Nov 18 2006
Anti-Bush Republicans
To emphasize my point about Reps losing the independent middle, I must bring some history back into focus, and how much Republicans despised Reagan and Bush I. I use this example to show that the Far Right actually has a history of dumping popular Presidents and leaders due to their insatiable impatience. When they returned to form on the current George Bush the result was the same – Democrat wins. Last time they gave us Clinton, this time Pelosi and Reid. So let’s explore how the Republican party, driven by their unelected Gliterati (media talking/writing heads) has successfully snatched defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Because I think it is important for those who look down at us Bush Conservatives to face some facts: Bush is the Conservative defensive line right now. What we salvage will be up to him to defend. And if anyone thinks blaming Bush for Congress’ mistakes and self inflicted losses will gain them a voice at the new table, then they should think again. Who wants an angry loser around when the nation’s needs are at stake?
So what happened the last time the Republicans started their circular firing squad? Reagan had had a tough second term which included the Iran-Contra battles with the Democrat Congress, and the subsequent scandal. On top of that Reagan had to live with the prolific spending in Congress (sound familiar) that were in opposition to his policies of lowered taxes and smaller government. He did expand military spending in order to force the Soviet Union to capitulate the Cold War, but the fruits of his strategy would blossom after his term (sound familiar). He had suffered the 6th year election setbacks as well.
The low tax successes of his earlier term had turned into nothing special in the minds of the far right – who wanted more than was politically feasible. Of course we know the long term result was Clinton’s higher taxes. Which the current George Bush had to fight to turn back again. Every time the Republicans have a fit and lose ground it must be regained. Momentum is not a concept republicans seem to be able to coexist with naturally. Thankfully, at the moment, we have a Rep President with a veto to stop any significant backsliding.
Sadly, the Republicans are still shooting more at their own base than anything else and we could end up with another Clinton in the White House if this continues. And then we will have to work to gain America’s trust again and get back to the Reagan level of taxes again. A vicious circle of wasted time.
So with all this baggage and infighting Reagan supported the election of his Vice President, George HW Bush. This was the last straw for many Republicans who jumped ship to the Perot campaign. This included famous Reps like pollster Ed Rollins and Perot’s campaing manager Tom Luce. (Perot would later be very angry at Republican Tom Luce after he had his picture taken with George HW Bush). The electorate had tired of Conservatism as displayed by the Buchananites and other hard liners.
Side note: he media can be counted on to do one thing, and that is to put the spotlight in the most hardened right wingers while moderates (McCain being the exception) get little notice. This enhances the image of Republicans as too far out there. All the Republican Gliterati had more air time than Bush himself this round, so we can figure out where the bad reputation probably comes from. The Bill Kristol smirk when he skewers the right is a priceless reminder that the media has its useful idiots too.
Election results in 1992 showed Clinton held onto what was the normal Democrat vote. What happened was angry conservative males jumped ship to Perot:
For example we continued to hear much about the gender gap in this election, and once again the Democrats did significantly better among women voters (46%) than among men (41%). But the gender gap virtually disappeared for Bush. He received 38% of the vote from men and 37% of the vote from women. So if the conventional wisdom about the gender gap is accurate, the Republicans should be pleased.
Unfortunately for the Republicans the conventional wisdom has missed the point. Remember Republicans have been winning in elections where there was a gender gap, and the reason is that male voters have been reluctant to vote for Democrats. In 1988 Bush carried 50% of the female vote but he carried 57% of the male vote. In 1992 however, Bush dropped to 38% among male voters, and Ross Perot picked up 21% of the male voters. Clinton’s level of support among males remained unchanged, even with Perot in the race.
Even more striking is the vote of those who identify with one of the major parties. In 1988 the Democratic ticket maintained the support of 82% of Democratic voters, the highest level in the last four elections. In 1976, 1980, and the 1984, the Democratic Presidential ticket attracted 77%, 67%, and 74% respectively. But in this same period the Republican tickets dipped below 90% support of Republican voters only in the three way race in 1980, when the ticket still received 86% of the Republican vote. In 1992 Bush carried only 73% of the Republican vote, an 18% decline from 1988. Perot attracted 17% of Republican voters.
