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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 12, 2007
No, as I clearly stated, why get upset over a proposed law that has no chance?


the GOP, when it was closer to the "party of principle" that it advertised, would never take that posture. the conservative does not support things just based on their popularity.

on abortion, the right has dug in it's stance and refused to compromise because of "moral objections."

on gay marriage, they oppose it on "moral grounds."

on this issue, in 2005, republican voters believed that a "carrot and stick" approach was the right thing to do...

likely Republican voters, do not favor an enforcement-only approach to illegal immigration, according to a new poll of 800 registered “likely” Republican voters conducted by the Tarrance Group for the Manhattan Institute on October 2-5, 2005. On the contrary, the Republican rank and file strongly favor earned legalization for illegal immigrants, and enacting this reform would have a positive impact on their view of Congress and President Bush.

funny how an election changes that view.

party of principle? not anymore.
on Jun 12, 2007
the GOP, when it was closer to the "party of principle" that it advertised, would never take that posture. the conservative does not support things just based on their popularity.


What has that got to do with immigration? As far as I know, no one here is talking popularity, only on real and philosophical differences with the current legislation concerning illegal aliens. You brought up the fact that (well in your words, GOP) that conservatives were being disingenuous because all of a sudden we don't like it. That has never been the case, nor is it now. We have never liked this bill. We want something done on illegal aliens, but not offer them citizenship on a golden platter for breaking the law.

That is it. All the rest of this foofaraw is just a smoke screen in search of a point that does not exist.
on Jun 12, 2007
puhleassseee..yer graspin at straws. the point exists and is clear. the smokescreen is from the right on this, lol.
on Jun 12, 2007
puhleassseee..yer graspin at straws. the point exists and is clear. the smokescreen is from the right on this, lol.


Then apparently you do not understand what is written, or have not read what I wrote.
on Jun 12, 2007
Then apparently you do not understand what is written, or have not read what I wrote.


oh, but i do.
on Jun 12, 2007
Sean:
on this issue, in 2005, republican voters believed that a "carrot and stick" approach was the right thing to do.

And the rank and file still do. Apparently I am the rank and file Republican of which you speak, since my thoughts and feelings are right in line with the statement you quoted:
the Republican rank and file strongly favor earned legalization for illegal immigrants, and enacting this reform would have a positive impact on their view of Congress and President Bush.
I have always felt that way and still feel that way today. The 2006 elections had no impact on my opinion -- don't know what you are talking about. I don't like the new bill.

Guy:
All the rest of this foofaraw

Thank you for using foofaraw in a sentence.
on Jun 12, 2007
Thank you for using foofaraw in a sentence.


yeah... i gotta hand it to ya there too guy...definitely the "word of the day" winner.  
on Jun 13, 2007
Hey EOIC. I hope you are well. I can honestly that dialoguing with you and LW on this issue has really changed my view of the immigration. And while I tend to disagree with other viewpoints, I am very sympathetic to you on this. If the current bill gets passed, I think it should apply FIRST to those going through the proper channels to become citizens.

I do think we need to go after Americans that hire illegal immigrants here long before we try to build a fence. I think the fact that there is so little talk about stiff prosecution for American companies that continue this practice lends itself the notion that some of the motivation against immigration reform in born our own racist attitudes towards Mexicans. However, that doesn't excuse border crossings. But if there was nothing to cross the border for, then we wouldn't have a problem.
on Jun 14, 2007
I do think we need to go after Americans that hire illegal immigrants here long before we try to build a fence


yes we do. as long as the job pool exists, illegal immigration will continue. we seriously underestimate what someone will do to survive and take care of their own.

like america is addicted to oil. illegal aliens are addicted to our jobs.
2 Pages1 2