And Now a Word for Folks Who Use the Word "McAmnesty" On a Regular Basis.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Immigration | McCain | Obamafiles — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
You know the guy who's likely to win the Democratic Presidential Nomination? He's planning some action on immigration if he wins the election. You know what he's planning to do? If you guessed "build a really big wall and deport lots of people," you're so, so very close to being correct:
Barack Obama is easily winning the African American vote, but to woo Latinos, where he is running 3-to-1 behind rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, he is taking a giant risk: spotlighting his support for the red-hot issue of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
It's a huge issue for Latinos, who want them. It's also a huge issue for the general electorate, which most vehemently does not. Obama's stand could come back to haunt him not only in a general election, but with other voters in states such as California, where driver's licenses for illegal immigrants helped undo former Gov. Gray Davis.
* * *
"Barack Obama has not backed down" on driver's licenses for undocumented people, said Federico Peña, a former Clinton administration Cabinet member and Denver mayor now supporting Obama. "I think when the Latino community hears Barack's position on such an important and controversial issue, they'll understand that his heart and his intellect is with Latino community."
You know, I understand that McCain is not acceptable to you on this issue. I get that. But the decision to not vote does not occur in a vacuum - if McCain does not win, someone else will. And he's got plans you're probably not going to like.
Note: Leon originally linked to this article but it appears to have been lifted from the one we have substituted. I take responsibility for the error, having pointed Leon to the link - Dan McLaughlin.
« Federal Jobs Illegal Immigrants Can’t Do — Comments (12) | SENATE TRIES TO SNEAK IMMIGRATION REFORMS THROUGH — Comments (19) »
And Now a Word for Folks Who Use the Word "McAmnesty" On a Regular Basis. 37 Comments (0 topical, 37 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
On a side note, I am concerned to see the Conservative Voice post this bylined by Jim Kouri and uncredited, as a direct copy of this article by Carolyn Lochhead of the SF Chronicle on January 28, 2008.
I'm by no means an expert but looks like plagiarism to me.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
You know, this was an excellent article regardless of the source...but we banned Kouri from this site for a variety of good reasons; I'm not really surprised. We'll change the link.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Thats what is so great about RS, there is actual history and substance beyond just the daily rantings.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
...between McCain's immigration plan and Obama's immigration plan? I'm not being snarky, I honestly want to know.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I actually come down on the side of McCain (sort of) on the issue of immigration. But I just don't trust him in general (global warming, for example). On the issue of voting for McCain because Obama is REALLY bad, it feels a little like "what does it benefit a man to gain the world if he loses his soul."
Yes McCain is better than Obama. But what message does it send if conservatives roll over? This election it's McCain, what is it next election?
I have to say I think Obama's stand on this is crazy. Support is low for giving illegals licenses even amongst those of us who support McCain's plan.
"You know, I understand that McCain is not acceptable to you on this issue. I get that. But the decision to not vote does not occur in a vacuum - if McCain does not win, someone else will. And he's got plans you're probably not going to like."
...And, remember, solely by virtue of being elected president, Barack Obama will be able to do any crazy thing he wants, Congress will go along no matter how crazy it is, and there won't be a filibuster, no lobbying campaign will be launched that will generate strong public outcry (like what happened with Hilarycare), HE'LL BE UNSTOPPABLE, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!
So you better hold your nose and vote Republican...
Fr Martin Fox
Congressional Democrats aren't going to stand against anything a President Obama would want. They see how Hillary's been vilified and become persona non-grata, even when she has the support of roughly half the Dem electorate.
Obama won't be able to get through the Congress.
This ain't your 1993 Congress. The Dems have a reservoir of bile they are waiting to shove down our throats and the Republicans in the Senate won't even try to stop them. With 55 Ds in the Senate, there will be no filibusters on anything.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Exactly the reason that any and all should vote for McCain no matter what philosophical differences one may have with him.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
sometimes it seems like McCain chips away at the pillars of the Republican party with every speech, sort of the way the Hungarians precipitated the fall of the Berlin Wall, but he's still the only choice left I can vote for and live with.
sometimes it seems like McCain chips away at the pillars of the Republican party with every speech
Did you mean to include those speaches on Free Trade, Judicial Appointments and Iraq?
are the poison pills like global warming, fake border security and amnesty. All reminders of his prior poison pills killing us like the limits of free speech with campaign finance, the weakness brought about by the gang of 14 compromise, opposition to tax cuts, etc...