The Republicans threw Bush I under the bus basically. This phenomena was reported here and many other places. But why? Interestingly enough Perot was against the first Gulf War which meant he attracted the Buchananite wing of the Republican party. Those jumping ship on Iraq today also have no stamina for a real war. We all knew Iraq would be tough, but the establishment of a democratic ally in the Middle East is still well worth the effort to ensure success. Buchanan has been calling for surrender as much as Pelosi. The parallel between 1992 and 2006 are striking. The Perot disaster mimics the Republican Thumpin’ of 2006 in another way as well – immigration:
Perot also led the charge against Senate ratification of the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), designed to reduce trade barriers with Mexico and Canada. Perot stepped up his media campaign against NAFTA with his catchy “giant sucking sound” quip about American jobs being pulled to Mexico. Perot also authored a book (with economist Pat Choate), “Save Your Job, Save Our Country: Why NAFTA Must Be Stopped Now!”
Perot was a pro-choice, isolationist, small government candidate. So it is hard to call him a conservative magnet – he was a mixed bag at best. But his big draw was being against NAFTA and immigration:
Today, foreign professional workers can enter the US labor market, but only “temporarily†& only if an employer gets a certification that a qualified US worker cannot be found. Also, the existing US immigration laws place a numerical limit on the number of temporary workers. Put another way, American workers have priority for American jobs.
NAFA radically alters this entire concept. Under NAFTA, Mexican and Canadian workers in 63 designated categories may be hired in the US, even if qualified American workers are available.
I see a recurring pattern here. The Buchananite wing of the far right threw its support to Perot and gave us Clinton. So let’s not simply take for granted the hard right is infallible. The fact is it is very fallible and has run to rash judgements more than once to upend conservative policies. In fact, the Buchananites tend to follow Buchanan in declaring themselves anti-Reagan as well as anti-Bush Republicans.
Except that in 1992, Pat Buchanan made clear that he was no longer a Reagan conservative. As you may recall, in his celebrated speech to the Republican National Convention that summer, not only did he make angry statements, but he spoke far longer than the time allotted to him, thus, delaying the speech of the man who was to speak later that evening, a man whose ideas Buchanan once claimed to have championed — Ronald Wilson Reagan.
By going over his time limit, Pat Buchanan bumped that great American’s speech out of prime time. It would be Ronald Reagan’s last address to a Republican National Convention. Any true Republican, knowing that he was speaking before Ronald Reagan, would, instead of extending his remarks (as Buchanan did), have cut them short, out of respect for the then-octogenarian Gipper. And acknowledged how humbled he was to be on the same platform as that great man.
I recall this time because I had voted for Carter in 1980 and learned my lesson to become a conservative independent by 1984 – rarely to vote Democrat again. All this anymosity towards Reagan was covered over after his death, but it was real at the time. As we pick the ashes of the 2006 debacle, we must face facts – history has repeated itself and it is at the hands of the impatient, far right that conservatism saw its losses. These hardliners have openly declared a willingness to fight conservatives if they do not get their way, and align with liberals if that is what it takes:
“If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me,” William Kristol has told the New York Times.
The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neoliberalism.
…
Kristol’s warning that the neocons could break with the Right and go to Kerry is an admission of what many conservatives have long argued. To neocons, Israel comes first, second and third, conservative principles be damned.
Granted, Kristol was aiming at Buchanan in this piece saying he would prefer Kerry to Buchanan, but what he also said clearly is he has no allegiance to the conservative movement if they oppose his wants and desires.
The point is Kristol runs a magazine, he does NOT represent conservatives in this nation. Yet he pontificates on Fox News as if he is one with the movement. But how could that be if he is willing to oppose the movement on a whim? In fact, he should be seen as an unstable, fair weather, loose associate of conservatism – as long as the movement suites his needs we can count on him.
Conservatism won in the 2006 elections. Protection of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman won handily in many states. The Embryonic Stem Cell measure went down in MO (I believe) and CA rejected numerous liberal spending measures. So conservative policies did quite well.
So what happened? Clearly the anti-Bush (previously anti-Reagan/Bush) Reps repeated their mistakes of 1992. What can we do? How did the Reps turn it around by 1994? The Reps in 1994 rejected the far right and found common ground with the broad American people. Bush and Reagan were elected by the people, yet many in their own party threw them under the bus because of that very same broad appeal that got them elected. This is not the first time the far right wanted to jam their agenda onto a coalition that only agreed on a limited portion of their agenda. The Buchananites and the Kristolites do not support the governing coalition, they use it to further their views. They are not open to debate and evolving ideas. They only see ‘useful’ and ‘not useful’ in terms of their agendas. That is why NRO and others spend days taking pot shots at their most successful conservative leaders – they are not out for common ground with Americans. They are agenda driven. And their agendas focus on specific solutions, not broad goals. That is why the Fence Only crowd paralyzed the Congress over the guest worker program. It was not on their agenda.
