. Sadly, though, it appears Bush and Rove had decided the 2008 election was lost across the board anyhow so now was a low-impact time to embrace a massive and wildly unpopular program. In essence, the party Establishment has conceded the White House and Congress in 2008 to the Democrats and moved ahead with this politically toxic amnesty.

Cynical, yes, but it appears to have been the political calculus. Even as inept as Rove has been in recent years, he realizes the "scare the yahoos with Hillary" option wouldn't work in the wake of Iraq.

Reading comprehension not your thing eh?

If not for posting rules I'd have two words for you in response.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

"Reading comprehension not your thing eh?

If not for posting rules I'd have two words for you in response."

This board as I understand it isn't affiliated with the Republican party but instead exists as a way for political conservatives to have discussions and debates on various issues affecting us.

"Republican" is not synonomous with "conservative" there is a difference and it is becoming more and more pronounced.

Just as I refuse to be suckered into a bad deal in a used car lot I will continue to refuse to be taken advantage of by detestable careerist politicians that lisp conservative rhetoric (Lindsey Graham) while advocating leftist open borders policies.

Oh, and please feel free to call me whatever you wish i'm not some hissy-fitting, testosterone challenged Republican senator from the great state of SC. I can take it.

"News flash to GOP kool-aid-drinkers:

There is no "fixing" this bill and anyone that votes for this travesty goes on the "no vote" list for conservatives of conscience.

We won't be suckered by insincere promises to enforce laws that have already been on the books for years."

Correct!

This is the worst bill to be passed in the last 10 years.
Worse than the previous worst bill, McCain Feingold.

What makes it the worst bill is an

ANYONE WHO LEND SUPPORT TO GETTING THIS PASSED IN ANY WAY IS ANATHEMA TO CONSERVATIVES.

"While many may not feel you have a need or a desire to have an understanding of how congress works, perhaps instead of simply trying to derail it, get on board with making an attempt to get it right."

There is no way to correct a bill based on the concept of surrendering to 12 million illegal immigrants as a 'solution' to illegal immigration.

It is fundamentally flawed based on a fundamentally flawed premise. The flawed premise has been: "We can't deport them, therefore we have to up front legislate citizenship for all of them." And then they compound that error we a very bad and unfair set of policies around it: Allowing criminals and those with deportation orders; give a path to citizenship no slower than many people who come via H1B; give it to an *UNLIMITED* number ... I mean why not give to the 1 million most qualified? Or those with *real* deep roots, such as being here for more than 12 years?

This bill will cost taxpayers trillions, and imports the most illiterate and uneducated and impoverished people, the majority of illegal aliens do not even have high school degrees. We are importing 19th century workers into a 21st century economy. Inequality on racial lines, a massive increase in the welfare state, a huge shift left in our politics, increase in social pathologies ... and all that just because "we cant just deport them."

Have they tried this?
1. Build the border fence. 2. Enforce the law - vigorously. Deport all criminal aliens. 3. DO NOT DO AMNESTY, but simply change legal immigration law to allow employment based hiring.

PROBLEM SOLVE THEMSELVES WHEN YOU FIX THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM, which are: Open borders, lack of enforcement, chain-based legal immigration crowding out employment-based immigration, anchor babies.

This bill now has been amended so it hobbles both temporary workers and high-skill immigration, continues the 'anchor baby' problem, tries to get away from chain migration but only after they clear a backlog of ... oh, *5 million chain migration applicants!!!* ...8 years... by those 8 years, the Liberal Democrat majority and Obama/Clinton/Kennedy will 'fix' the 'problem' of 'not enough family' slots so that chain migration will ONLY GET WORSE, because now the 20 million amnestied illegals will want to bring *THEIR FAMILIES*! IT IS FAR WORSE THAN STATUS QUO.

On the borders, it is insulting and pathetic that securing the border is held HOSTAGE by this bill. We need to finishthe border fence NOW and stop using it as a chit to get amnesty.

