From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
you can't be a rubber stamp for 7 years and then act independent on immigration when the war goes bad...
Published on June 10, 2007 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Politics
Immigration has become the neocon battle-cry...a way to appear "independent" after 6+ years of walking in lock step and being a rubber stamp. It's not like this is some new stance by the president. Before the 2000 election, then candidate Bush said this....

From a Speech in Washington, D.C. Jun 26, 2000...

Latinos come to the US to seek the same dreams that have inspired millions of others: they want a better life for their children. Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande. Latinos enrich our country with faith in God, a strong ethic of work, community & responsibility. We can all learn from the strength, solidarity, & values of Latinos. Immigration is not a problem to be solved, it is the sign of a successful nation. New Americans are to be welcomed as neighbors and not to be feared as strangers.

And on dec 9th of 1999, the candidate said this...

I believe it is far more compassionate to turn away people at the border than to attempt to find and arrest them once they are living in our country illegally.

And before the people re-elected him again in 2004, his stance had not changed...from january 2004...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush will outline an immigration reform proposal Wednesday that would allow workers in the United States illegally to join a new temporary worker program and not lose their jobs, administration officials said.

And ya'll re-elected him anyway. it's not like bush sprung this on everyone after the 2004 election. He's had the same stance since he was a candidate. People seem to forget that this is a family thing for him, and the party was onboard when it was sold as a way to get votes from those pesky ol' democrats....from Time Magazine in 2000...

Monday, Jun. 19, 2000 By JAMES CARNEY AND JOHN F. DICKERSON/WASHINGTON

George Bush--all three generations of him--wants to woo Hispanic voters. Scarcely a week goes by when the Texas Governor--George W.--isn't hola-ing and comos estas-ing his way through a Hispanic community center or a classroom filled with Hispanic children. And late last week in New York City, his campaign released its first television ads of the general election--ads starring GEORGE P. BUSH, the candidate's charismatic 23-year-old Mexican-American nephew, in a direct pitch to New York's Puerto Rican voting bloc. The star turn will not be his last. "You're going to be seeing a lot more of him," beams a campaign adviser.

Even George H.W. Bush--the patriarch of the namesakes--is getting into the swing of things. Sources tell TIME that the former President, who once famously referred to his Mexican-American grandchildren, including George P., as "the little brown ones," recently urged his son's campaign to hold a national Hispanic event aimed at luring Hispanics away from the Democrats.

The big and convenient outcry from the right never happened until Bush was safely innaugurated in January of 2005. There may have been a few blurbs, but nothing substantial. Then, as the war got worse and became it became impossible to sanely defend at least the managememnt of the war, the neoconservative spin machine set it's sights on immigration as a way to appear independent after a full term of rubber stamping the President's policy proposals in the name of "anything that is republican is good, anything that is democrat is bad."

And meanwhile, the real criminals in all this, the companies that hire the workers looking for a better life (as everyone does) continue to be virtually ignored in all this. In fact , we've ignored all the employer related laws on the books since 1986 that were designed to and would have stopped this problem a long time ago. But that would require actually doing something against the companies and people that run these felonious operations. The same people that increasingly fund our political campaigns for election and re-election increasingly each election cycle. Is it a coincidence that those campaign funders get off scot-free and continue to operate their enterprises built on easily abused labor? Is it a coincidence that the only group singled out for ostracization are the misdemeanor committing immigrants who can't really fight back against such words and actions without coming off in a bad light?

Is it a coincindence? I can't say for sure. But I do know the following....

Dry up the jobs, take away the incentive. Problem solved.



Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 11, 2007
  
on Jun 11, 2007
Dry up the jobs, take away the incentive. Problem solved.


how do you dry up a job that has to be done to make everyone happy.

do you close mcdonalds, burger king, or stop building new houses, which jobs do you want to dry up.
on Jun 11, 2007
the real criminals in all this


is the politicians that keep passing laws that they never intend to be enforced.

yes this includes both demos. and republicans.


as i have said in the past everyone one in Washington needs to be voted out of office good or bad. this is so the next group will remember who really has the power.
on Jun 11, 2007
how do you dry up a job that has to be done to make everyone happy.

do you close mcdonalds, burger king, or stop building new houses, which jobs do you want to dry up


ugh...i'm not saying eliminate the jobs. i'm saying actually enforce the laws and go after the employers who prey on illegals.

the swift plant raids out west are a good example. after INS swept the places, the next day, there were more than enough qualified, documented applicants to fill all the jobs.

on Jun 11, 2007
I just see it as Conservatives complaining about Prs. Bush being Prs. Bush. Up until now his "if you're not with us, your against us" attitude hasn't been targeted towards Conservatives. Now that it is, they're not sure how to handle it.

Prs. Bush has always made his decisions based on what HE thinks is best for the country... agree with him, or disagree, that's been true. Now that what he thinks is best is so far afield from what most Conservatives think is best, they are lashing out against him.

It's kind of ironic since, in all the other times Conservatives disagreed with Prs. Bush, they always said, "I support him, I just don't agree with him here".
on Jun 11, 2007
all the other times Conservatives disagreed with Prs. Bush, they always said, "I support him, I just don't agree with him here".


i never really heard that before this issue. when the issue was the medicare drug program, a costly, "liberal" piece of fatty pork, the republicans almost wholly went down the party line..