A lot of people commented on why I am a Bush Conservative and how ‘asinine’ that view is (as one person put). But I do have a long view in these matters, and with it I see the second far right disaster in two decades. In 1992 the anti-immigration nativists flocked to Perot who was no true conservative (pro choice, anti Gulf War???) outside their one issue. The result was President Clinton who dutifully ignored the warning signs of Al Qaeda while all his energies focused on the polls and creating (and later salvagin) his legacy. He also pushed for full amnesty and citizenship – another resoundingly bad idea. In 2006, the anti-immigration, nativists folks crippled Congress and refused to pass comprehensive immigration reform (which 2/3rds of the electorate support). As in 1992, the result was a fractured (in other words crippled) democrat party now in charge of Congress. And again the result will be losing focus on the threats to this nation while we are consumed by partisan investigations and the Democrat internal battles. Once again the hard line gambled all and decided if they could not have power, no conservatives would have power. They bet it all and lost. But this time we still have Bush who, unlike Clinton, is not concerned with his legacy but on protecting this nation. And that is why I stick with Bush and reject the Republican Gliterati. Those are my choices and the Bush wins hands down.
Once the long view comes into focus it will become clear what happened. And the first party to see what happened clearly will be able to adjust and grab the initiative for the next few years. That is what happened in 1992 after the far right threw the last Bush under the bus. We shall see if history will repeat itself on the upside as well as the downside. But be forewarned, it is just as likely the Democrats could finally see where things are heading and grab the initiative. Both parties are no fractured and relying on the independent voters to give them a chance to govern. Neither is party is looking very good. So small adjustments will look incredibly better.
Addendum: And who has been the loudest critics of Hispanic Sen Mel Martinez’s selection to head the RNC (a selection I was not keen on)? Well, you can guess it. The “Fence Only” crowd (at the Weekly Standard [Tripe] no less) took it as an attack on them probably because Bush is still trying to reach out to Hispanic voters – which makes them Citizens!:
BY APPOINTING Florida senator Mel Martinez to chair the Republican National Committee, President Bush sent a blunt message to conservatives: “Drop dead.” That’s the opinion of Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, who has lobbied hard against Bush’s “comprehensive” immigration reform package. Hyperbole, perhaps, but it highlights the GOP fissure on immigration–one deepened by the recent election.
Martinez, a Cuban refugee who fled the island in 1962, supports the Bush vision of a guest-worker program for future immigrants and a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. He is also a prominent GOP envoy to the Latino community. His elevation to RNC chief, says Krikorian, shows how “emotionally” invested Bush is in passing an “amnesty” bill. “This is something the president can’t let go.”
What the Fence Only crowd cannot let go is they are losing Hispanic voters. I reiterate – these are American citizens – not illegal aliens. And opposing a Hispanic US Senator because of fears the Fence Only crowd cannot control the agenda (that already happened in the House loss, but these new Buchananites can’t ‘let go’) is just the kind of broad insult which repulses people. Martinez is a US citizen and a US Senator. The fact he is Hispanic is the only reason these people are pushing the panic button. The Fence Only crowd is rapidly, and thankfully, isolating itself in a fit or purity. Not all conservatives are buying their fear mongering:
But not all conservatives agree about the House Republicans. Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist thinks there has always been a functioning House majority for comprehensive immigration reform. So what happened last summer? “The radio talk-show hosts got out there and poisoned the atmosphere,” says Norquist, who worries that being overly harsh on immigration contributed to the GOP’s loss of Congress.
I know I have ruined my standing with Cons over this bitter medicine. But I, like Bush ,have much more important goals in mind than pandering to the far right when they are in a self destructive mood.
What if Pelosi does make common cause with Bush on immigration? How will House Republicans respond? “I think they’ll lay down on the railroad tracks in front of it, to keep it from going through,” says an aide to GOP congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, head of the conservative Republican Study Committee. “We lost the base a long time ago, and that’s why the House crumbled.”
Last Friday Pence lost his bid for minority leader to John Boehner, the current majority leader. Arizona’s John Shadegg also lost his challenge to incumbent Roy Blunt of Missouri for GOP whip. Both vote counts were lopsided. “I have never been so disgusted with my own party,” says another Republican House aide. “I find it astonishing that our leadership just seems to be skating through.”
