Thread: Which candidate would be weakest in passing Amnesty?

I just can't even imagine McCain winning.

My husband thinks that we will have the best chance of enforcement with McCain.

So, I said...."Do you think we should vote for McCain?!!!!!"

He said it would be better than the other two because they would end enforcement altogether.

It's sooooo confusing. Which one is the LEAST horrible?

Looks like McCain can't wait to meet with LaRaza, so he can pander to them with promises of a future Amnesty. By meeting with La Raza he is giving the voters who should be his base, the middle finger!

Originally Posted by Molly

Looks like McCain can't wait to meet with LaRaza, so he can pander to them with promises of a future Amnesty. By meeting with La Raza he is giving the voters who should be his base, the middle finger!

Well, when McShame turned on his fellow POW's and he was giving them the finger; now he is giving U.S. the finger and my response to him is

I can't say it here.

Here's another related analytical tidbit -

If you break the illegal immigration (well, and LEGAL immigration, to some extent) down into 3 loosely defined areas:

1. Amnesty
2. Border Security
3. Interior Enforcement / Protecting US Workers

The 3 top tier candidates have shown that -

a). They are 'open' to Amnesty - at least philosophically. Given the ability to slap down a signature, I don't doubt that they would proceed without nary a whimper. Congress is our firewall!

b). Obama and Clinton, I don't think, take the border security issue very seriously. Yes, one has given some lip service to it, but based on their overall views on the subject matter, they can't be taken seriously given support for amnesty, pandering to the ethno-centric lobby, etc.
Yes, McCain has said 'border security first', but then again, he also just reiterated his support for 'CIR' too. His comments on border security cannot be taken seriously either at this point in time.

c). Interior enforcement is the one area where there is probably some 'headway' to be gained - IF pitched the right way and followed with intense pressure. The big business (NeoCon/RINO/USCoC) part of the Repubs has shown an intense aversion to want to apply any serious pressure to businesses on illegal hiring.

The Dems, on the other hand, are happy to 'put the screws' to exploitative corporate practices - especially given the [un]regulation enacted under Boosh, in the wake of MCI, Enron, Halliburton, and related scandals, and all the outsourced manufacturing going to China and crappy defective stuff coming back in as a result. I personally think, that this is the prong of these 3 that we should work the most intensively - especially because it is appearing likely that our next Prez will be Obama or even Clinton. I can't honestly believe that country will vote another Repub into office after the destruction the Boosh administration has wreaked on the country - but, then again, I could be wrong too.

...My 2 pennies...

Here's some related info that Roy Beck recently had to say (granted it's before McCain's recent blathering about CIR amnesty - again):

The Numbers USA leader hopes that that enforcement momentum will carry on into the next administration. "One thing we can hope for is that they move aggressively so far down the line in enforcement that by the time the next president takes office next January, it will be too hard and too embarrassing for them to totally turn everything back," he says. "So I think ... in that sense there's some real optimism about what's happening inside the Bush administration right now."

Beck admits it is more likely that Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) would carry on with enforcement than would the two Democratic presidential hopefuls -- particularly Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois), who he believes would likely gut enforcement completely.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Defa ... x?id=76265

I think most everyone here believes that Barack Obama would be the worst of the three. But then again, I am soooo confused. I will not vote for any of these three anyway, so I can sleep at night knowing I did my best and voted my conscious.

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

I just can't even imagine McCain winning.

My husband thinks that we will have the best chance of enforcement with McCain.

So, I said...."Do you think we should vote for McCain?!!!!!"

He said it would be better than the other two because they would end enforcement altogether.

It's sooooo confusing. Which one is the LEAST horrible?

None of them are going to enforce. We are going to have to KEEP the PRESSURE on congress. Mc Cain loves illegals and La raza. There is no chance of him being tough on enforement. No way would I vote for him or any of them. I will do a write in!

One reason McCain being in the WH might actually be [ever-so-slightly] better is this: having a [likely] Dem majority in the House and probably the Senate makes the parties have to compromise and/or work with the WH to get a new law passed. If they are bickering between parties, they are less likely to compromise to get anything passed.

I agree with you April. I will never vote for him either.

Or you can look at it like this: with an empowered, vengeful McCain in the WH, rank and file Republicans will find it harder to buck him (as opposed to fighting a very liberal Obama), therefore making it perhaps easier for an amnesty attempt as no doubt many Dems will go along on this issue -- with the MSM all the while praising McCain for being a "maverick" and "reaching across the aisle."

But who knows what will happen. At the end of last summer it looked like McCain's campaign was dead in the water. We have to work locally & at the state levels, get organized, and work on Congress -- and continue to fight the MSM and well-funded OBL propaganda.