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---54
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---44
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nickles (R-OK)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)

7 republicans went against bush...and none of those would really be considered "hard-core" conservatives by the GOP voters.
on Jun 11, 2007
oh, so since you can name one where the Republicans voted by party lines, you say that is conclusive?

What I have seen over the last 7 years is Democrats in mindless lockstep against Bush while the Republicans have gone either way.

on Jun 11, 2007
oh, so since you can name one where the Republicans voted by party lines, you say that is conclusive?


no, i'm not ted. just an example. can you show some examples of your side? i'm not tryin to be a smart ass, but my point is that many of these republicans are now claiming such vast independence from the president and trying to distance themselves like they haven't been in lock step, on the whole, with the president. they act like they were against all these "unconservative" bills and such, when in fact, they voted for them. that is the standard you all use to judge the democrats on. the immigration issue, which didn't rear it's controversial head until bush was back in for a 2nd term and the congress was sworn in, was the 1st voting opposition he really got, sans harriet miers..which got just enough GOP support to keep her off the court...and never was forced to a vote.

i provided evidence that furthered my point. which i really don't have to do, since i've made my point. all you've done so far is made a charge, and not backed it up with anything.

so, until you can actually show somethin,,,yeah, i'd say it's conclusive. but i'm not sayig that cause i'm sure i'm right, but that's the way it does look.
on Jun 11, 2007
I guess the difference here is, in my original comment, I was referring to Republicans in general, not in the House or the Senate.  You're right, many in Congress are distancing themselves now.  This is a bad bill, I'll agree with anyone, but with all the "talk" against Prs. Bush for it... It's still a "bipartisan" bill.  To me it says a lot more about the follly of "bipartisanship" than it does either Prs. Bush or Reid.
on Jun 12, 2007
This bill stands no chance of passing, the "groundswell" of public outcry is impossible for Congress to ignore.
on Jun 12, 2007

the "groundswell" of public outcry is impossible for Congress to ignore.

If only that were true.........

on Jun 12, 2007
This bill stands no chance of passing, the "groundswell" of public outcry is impossible for Congress to ignore.


from the conservative think tank, the manhattan institute's poll (done by the republican pollsters "terrance group") in october 2005 of likey REPUBLICAN voters...

WWW Link

“In examining this data, it is clear that likely Republican voters strongly favor a comprehensive immigration reform plan that combines the stick of tighter borders and tougher enforcement with the carrot of a path to citizenship through an earned legalization process of registration, working, paying taxes, and learning English,” according to Ed Goeas, Principal at the Tarrance Group, the Republican polling firm that conducted the poll.



Key findings from a nationwide survey of registered likely Republican voters


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More than seven-in-ten (72%) likely Republican voters favor an earned legalization immigration reform plan that would:
Provide resources to greatly increase border security,
Impose much tougher penalties on employers who hire illegal workers
Create a system in which illegal immigrants could come forward and register, pay a fine, and receive a temporary worker permit, and
Provide these temporary workers with a multi-year path to citizenship, if they meet certain requirements like living crime free, learning English, and paying taxes.

Support for this reform plan stands at above 65% with key demographics like seniors (67%), rural residents (71%),
Texas residents (76%),
and Midwestern residents (68%).

Only 21% of likely Republican voters oppose this reform plan and 7% are unsure.

Fully 71% of likely Republican voters say they would be more likely to support their Member of Congress or a candidate for Congress who supported this reform plan.

Only 17% of likely GOP voters indicate they would be less likely to support a Member of Congress or Congressional candidate in this situation.

Likely Republican voters were presented with a number of proposed solutions for dealing with the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the country. The earned legalization described above received the support of 77% of likely GOP voters. This proposal tested at least 20 points higher than any of the other proposed solutions, including current enforcement only (45% favor), attrition (41% favor), and deporting all 11 million by any means necessary (32% favor).

In fact, on an informed question about the measures necessary to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants, including national ID card and government raids on homes and businesses, more than eight-in-ten (84%) of likely GOP voters indicate they believe it is not possible to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants.

In addition, 67% of likely GOP voters indicate they would have a more favorable view of President Bush if he supported an immigration reform plan like this one.
The bottom line…This proposed immigration reform plan is remarkably popular among likely GOP voters and enacting this reform would have a positive impact on their view of Congress and would have a positive impact on their view of President Bush
.


Funny how that changed once the Democrats took over. Now it's all doom and gloom if any bill gets passed.
on Jun 12, 2007
Funny how that changed once the Democrats took over. Now it's all doom and gloom if any bill gets passed.


If you examine the house bill before 2006, you will see why conservatives were not that concerned. We knew that this crap would not fly through it, period. Yes, after the democrats took over, and they started sounding like Bush Lite, we got concerned.

Why storm the Bastille with torches and pitchforks if you already have bread?
on Jun 12, 2007
why conservatives were not that concerned. We knew that this crap would not fly through


so, it wasn't a principle...it was pure political posturing. lol
on Jun 12, 2007
so, it wasn't a principle...it was pure political posturing. lol


No, as I clearly stated, why get upset over a proposed law that has no chance? It was not political posturing. And I can not see how anyone would say that unless you really do not understand the differences between the 2006 House Bill and the current one.

The issue is not Immigration (some would like it to be), or doing something about Illegal Immigration. But what is to be done.

2 Pages1 2