Let them lay down on the tracks. The sooner we end this fiasco the sooner we can get right again. Pun intended.
Update: More evidence that Latinos and Hispanics left the GOP after all the success Bush had in bringing them INTO the debate on how to fix illegal immigration.
I like Bush and AJ makes some excellent points, but folks are simply misreading what happened election day. It had nothing to do with reps being too hardline or extreme — it was reps being wimps, straying from conservative principles. The independents/swing middle who went dem in the election are generally conservative, certainly more conservative than liberal. Unfortunately, many of them are misinformed because they still get their “news” from the MSM (Retire — although internet & talk radio & Fox News have made some inroads, the dinosaur networks and liberal print media still are primary source for many). The WashPost crusade to smear Allen with non-stop bogus headlines and made-up news worked brilliantly. The MSM was complicit in many other campaigns across the country as well. But when conservatives stand firm and pround on core principles, they usually win
Most of the elections were very close, but the perceived rep corruption and scandals, in conjuntion with unpopular Bush-Iraq War, resulted with folks in the middle deciding to shake things up. Did they realize the full consequences of their votes? (e.g., chances of appointing quality judges, making tax cuts permanent, doing everything possible/reasonable for national security, comprehensive immigration reform, etc.) I doubt it.
Yes, I like Bush, but he does not always act as a conservative. In fact, Bush Republicans would be the better descriptive term. The immigration issue was not a factor in the elections. In the districts where it was a major issue, it was taken off the table because the dem challenger went way right. So, with immigration a wash, the swing voters saw Iraq, congress corruption & scandal (which meant rep corruption & scandal since they had the majority), a negative or mixed news on economy (courtesy of MSM), and decided to vote for the dem. If Bush had come out more supportive of a truly comprehensive immigration policy, meaning serious about border security), then the reps would have been in much better position because chances are they could have had something passed, or at least the dems to blame for lack of progress. But Bush kow-towed to the hispanic vote and ignored real border security. With the ongoing GWOT, this negligence was surprising and disappointing, and contributed to the general malaise of the reps.
And you are plain wrong on the G14. Yes, some judges were confirmed. But, Alito & Roberts would have been confirmed anyways. The fillibuster should be taken away as a ploy to block presidential nominations — let them vote (the constitution says advise & consent — not minority veto power!). If the dems had tried it against some of the supremely qualified judges being nominated, they would have looked really, really bad and drastically hurt their chances for the elections. Plus, because of the machinations of the G14, many, many fed judges that could have been appointed were not. In sheer numbers, they probably had net effect of reducing approved/appointed judges.
And you mention Bush and the veto. Will he ever use it? There have been many terrible spending bills and other opportunities, like the awful & unconstitutional campaign finance “reform” bill, but he has yet to use it… we’re waiting.
Pierre Legrand,
Bush I raised taxes to avoid a government shutdown, not voluntarily. Bush II learned Friedman/Laffer/Reagan economics. He cut taxes and brought us out of a recession that started in Clinton’s term.
AJ spelled out what a “Bush Conservative” is , in an earlier posting, and it is philosophy, not personality, driven. Reagan was right for his time. Nixon was not the same as Rockefeller. And Rockefeller is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
Peggy Noonan used to write speeches for Reagan and now she is breaking his commandment.
Who care what she thinks? Who is she to decide who gets this job? You see that is my problem with the pundits. They think they are in a position to decide who gets to run things and yet all they run is their mouths. They don’t like Martinez because they want to bitch about everything. If the RNC had picked Steele they would have just found something else to whine about.
I know this is a radical concept but maybe what some of these folks need to do is give the guy a chance. He has a high rating as a conservative and going after him now just makes them look like they hate Latinos. They do not need that right now.
And btw Pierre I can remember a lot of socalled conservatives turning on Reagan. Did he build a wall? Would he have? No, Ronald Reagan was the kind of conservative who tore down walls.
Wiley:
I don’t think so. I think that the bad feelings created by the impeachment of Bill Clinton were intensified by the election in 2000 and the result was hatred. And that hurt both parties. The Democrats won a marginal victory but that does not change the fact that they have divisions in their party which might well make winning 08 very difficult.
I think that the actions of the Congress in regards to Clinton not only costs the Repbulicans seats in 98, it also made it harder for Bush to get past that partisan divide. After awhile it wears on people.
Two callers on CSPAN this morning.