It is best to not through the obvious in someone's face (yes, we all know there are items where McCain is correct) if we really want to persuade doubters. It just aggravates.
If we really want everyone on board, we need some indication we can actually trust McCain. Hopefully he uses the VP pick to that end to assure us he supports his own party and liberty. We don't need more compromises that lead to socialist policies, and damages to our society and economy.
Global warming is not, and cannot be, a "pillar" of the Republican Party.
No responsible political party in a 21st century democracy should dare to make a scientific theory into a political proposition.
What to do about global warming (cap-and-trade, carbon tax, "Manhattan Project" technological innovation, etc.) is a proper subject of policy for a political party.
But whether global warming is occurring is a scientific hypothesis, on which a political party should always be guided by the consensus of current scientific opinion, whatever that is at any time.
That goes doubly for Darwin's theory of evolution, by the way.
The idea that this or that scientific theory is "liberal" or "conservative" is unacceptable to me.
The idea that Democrats elected from marginal (to them) districts are going to walk the plank for anything and everything, no matter how much the American people oppose it, is--not to put too fine a point on it--ridiculous.
Yeah, right--these guys came to Washington to sacrifice their seats in Congress, for Obama's legislative agenda.
Exactly what happened in 1993, with the Democratic Congress and Clinton, and what happened in 2001 and the GOP Congress...those Presidents got everything they wanted...oh, wait...whoops!
As for the filibuster:
It takes 41 Senators to sustain a filibuster. (Thank God all the activists who wanted to wreck the filibuster a couple of years ago, over a few judicial seats, didn't get their way!)
I might point out a little history. When the Democrats had Congress, they've always pushed something Big Labor wanted, because Big Labor can punish them better than any other component of their coalition, and because the Dems understand that making Big Labor bigger and stronger, helps them politically.
So, in 1977-78, they pushed a "Labor Law Reform" -- newly elected Jimmy Carter in the White House, a veto-proof majority for the bill in the House, and I'm almost certain at least 55 Democrats in the Senate, not to mention plenty of lousy Republicans (bad as they are now, they were far worse then). I might add, Big Labor had gotten a "Common Situs Picketing" bill through both houses in 1975, only to be vetoed by Ford, so that's a measure of their strength going into this battle...
The bill died from a filibuster, which included a number of Democrats...
Fast-forward to 1993-94, the Strike Bill. Another "sure to pass" (so said then-stalwart, then-GOP minority leader Dick Armey) bill, with lots of muscle. The bill sailed through the House, only to founder on a filibuster--supported by several Democrats.
Now the Democrats are pushing a Card-Check Bill, again the business lobbies are saying, "can't stop it, sure to pass"...
Well, you just wait and see. I'm very confident the National Right to Work Committee is gearing up, and will mobilize millions of Americans against that, same as they did the other bills I mentioned. And as lousy as the GOP is, it's hard to count many Republicans who will go wrong on this one, and I can think of several excellent Democratic Senators to target for pressure--because as much as they love Big Labor, they love being re-elected more.
Am I saying it'll be a cake-walk? No, it'll be a fight, same as before, but it'll be a really good fight, same as before: it's these high-profile battles, where you get the pols on the record for and against this radical stuff, that enable you to hold them accountable at the next election. That's the stuff the GOP did to get in control of Congress in the first place, and if they'd stuck with that, they'd be a lot better off today.
Fr Martin Fox
driver's licenses? I guess the fact the question has to be asked either means I read the link too quickly or the question speaks for itself. McCain might indeed be marginally better on this issue, but it appears to be a difference without much distinction--here.
besides rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship?
We need to get the message out somehow: unregulated, unreformed immigration is not a partisan issue. It is a national security issue.
If we do not secure our borders and control who comes to this country we will compromise our ability to be a nation.