1986 turned a small immigration problem into a big immigration problem. This bill turns a big immigration problem into the end of the American Republic. Yes, it is that bad.

The Chutzpah to call this destructive bill "Reform". This is to "reform" what a forest fire is to "plant growth".

Everyone should be on the phone furious that the senators are bringing this very bad bill back from the dead.

KILL THIS AWFUL BILL, NOW, BEFORE IT KILLS AMERICA'S FUTURE.

I especially liked

It is fundamentally flawed based on a fundamentally flawed premise. The flawed premise has been: "We can't deport them, therefore we have to up front legislate citizenship for all of them."

and

1986 turned a small immigration problem into a big immigration problem. This bill turns a big immigration problem into the end of the American Republic. Yes, it is that bad.

You are so right. I wish that more of us recognized that this is a more significant problem than the problems we have with terrorists or the Middle East fighting. The terrorist may kill people and tie up resources for years, and the fighting in Iraq (and soon to be Iran, I fear) will cost of the lives of brave military volunteers, but they won't bring down the country. (So far we've lost fewer in Iraq than we lost in the first couple of battles of WWII.)

If this immigration problem is allowed to continue, and yes, is encouraged to speed up by this bill, we will almost assuredly be responsible for changing the United States from what it is to what our enemies will be glad it becomes.

A lot has been made of the idea that we're a "nation of immigrants." If that's so, don't you think that those Native American Indians, watching the Europeans arrive in the 15th and 16th century, would have done eveything they could to keep our ancestors out if they knew what would happen and if they had the ability to stop them? They didn't, and couldn't, and as a result their societies and cultures have practically disappeared.

The terrorsts/al Qaeda/Iran/North Korea can't do that to us by force, but unchecked illegal immigration can, and will.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

That's my point, it's far better than what was proposed last year and something must be done. No, doing nothing is not better, that I will not agree with. Congress has created a huge mess with current law and funding.

It MUST be fixed, let them fix the bill, they MUST take the time to get it right, I don't care if they amend and debate it for the next six months, "get er done".

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Tell me how it is so much better than the bill that was rejected last year.

Last years bill was supposedly for those who have been over longer than five years. Or was it two? It did not matter since there is no way to tell how long they been here and zero willingness to deport anyone who does not meet the cutoff.

It MUST be fixed, let them fix the bill, they MUST take the time to get it right, I don't care if they amend and debate it for the next six months, "get er done".

You seem like a pretty good guy, from your comments I have seen. But you are rather naive. They don't want to "get it right", in the sense that the American people underststand getting it right. And they cannot allow it to take time. They need this bill wrapped up as long as possible before the 2008 elections.

Have you followed the amendment process so far? Have you seen all the good amendments, ones favored by 80%+ of the American people, which have been defeated? Have you seen Trent Lotts statements to the effect that any of those amendements which do get passed will get deleted in conference?

The type of bill desired by President Bush and Congress cannot be a good bill. Their bill will have two main priorities; legalizing all the current illegals, and creating a very large window for pretty much unlimited legal immigration from here on out. If you followed Bush's initiatives on this topic from a few years back you would know that those the things are what he wants in this bill. Any sort of border security is a nuisance which Bush and the Congress would really rather not have to deal with.

Here is a pretty old presentation by Margret Spellings setting out what Bush wanted with regards to immigration. She was his spokeswoman at the time on this issue. It is identical to what he wants today. You will notice that "security" is bottom of the list of items mentioned. All the people speaking here are still key players. Read them all and see for yourself what their priorites are.

You mentioned people put out of work in the building industry. See what Jeff Flake has to say about enforcing the laws to prevent that.