One from Pitts burgh, he said he had beena a Republican all his life but set out this election and was Independent now. And it was all the immigration issue, he said the repubs want to give the illegal immigrants amnesty and he was very opposed to that. He said there are a million illegals all over Pennsylvania and had ruined the job market. He said the amnesty would just leave all of them right where they are and he was very opposed to that.
Next caller, Mena, Ark. He said he had voted Repub all his life, but no more, he is now independent. Same issue, state is full of illegal immigrants, all getting benefits Americans can’t get and he is sick of it. Said Repubs only want to give them amnesty and he believes that would only cause many more illegals. He is opposed to amnesty.
No one called in in favor of amnesty for illegals.
Just reporting.
There were two candidates for speaker between Newt and Hastert — both stepped down when their own tawdry affairs were made public. I believe they were Livingston and Henry Hyde.
You’re right that a person’s private life should be their own, but before Newt and Co. denounced Clinton’s adolescent caperings, they should have made sure their own lives were unsullied. Such are the abhorrent politics of the liberal establishment that Hyde’s 30 year old affair would be made the moral equivalency of Clinton’s tom cutting any nubile female within his field of vision no matter how inappropriate.
Recall there were many other interns and other women whose names were withheld from the public sitting in the archives of his impeachment. Those congress critters who took the time to examine the material, came away stunned at their contents. These are time bombs just waiting for the proper moment to explode into the public consciousness.
Republicans were also remiss in not making public the finding of the Barrett report. Senator Grassley had promised to make the hundreds of redacted pages public, but nothing came of it. Perhaps because Hillary has in her possession the thousands of raw FBI files she illegally appropriated as one of the first things she did upon ascending to the White House.
I admire the president greatly not in the least because of his almost childlike faith in people. He believes that people will do the right thing if given the opportunity to do so. I believe he’s very much mistaken about that, but it’s part of what makes him a morally superior person to those like myself who would very much like the Kool-Aid drinkers to be removed from our national stage.
Enforcement:
That might be because a lot of the nativists are angry and loud and so they can not resist the oppurtunity to shoot their mouths off. {I know…. I know, look whose talking}
Larger point: Even if what they say is true, they helped elect Democrats which just makes comprehensive reform more likely, not less likely, so how stupid is that?
Besides, they got their damn fence didn’t they? After all in the end Bush signed the Fence Security Act and it did not mean a thing. It did not make a dent in the bitching and moaning and whining and sitting out elections. So why should anyone care about what these people think anyway? Give them one thing, they want another. And they have never really made it plain just how they will carry out their little plan to do away with all the illegals. For a bunch of people who are always complaining about the size and cost of government they are pretty damn vague about that part.
BTW, if this is such a hot issue where were these people a decade ago? When Newt was running things and they were all excited about their Contract with America? If this is such a big issue then why wasn’t it part of the Contract? After all, that border has never been closed. There were fewer people working the border then than now. And no one much seemed to give a damn.
And you know what? Anyone who thinks these people are getting benefits Americans can not get does not know what he is talking about. I have a lot of clients on medicare and medicaid and not one of them is an illegal alien. Not one.
No Bush Conservatives listening to CSPAN (or Lou Dobbs)…?
There\’s a shocker.
Gimme a break. Anyone who felt letting the dems take control (who do want instant citizenship) was the way to stop the guest worker program were not worth paying attention to on any issue. That just demonstrates a massive amount of ignorance on the issue of which party would go for amnesty. You do know fake callers call into CSPAN all the time.
Besides, they got their damn fence didn’t they?
Oh, it’s already finished, Didn’t even know they had broken ground.
No Bush Conservatives listening to CSPAN (or Lou Dobbs)…
This Bush Conservative listens to CPAN almost every morning. I can assure you that one heck of a lot of un-informed people call into Cspan. Most frequently are Dems who call in on Repub line saying they are Repubs but hate Bush.
This Bush Conservative does not listen to ANYTHING on CNN.
This Bush Conservative listens to O’Reilly every day and Hannity most days.
Two other callers on CPAN opined that it was nice that Pres Bush FINALLY made it to VietNam.
They don’t mention that he volunteered to go as a fighter pilot, but had too few flying hours to be qualified.
They also weren’t comments like that when Clinton FINALLY went there in 1990.
Terrye, are you saying these US citizens are getting medicare and medicaid without having paid into it?
I have a lot of clients on medicare and medicaid and not one of them is an illegal alien.
The caller was saying these Illegals were getting the benefits without having paid into it. (I assume that’s what they were saying)
Besides, I said I was just reporting.
