Nov 23 2011
Thoughts On Latest GOP Debate
It seems we have settled into a routine for the 2012 election cycle. Romney keeps limping along, Newt drops little logic bombs here and ther, Cain provides vague (but not wrong) answers that do provide reasonable broad goals, and Perry is Perry (which means nothing is changing). I still think the race is down to Gingrich, Cain and Romney. Iowa will be the opening salvo, and I doubt a clear leader will arise (despite efforts by the media and political industrial complex to anoint one) before spring – if then.
Bachman still underwhelms. Huntsman is just stunningly bizarre. Santorum reminds us why social conservatives manipulating the levers of power in DC is the best solution to our national problems either.
The big loser – Ron Paul. Talk about your implosions.
In the world according to Paul, the Taliban are peace loving people who simply want America out of their country. Except for the fact we were not IN their country on 9-11 (Afghanistan) and they were harboring al Qaeda – a group that had been on a decades long killing spree that culminated with 3,000 dead on 9-11. Paul’s Kumbaya views on the world are naive and dangerous. He sounded more like a far left loon than a real contender for the GOP nomination. If Obama said this – no one would even blink an eye in surprise.
And Newt slammed Paul on is Timothy McVeigh analogy, reminding Paul that it is better to have laws that prevent mass murder than allow mass murder. McVeigh does not represent America, the Taliban and al Qaeda do represent Islamo Fascism at its core. Pretending this is not true can kill many people.
Talk about your debate debacles. Huntsman and Paul are truly examples of the “it’ll never work” wing of government. Professional naysayers who can only think of reasons not to be bold, instead of thinking of how to make bold succeed.
My Marine Corporal son is in town for the Holidays and he caught the replay of the debate on CNN. As far as he (and I would wager most of the military) is concerned Paul is pretty much ignorant, followed not far behind by Huntsman.
Newt may have lit a time bomb with is immigration stance – but he is correct. We will not, as a people, tear families apart and throw people out of this country who have been good neighbors of long standing in our communities. We can create penalties for breaking the law which are financial (because, after all, illegal immigration is a paperwork crime, like not having insurance or tags on your car).
Anyone so blinded to this reality about the long term immigrants is pretty much not worth listening to. This is another one of those slippery slopes (like not passing a budget for years on end). It can come back to bite all of us, if we allow for the deportation of people we don’t like.
I can see a future OWS movement calling for the deportation of all rich people, so they can be closer to their tax exempt money. I can see the call to push people out of their neighborhoods by popular dislike. When people look for vengeance instead of justice, we have lost this nation. We have to accept these long standing neighbors, deal with the true criminal element and stop the influx of people on our borders. Cain was right, the border situation is a national security nightmare right now.
This big question of 2012: will we be the generation that inherited a great nation and left a wreck behind?
I don’t think so. In my view, the popular uprising against government and politics is due to the fact people are getting fed up with extremist zealots of all stripes. And the answer is obvious.
If you right size government, it won’t have the power to bully anyone around.
Update: Ed Morrissey weighs in on the immigration issue:
Besides, while Gingrich’s position may have been an outlier on that stage, it may not be an outlier within the party. Poll analyst Nate Silver looks at a May 2010 poll from the New York Times among Republican voters on immigration policy and sees Gingrich’s position as mainstream in the GOP:
Among Republican respondents to the survey, 42 percent said the immigrants should be required to leave. But 31 percent said they should be able to stay and apply for citizenship. An additional 23 percent picked the middle option: the immigrants should be allowed to stay, but as guest workers rather than citizens.
That’s 54-42 to work out some compromise regarding long term immigrants. Add in the centrists and Tea Partiers and you have a larger majority of the anti-Obama, anti-Democrat voting block sitting with Newt
I watched most of the debate. My take was that Gingrich displayed a sound command of grand strategy (which he’s always had). He may have shot a toe off with the immigration comment – but an Expulsion Board negates the sob stories about ejecting illegals. I suspect it would work in his favor in a general election.
Romney also sounded pretty solid. And he’s been making noises indicating a real grasp of seapower – which is the sine qua non of Great Power status, and something that the United States has taken for granted lately. A mistake the Chinese are exploiting. His weakness is that many people believe Romney will break to the left once elected.
The rest of the field sounded mildly OK…except for Ron Paul. We’ve TRIED isolationism three times, and paid for our folly in blood. NO trade power can be isolationist…and the United States is a trade power. The Chinese are fond of calling the USA a “hegemon”. I’m not sure if this is a mistranslation, or a very good translation…because it is 100% right. A hegemony is a trade empire – and that is exactly what we have. Our leadership is based on economic, scientific, and cultural leadership far more than military power.