A lot of people are asking: “How can we enforce a new law when we can’t enforce the laws that we already have? Let’s enforce the law that we already have before we have a guest worker program.” I would suggest that those who are saying that
should come along with me and the INS and the Department of Justice to any resort in Phoenix or to any roofing contractor, drywall hanger, or landscaping company, and arrest the employer and put the employer in jail or assess a fine of $10,000 per occurrence, as the law requires. If anybody actually wants to do that, and would feel good about it, then I would agree and say, “Hey, let’s enforce the law as it is.” The truth is we have a law today that simply isn’t going to be enforced. We don’t have the political will. Right now we have a law that is divorced from reality. And so we need to enforce the law. But first, we need a law that we can enforce.

Pay close attention to what he is saying here. It is not that the current laws are impossible to enforce for technical reasons. It is that he does not believe they should be enforced, because businessmen should be able to hire whoever they like from anywhere in the world. That is the alpha and omega of the immigration bill from the standpoint of the Republicans pushing this. Border security is merely a smokescreen to help them get it, to be discarded once their goal is achieved.

"Last years bill was supposedly for those who have been over longer than five years. Or was it two? It did not matter since there is no way to tell how long they been here and zero willingness to deport anyone who does not meet the cutoff."

It doesnt matter because Kennedy wrote last years bill to invite fraud and this years bill has been written similarly, although they drop the pretense - ANYONE, even someone with two misdemeanor convictions, even people with court-ordered deportations, can get amnesty.

The latter is key because it means that there is a great incentive to *stay* in the shadows until you are caught then jump into the Z-visa line.

It will undermine greatly ability to enforce immigration law.

This bill would give the federal government 24 hours to conduct a background check on immigrant applicants. There is no government in the world that could effectively check their records that fast. There is no central repository for all criminal and security data. How do you know you are checking the right person against the files anyway? A fingerprint card means nothing if it cannot be compared with anything. It takes months to do a fingerprint check with the FBI. In order to really know that a person doesn't already have a criminal record in the U.S., you have to do a local agency check in every jurisdiction that a person has lived, worked, or gone to school.

For background checks on foreign nationals, the U.S. usually gets a national law enforcement clearance from the country where the person is a citizen, prior to processing. This proves that the person is who he says he is and that he has no criminal or security record in his own country. Are we requiring anything from the Mexicans?

All documents can be forged. It takes a trained person to know if something is fake. Can this be done in 24 hours?

That they'll find any jihadists in that 24 hour cursory background check. How many thousands of jihadists will get in on the instant amnesty?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

In part there is the rule of law and personal desire, while the Pres might from a personal standpoint wish for an open border, and I'm not sure he does, I have posted over and over data showing enforcement. Not only enforcement but new methods, procedures, approaches. I have found that congress has directly interfered, on behalf of illegals, industries, employers. Red states, blue states, no matter they all do it.

Passing laws for instance to prevent DHS from the "no match" information, not funding items like Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 287(g) allows for an agreement to be made between local cops, state/city to enforce immigration laws. This was passed in 1996 or 97 and there are only a few agencies in the entire nation doing it!! Even today the funding for this program is about $5.3 million...

ICE currently has 287 (g) MOAs with the Alabama Department of Public Safety/State Police, the Arizona Department of Corrections and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. ICE also has MOAs with the county sheriff’s departments in Maricopa County, Ariz.; Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, Calif.; Cobb County, Ga.; Alamance, Gaston and Mecklenburg counties, N.C.; and Davidson County, Tenn.

It's a farce, and congress is to blame.

From a post I've been working on for days...

Let's look to a very red state like Georgia, in 1998 it was clear that there were a large number of foreign people "doing jobs that Americans don't want to do", picking Vidalia Onions. Enter the INS, there were a total of 4,034 illegals arrested and many more thousands fled leaving the onions to rot in the fields.

The prospect of a $90 million crop wasted got the agribusiness concerns talking to their congressional delegation and they in turn put an end to INS meddling in Georgia. Then Sen. Paul Coverdell, condemned the INS using rhetoric like, “military-style” raids “against honest farmers,” and “an indiscriminate and inappropriate use of extreme enforcement tactics.” That sounds a little over the top, after all this is the agency doing it's job.
If you go to Johnny Isakson's website you see him and Saxby Chambliss standing next to crates of those Vidalia Onions that they pass out in congress, who picks those onions today senators?