A neighbor of mine was complaining about stray animals getting into his back yard. I asked why he didn’t fence his back yard. He said fences didn’t work, and he knew that because he had fenced 20 foot of his back lot line and he didn’t think it had kept out any animals at all.
So I told him he should just accept the animals that were already in his yard and to make sure he fed and took care of them, that he was lucky that having so many watchdogs in his yard was probably keeping burglars away. Be sure if any got sick to get them to the vet. He also should round up all there offsprings and let them in, but be sure to pass a law that no more in the future would be allowed in the yard, but he was right to not go ahead and put up a fence. It would just be a waste of money. He thought that was a good plan.
I’m glad he agreed that a fence wouldn’t help.
FE,
You know your analogy about animals in the backyard to immigration is both repulsive and the sign of a simple mind trying to grasp a complex subject. Have I not made it clear I will not tolerate things like comparing people to animals? Are you going to stop this nonsense on my site?
FE:
Bush signed the Fence Security Act. I guess this means we will have to listen to the constant bitching until the thing is built. And then they will bitch that it is not long enough. Then they will bitch that the footers are not deep enough and on and on.
Like children, they want what they want when they want it and they will not stop bitching until the get it. Even then they will probably still be complaining.
As I’ve stated before, I don’t care about the fence one way or the other. I certainly don’t think it would be effective in keeping out all the illegals that enter the country. In fact I have not heard anyone with any plan that will keep illegals out. I don’t even hear many people that want to.
I hear one side wanting fence FIRST with law enforcement and I hear one side wanting nothing but a plan that results in amnesty. Those somewhere between are few and far between.
AJ there was no intent to compare people with animals I certainly didn’t even mention people in that , but I apologize if it can be interpreted that way. Sorry.
Whoops forgot to say, Please take the comment down. I sure don’t want to offend anyone. If it does it certainly serves no purpose. Thanks
FE,
Peace
AJStrata
FE, no, a fence will not keep everyone out. But as has been proven in Israel, it helps.
There are those who are between “fence only” and amnesty. There are those of us who understand that a nation can benefit from immigration. To have those who will come and be an asset and not a drain on our society, is a good thing. But to have those who come who have no respect for law, who drain more from society than they contribute, is not a good things. Immigration, as I have said before, should benefit the host nation, not the immigrant or the nation from which the immigrant migrates from.
What would happen if we said “no more” to any social services for illegals?
Under Eisenhower we had 1,000 Border Patrol. An order was given to deport illegals. The time frame for the deportation of 1,000,000 illegals was short. Most of them self deported rather than being picked up by Border Patrol.
You have to remove the reason illegals come. No jobs, no social services.
When I hear those who say we are a nation of immigrants, I cringe. We are a nation FROM immigrants, we are not immigrants. And when those ancestors of ours came to this nation, they received no special treatment. No billboards in Irish or German. No ballots in Irish or German. The grocer, police man, doctor, minister, teacher and landlord did not learn their language, they learned English. There was no free public housing and they certainly did not get free medical care. There were a few free clinics in major cities, but they were few and far between. And they came here to become Americans, not have America become them.
Immigrants who want to become part of the fiber of our nation should always be welcome. Those who come for only what they can get and don’t want to assimilate, need to return to their native countries.
And calling illegals “undocumented workers” is like calling a burglar an uninvited house guest.
http://www.weforum.org/en/media/Latest%20Press%20Releases/GCRpressrelease06
well, FOR ENFORCEMENT at least two countries often mentioned as “decadent” have better economies than America,as per your
demanded charts….want to try education? Peon?
Retire05,,,,,, don’t misunderstand me, I am a proponent of 100% fence first followed by 100% enforcement of existing laws. I don’t want any new laws, I want ALL existing immigration laws enforced. my handle is “for enforcement’ for a reason. I am not in favor of a roundup. If all laws are complied with and enforced, there will be no problem.
Look at Hazelton, Pa. they made it a violation of law to hire an illegal and rent to an illegal and a heck of a lot of the illegals took off, going to friendlier environs. NO NEW FEDERAL LAWS, ENFORCE EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS. If they are not going to be enforced, they should be repealed. If there is a way to guarantee a secure border, that is SECURE border without a fence, then that would be fine also.
I personally don’t think a fence will be built and I don’t think the existing laws will be enforced. I hold out no hope at all while the dems are in control. They want the votes. Dems are much more likely to pass amnesty than enforcement. If it is passed, it will be signed.