I actually thought Gingrich’s plan, on the surface, sounds like a solid plan. I’ve said all along for the past seven years of this long drawn out debate to nowhere, that we have to have border security first. We need to stop the illegal immigration and end the magnets. Once the government proves that the border is secure…..we can take a breath and resolve the issue of what to do with those who are here in a calm matter. His thoughts made sense. The other thing I liked was that Newt said they had a “path to legality”….not a “path to citizenship”. I still don’t want to reward those who broke the law with automatic citizenship put ahead of those around the world who have been on the waiting list for a decade. The majority of the Republican Party is not so hardline that they would really want to just deport every illegal tomorrow. Gingrich knows that. I think he voiced what the majority of the Republican party actually stands for on illegal immigration…..and, like Marco Rubio said recently…..The GOP needs to say what they are for (not just that they are against amnesty). I think it helps Gingrich, and also improves the standing of the GOP party in general in the view of the general population and independents. I think it will be a plus for Gingrich.
I hope so.
Personally, I tend to favor the Show All Illegals To The Borders policy. The problem is that 100% explusion is probably politically unfeasible. There are just too many sob stories.
An Explusion Board is a workable compromise. Especially since you aren’t linking it to a path to citizenship, merely to legal residency. And doubly so if the law flatly states that failure to turn yourself in for an Expulsion Board hearing is grounds for automatic explusion and seizure of all property.
I don’t mind folks coming here to work, in fact for every hard worker crossing the border going north I would propose sending back a non working, professional baby maker or two going south. We should be able to find these leeches by doing a moderate scrubbing of the WIC, food stamp and welfare roles.
Under NO circumstances should we be adding illegal entrants into this country to the professional baby maker welfare roles as we are doing as it is merely a grow the Demrat Socialist Party voting block and the destruction of our republic ploy by the rat Party.
We, the taxpayers of America should not have to provide food, medical care, or housing to able bodied individuals free of charge.
otherwise we set up an Occupy America mentality where everyone is entitled to someone elses stuff.
If they wanrt stuff get a job, or make them work picking up ditches and painting over graffiti, or send them south for a trade in on a worker.
If you think I jest I assure you I do not. I have worked and found jobs since age 14 and have never taken handouts form anyone and don’t expect others should either.
A few questions:
1. how will we determine who is in the country for over 25 years?
2. how will we make sure the demsheviks and commie rats will not attack the (proposed) newly perpetual green card as unconstitutional and DEMAND equal protection under the law, thus citizenship?
In short Newt’s proposal was a classical foot in mouth attempt to position attempt to position himself as the centrist.
Nothing will be or should be done about illegals until the borders are absolutely secure (and for quite some time, so).
I lived in Australia for 12 years on a resident, working visa. I paid taxes, did not vote and never considered becoming a citizen. I always had a return airline ticket. Why can’t the people who are here get a resident visa, if they don’t have one in say 3 years they will be deported if caught. Just because someone is here does not entitle them to citizenship, but they should have a document. I think Newt is mostly correct. And I know for a fact that we will not deport millions of people.
“Anyone so blinded to this reality about the long term immigrants is pretty much not worth listening to.”
“1. how will we determine who is in the country for over 25 years?”
25, what if it’s only 24? they gotta go? how about 18 or 16? an open door policy can’t have time constraints.
I like the following plan. Every illegal alien has to be registered (give them a reasonable time) not registering is cause for immediate deportation (no appeals). No welfare benefits, no social security, no medicare, no medicaid, no voting, follow all standard rules in applying for citizenship, conviction of any felony is cause for immediate deportation after completion of prison sentence. To work, they have to be registered and pay taxes. Working without being registered is cause for deportation.
Once the law is passed covering all the things they don’t get, then the provisions for who is qualified to stay.
It goes without saying that the border has to be secured.
All the benefits I listed above are for people already here illegally, it will not cover any new arrivals that are illegal. All future immigrants must apply first, no sneaking over the border.
Hear, hear, Kathie.
The voice of mature reason in a chorus of mob mentality. Hat tip to you.
Gingrich’s immigration plan: Strategy, not amnesty; Update: Bachmann in September: “Depends on how long they have been here”
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/25/gingrichs-immigration-plan-strategy-not-amnesty/