...I just don't much of a difference. Obama wants to give illegals licenses. McCain and Hillary want to legalize them, at which point they can get licenses. I miss the old days when the Republican took a more conservative position than the Democratic candidate.
When the *republican* President Reagan eagerly signed on to Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986, the amnesty bill that gave citizenship to millions of illegals?
When the *Republican* President Bush promoted and supported the amnesty bill last year?
When did the Republican take the *conservative* position again????
I'll answer that, it was Eisenhower. That was a long time ago.
To pretend that mccain is somehow unusual in his position on amnesty is simply false.
Of course, Iunderstand the game here is simply to attack McCain in order to prove how conservative you are, etc, but you need to paysome attention to actual facts.
Republicans (at least the ones who push the buttons) have been wrong on amnesty for a while. However, I was talking about positions in general. After the 1994 mid-terms, the Republicans found their conservative voice again. It just didn't take them long to lose it.
And Reagan was wrong on Simpson-Mazzoli. Even he admitted it. However, swallowing that amnesty was minor compared to the the gut-buster we're about to be force-fed.
"you need to paysome attention to actual facts"
You want a fact? My cousin was murdered by an illegal immigrant last year. She would almost certainly be alive today and her infant daughter would have a mother right now if the government -- especially Bush -- hadn't unleashed the (border) gates of Hell on our country. And I'm not even going to get into the hypocrisy of how the "law and order" party refuses to enforce laws or bring about order. Or how the party of "fiscal responsibility" thinks the importation of poor, uneducated, unskilled people will be anything but a net cost to our country. Or how the legalization of tens of millions of new left-leaning voters will be a death knell for the Republican Party. I could list a hundred reasons why the issue of illegal immigration is a disaster-in-waiting. THOSE are the facts that infuriate me when I look at how some of the Republicans are falling all over themselves to take the liberal position on this issue.
I feel like I'm in a bad Twilight Zone episode that never ends.
If I were a member of the "Latino Community" (a very stupid term that attempts to lump Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, etc.-Americans all together) and was consistently told that I support illegal activity, I might be a tad miffed.
The first time I found I couldn't pull the lever for a Democratic presidential candidate was when that candidate stated that he wanted to outlaw the internal combustion engine. Once I stopped thinking of myself as a Democrat, I started to realize just how little I had in common with the party, and eventually found myself with a major Redstate addiction.
This time, it's choice between a Democrat who wants to winfall-tax gas companies out of existance, or a Republican who wants to cap-and-trade (read: tax) gas itself out of existance. I've got to choose between a liberal Democrat nutbag who wants to give driver's licences to illegals, and a liberal Republican nutbag who wants to give citizenship to illegals. One is too inexperienced to actually run the government, the other isn't smart enough to actually run the government. One hates rich people outright, the other passed a law to curtail thier first amendment rights. One candidate wouldn't have dreamed of nominating Roberts to the SCOTUS, the other says he wouldn't have chosen Roberts for the SCOTUS.
In short, outside of surrender in Iraq, I can't think of one Really Bad Thing that Obama's planning to do that McCain isn't also planning to do. The only advantage to a McCain presidency is that there's an outside chance that political infighting might make the government too inefficient to do too much damage before the grownups can take over again.
Not exactly inspiring me to get out the vote.
_______________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
The only advantage to a McCain presidency is that there's an outside chance that political infighting might make the government too inefficient to do too much damage before the grownups can take over again.
And, yes, it only is an outside chance.
Obama is worse than McCain. At least McCain has said he will build the fence, & would *try* to put *some* order to the illegal alien mess. Obama is simply open the borders & let them come, however they want to come. Driver's licenses? No Problem! Motor Voter? No Problem. Welfare? NO Problem!
I would agree that many Latinos aren't happy with being lumped in with the illegals - however, like the moderate muslim, they are overshadowed & drowned out by the LCD.
Not only the war, let's not forget about taxes & nationalizing healthcare. McCain is exponentially better.
This is an issue our congressional candidates need to grab onto & ride for all it's worth!
In terms of the conservative movement...it would be better to lose the POTUS to Obama let him be the next Jimmy Carter and get a real conservative on the ballot in 4 years rather than having McCain who is not conservative and who would be putting together legislation with liberals who he loves so then he will fail and Republicans will be blamed...