Is that not a joke? What about that peach crop? Who is picking that, or the poultry raids that left an entire town nearly empty. Georgia is not one of the Blue states...

I'm not naive, very much a realist/idealist/pragmatist. I'm just not as cynical as some.

The security of the borders must be taken care of, I'm not against some of the people who are here staying as I mentioned before. The rest, see ya... for the businesses that continue to flaunt the law, jail, tax evasion, confiscation, whatever it takes to put an end to it.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

One more time for those who just don't get where I'm coming from....

There are many issues with the bill that don't help matters or are purely delusional.

There were though many amendments offered to make the bill into something that could work.

I'm all for them trying to make it work, the system is broken, all the talk about the laws on the books now is just that, talk. Too many outs for employers, too many people living in the shadows, a porous border, an unfunded fence, unfunded enforcement. Laws that prevent agencies from finding those who abuse the SSN's. Congressmen interfering with enforcement.

As bad as it is, it's still better than last years fiasco but the question is how much longer do we want to continue this way?

One bill, two bills? Let them hash it out and finally do their job, then we fire them all, or most of them anyway...

See you all in a few days.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

What next do we storm the capital?

This is the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!!! Get a grip.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

And downing a few at a politicians expense ;-)

Come on strange guy, voting people into and out of office is what we do. We even do it while we are at war.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Tonight I'll make an exception...

Who's the patron saint of lost causes?

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

Are you referring to the Beer Hall Putsch? It occurred in the early thirties not 1940.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Wow. A real-life GOP activist.

You will be lonely in 2008 sir.

The sweetest feeling in the world must be casting a vote against a plutocrat enabling, sellout swine like Lindsey Graham.

I'll be enjoying that feeling in 2008 and I will let you know how it feels.

I voted for Perot in 1992 and it felt so good. For about 1 day.

I'll vote conservative in the primaries. Kick out the ones who vote for amnesty in the primarie? Sure, if we're talking about a relatively conservative state.

Vote for the GOP in the general? Barring someone who is corrupt or has been indicted ... you bet.

I suspect there are some Missourians who were out to show the GOP a thing or two last November who are having some buyers remorse right now.

You might want to read through stuff for longer than a week before you jump in and try to turn away voters from the GOP.

Romney or Fred.

McCaskill is one of the Dems who voted against cloture on the immigration bill. I sent her a thank-you note for that one. Is she my choice? Absolutely not. I voted for Talent, one of my favorite reps/senators of all time, and I'm hoping he'll be back in things again soon.

Let me break this down for you in terms you should be able to understand:

Political conservatism (anti-abortion, small government, pro-military) is the philosophy that drives me to vote for a candidate. The GOP is merely a means to an end. If they choose to become an exact duplicate of the democratic party they serve no purpose.

I'm not concerned for the job security of the GOP toadie class. You will eventually find work in the private sector given a strong enough work ethic and a desire to actually be productive.

The GOP either bends to the will of conservatives or they write off the conservative vote. McCain, Kyl, Specter, Lindsey Graham and the rest of these elitist pigs needs to be put on a spit and slow roasted come election time. We as conservatives need to demand respect from these treacherous idiots - or they will obviously keep spitting in our face.

This isn't hard to understand is it? Do I need to elaborate further on how the GOP has failed to be a conservative political alternative in DC since they became the majority party in '94?

hit it out of the park, churchill...

"What next do we storm the capital?

This is the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!!! Get a grip."

It's called "voting" or in this case "not voting for sellout Republicans who cave to the open borders leftists and the radical capitalist desire for neverending sources of illiterate third world labor."

Nothing bad can happen in the United States of America. It's a rule.

Anymore than Repubs would do legalization of the 12 million by itself.

Both parties have to give to get. Might not be popular or pretty but it is the way the system works.

Also, neither side will probably ever be politically strong enough to make the other side totally swallow something they don't want by itself.

So you are stuck with two choices
1) Continue current sitaution which is broke.
2) Give and get to try something new.

They have woken the populace from its slumbers.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

You are forgetting option:

3) Listen to the 80% of the electorate that want PROVEN enforcement before entertaining the idea of legalizing 12-20 million new illiterate third worlders.

absolutely running away from the GOP field? Immigration, while an emotional issue, has a limited upside. If it didn't these guys would be burning up the field. As it stands Tancredo is sucking wind.

Using this thinking, since neither Hunter not Mccain is running away with the field we can conclude that the voters are not interested in the war, they being the two vets running.

For the record I do think it a little odd that all the GWOT people are not more interested in Hunter or Mcain, and that all the people concerned about immigration are not more interested in Hunter or Tancredo. But people back whatever candidates they like for whatever reason they chose.

All candidates have moved against the amnesty provisions, except McCain. McCain has tanked. There are multiple places to go if you are against immigration reform.... I for one like Romney and Thompson. Neither would be as stupid and as open borders as Bush has been on immigration.

The real story on the GOP base:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/
President Bush loses base over immigration falling from base support in the 80% plus range until recently and now plummeting to around 40%:

When asked about various areas of the illegal immigration issue, 97% of respondents said that it was “very important” to focus on “border security and reducing the number of people who enter the country illegally.” That number drops to 43% on the topic of “resolving the legal status of the illegal aliens already in the U.S.” Only 18% felt it was “very important” to set up a temporary worker program. ... When asked if they supported the “illegal immigration legislation that was being debated in the U.S. Senate,” 93% of respondents said “no.”

why isn't McCain running away with the race?

...relatively speaking, no one knows who the heck they are, compared to Rudy and McCain, even tho' Hunter and Tancredo are good conservative voices. Not to turn this into a Fred thread, but...that's one of the key things that makes Thompson a player right away - he has national/international name recognition, AND he's a pretty strong conservative with no huge downsides.

The Secure Fence Act passed last year, by itself, with a vote of 80-19.

Tough border security is hugely popular with the voters, of both parties. The Dems would not and have not publicly blocked it.

All we need is for Bush to:
1. Build the fence (it is already funded as per Duncan Hunter)
2. Enforce the laws on books (ICE has done a p**s-poor job until last year, and only got serious to 'look good' so Bush's amnesty bill would get passed).

That's all we need. We have no need for Democrat bills that are worse than status quo. Amnesty is far worse than status quo so let's just drop the idea entirely.

And btw there are new Democrat Senators who heard enough about immigration last year on the campaign trails that they didnt drink the DC kool aid. Notice that McCaskill, Webb and Tester have been voting somewhat 'restrictionist' on this bill.... Yes, if Bush and Lott go left, the Dems might actually be better (and therby gain huge election market share in 2008 and wipe the open border GOP)...

FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

I couldn't have said it better, although I've tried many times. I agree with you 100%.

It's so obvious, I've come to believe that those who disagree do so for a reason having nothing to do with the illegal immigration problem.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

Unlike Carter, whom Democrats will tolerate to a degree at their conventions and so forth, Bush (and anyone who bears that name) never will be accepted at a Republican function after his much-desired departure from the White House. Not that there will be much left of the GOP after January 2009--and I assume this legislation will shrivel and die in the House. In the sense of party destruction, Bush some time ago surpassed Carter. In the sense of a tiny, pathetic president, Bush has another 19 months to work on making Carter look good.

But you make a good point.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

Anyone that doesn't stand and vote against this travesty needs to be held accountable.

If you aren't with the anti-amnesty conservatives you are against us - period.

No clever out-of-town scheduling should save a candidate that goes awol from this fight from electoral retribuition come election time.