It is not just about this election...it is about the conservative movement
???WhoamI????
If McCain picks a conservative running mate, either way we're getting a conservative President in four years, so the argument is moot.
However, should he pick, say, Lieberman, Huckabee, Clinton, Hagel, or somebody similar... best not to let either near the Oval Office.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
Why do you think a more conservative Presidency would matter after that?
Seriously, if you think that four years of Obama -- with higher taxes, (even) more government spending, defeat in Iraq, probably defeat against terrorism and a nuclear Iran, an even worst cap-and-trade system than John McCain is proposing (seriously, compare their two programs here; yes, Obama's is even worse) and two or three more liberal activists on the Supreme Court (heaven help us if something happens to the now 72-year-old Scalia in the next four years) -- is not so bad for the country that you would vote against it now, then why in the world do you think there will be something in our country worth even more to fight for four years in the future?
And that's not even considering that Obama could end up being reelected in 2012 and, irregardless, the Republican nominee in 2012 could be even more "liberal" than John McCain is today. Have you considered either of those possibilities?
Sorry but when the choice is between doing what's best for my country and doing what's best for my politcial party or even philosophy; I proudly choose to do what's best for my country.
Vote for John McCain 2008!
*****
Unrepentant Black nationalist, Unapologetic Black conservative!
is easier to fight head on than McCain's improbity on the subject. It is human nature to prefer keeping your enemies in front of you to fight, versus having an "ally" who has stabbed you before watching your back in a very important battle.
*sigh*, what to do, what to do, there is no one to trust or believe in. If there was only a third way, another candidate or another party. Maybe it is time.
I want a do-over. Maybe Fred can still get some superdelegates to declare for him. Yeah, I know only Dems have superdelegates, but it's still woth a try.
Maybe we can elect Jesse Ventura, or as I like to call him, Gov. None of the Above. It's been done before.
_______________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
Folks we need to be aware that HR 5515 just got introduced and it will STRIP and RESCIND ALL STATE Laws just put into force.
It is put up by Sam Johnson or TX. (R). Being shoved around by the big business operators for free labor again.
THis is the new bill to put in what is called NEVA. New Employee Verification Act. Will pull all new bills like OK , GA etc..
Human Events has the poop here.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26496
Section 101(b)(2)(A), which reduced to simple language* would preempt and ban any and all state or local law for immigration-related issues enacted to impose employer fines or sanctions, or would forbid any laws requiring employers to verify work status or identity for work authorization. It would also prevent any unit of government from verifying status of renters, determining eligibility for receipt of benefits, enrollment in school, obtaining a business or other license, or conducting a background check.
I see Obama's stand on drivers licenses for illegals to be disingenuous pandering. It is not a Presidential issue. Drivers licenses are issued by states and it does not matter how Obama feels about them.
I can think of a few other reasons why McCain is marginally preferrable to Obama and Hillary but on the issue of illegal immigration there is not a dime's worth of difference between the three candidates.
As a tactic, it seems like kind of a silly to try to scare people into voting for McCain who will we know will try to give us shamnesty because Obama will give us shamnesty.
I actually see it as an argument for voting against McCain. I think if a Democrat is in the Whitehouse that the Republicans in Congress might actually find their spines and fight amnesty. If McCain is in the Whitehouse there is a good chance they will just roll over and play dead.
And if at the end of the day a shamnesty is passed I would prefer that Democrats get the blame. I hate that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the last horrible amnesty and I don't want Republicans to have that on our records again.
I came here to post the same thing as you, but then I remembered that the national ID card was created by the fake Republicans and Bush under the name REAL ID, putting the federal government in charge of setting standards for the issuance of drivers' licenses.
Federalism is dead; the Republican party is on life support.
A vast majority of elected officials approve of and actively support allowing illegals to have open access to the US. The DL issue is relatively minor to the overall problem: Employers.
However, I doubt that unless there was a 100% outcry from the electorate will our representatives do anything about it. The lure of the Hispanic vote is too great an aphrodisiac.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle