Results 21 to 30 of 32
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
-
06-14-2008, 11:13 PM #21Originally Posted by koobster“In questions of power…let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson
-
06-14-2008, 11:38 PM #22Originally Posted by DixiePlease support ALIPAC's fight to save American Jobs & Lives from illegal immigration by joining our free Activists E-Mail Alerts (CLICK HERE)
-
06-15-2008, 01:28 AM #23
Here's a still relevant post from the Kaus files a few months ago about which of the three prez candidates (as bad as they all are on illegal immigration) would be the best for those who oppose amnesty. I guess we can forget about Hillary now:
------
Mickey's Single Issue Voter's Guide: Suppose you were a single issue voter, and your single issue was immigration. Specifically, you were opposed to legislation that combines some form of amnesty (legalization of existing illegal immigrants) with tougher border enforcement. If so, you would probably be pretty depressed right now--three of the four leading presidential candidates explicitly favor such "comprehensive" reform. The fourth, Mitt Romney is the least likely to win. And even he's suspected of being a closet comprehensivist.
But you still have to vote. Before you did, you'd want to ask: Which of the three pro-legalization candidates is least likely to accomplish their legislative goal? When you think about it this way, a clear and somewhat surprising ranking of top three emerges.
1) Hillary Clinton would probably be the best president for anti-comprehensivists. She's cautious. She's been burned by GOP opposition before (to her 1994 health plan). Is she really going attempt both health care reform and immigration reform in her first two years? Remember, Rahm Emmanuel's swing-state Democratic congressmen typically ran tough-on-illegals campaigns. They're squeamish about voting for "amnesty." If Hillary is president (meaning John McCain isn't president) the Republicans are likely to unite against a Democratic legalization plan. Meanwhile, Hillary's political adviser James Carville is on record suggesting that legalization, like welfare, is a potential election-loser. Hillary suppporter Paul Krugman seems one of those remaining economists who actually believe in supply and demand--i.e., that an increase in the supply of immigrant labor can drive down unskilled wages. And Hillary herself has made anti-illegals noises in the past, including reversing her endorsement of Gov. Spitzer's drivers license plan.
2) Barack Obama, on the other hand, may actually believe his standard-left immigration positons. He's shown an ability to bridge the partisan divide and get things done. All deeply troubling, in this case.. But at least he too would have a hard time getting both a health care plan and immigration legislation through Congress against opposition from Republicans (McCain having lost).
3) President McCain would seem like a replay of George W. Bush. Bush couldn't get his "comprehensive" immigration plan through, even with a Democratic Congress. What would be different with McCain? Quite a bit. a) McCain's likely to be more popular, at least if Iraq continues to improve; b) The Democrats are likely to have bigger Congressional majorities; c) McCain might be able to claim voter validation of his long-standing pro-legalization views. Certainly the Republicans wouldn't be united against a McCain "comprehensive" bill. Unlike Clinton and Obama, McCain doesn't have ambitious New Dealish health legislation that would compete for his and Congress' time and energy.
True, it would still be difficult to pass a McCainish immigration plan--you can imagine the Democrats splitting just like Republicans when faced with something that might actually become law. McCain would have campaigned on his pledge to secure the borders--his current plan for a quickie assurance by "border state" governors might be too transparent a ploy (especially if the press was reporting a continuing flow of illegals). Nevertheless,,McCain seems clearly the worst of the three possibilities, from an anti-comprehensivist perspective.
I'm not saying voters should be single-issue voters. I'm not saying I'm going to vote for Hillary. I'm just saying ...
P.S.: OK,, I'm not just just saying. If I thought either Clinton or Obama would do a much better job on health care, that would be one thing. But both seem well-positioned to actually pass some big, broad health plan. An immigration plan, on the other hand, seems much iffier. It could pass or fail depending on who's president. And, unlike a health care plan, an immigration legalization bill is likely to have large, irreversible consequences. Misconceived health plans can be altered or repealed (remember "catastrophic insurance"?). But if a misconceived immigration amnesty attracts millions of new illegal entrants who then have to be given citizenship--on top of the new citizens created by the amnesty itself--it won't just lower unskilled wages etc. It will profoundly alter the very electorate that will have to consider any future change of course.
In this context, single-issue voting could be a highly responsible course.
Vote Hillary. She won't get it done! ... 2:15 A.M. link
http://www.slate.com/id/2183790/#obamahispanderJoin our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)
-
06-15-2008, 02:11 AM #24
The ONLY chance we have of stopping amnesty is to have enough republicans in congress to keep the dems from winning.
IS EVERYONE WORKING FOR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES???????????
If not, as I said previously, better start learning spanish!
-
06-15-2008, 04:44 AM #25Originally Posted by LawEnforcer
Before we worry about a pro-illegal immigration bill coming up in Jan. 09, we must seriously look at the Nov. elections and how it will affect the key number of "60" that pro-amnesty people need in the Senate to pass an amnesty type immigration bill for 12-20 million illegal immigrants like Ted Kennedy wants.
If Obama wins the election:
1. Big trouble.
2. He could easily sweep many new Democrat Senators and Representatives into office with him, Democrat Senators and Representatives who could easily vote for amnesty for 12-20 illegal aliens.
3. These new Democrat Senators could easily tip the delicate balance of power so that the pro-illegal people will finally get their magic number of
"60" Senators to vote for an amnesty-type bill.
4. So we must be very observant and try to do the following: We must try to make absolutely sure that Senators against amnesty are re-elected.
If we elect new Senators, we must be sure that we elect new Senators who promise to fight any attempt to pass amnesty bills for 12-20 million illegal aliens.
5. Again, if Democrat Obama is elected President of the United States, there is a good chance he could very easily carry Democrat Senators and Representatives into office with him, Democrat Senators who could help the Democrats reach their magic of "60" that will help the Democrat
Senators pass an amnesty bill for 12-20 million illegal aliens.
-
06-15-2008, 04:46 AM #26Originally Posted by Reciprocity
Yes, I do with all the faxes emails and letters that I write and send.
I try to do my part, I just get so fustrated sometimes, and I bet all
of you do to. Sometimes I have to get away from the computer and take me a break. But, when I am rested it seems I am ready to gooooo.
I am getting more off tomarrow for the border agents. Remember those
guys too, in your letters to the senators. we need to pressure them from
all ends.
Thanks guys for all the inspiration,
KO BSTERProud to be an AMERICAN
-
06-15-2008, 06:51 AM #27Originally Posted by CitizenJustice
If I have to learn Spanish the only words I will learn are: I demand and I want!<div>GOD - FAMILY - COUNTRY</div>
-
06-15-2008, 08:52 AM #28
Mirse's
5. Again, if Democrat Obama is elected President of the United States, there is a good chance he could very easily carry Democrat Senators and Representatives into office with him, Democrat Senators who could help the Democrats reach their magic of "60" that will help the Democrat
Senators pass an amnesty bill for 12-20 million illegal aliens.
If that happens and it sure looks possible, our country will so vulnerable to everything from illegal immigration to amnesty to terrorists attacks (maybe biological or chemical) while we have a president who wants to invite terrorists to the White House for tea and little cakes while they negotiate.
Plus his wife will probably be sitting there AGREEING with the terrorists about how awful and shameful a country America is!!!!!
Unfortunately this is the hard, cold truth of what we could be facing especially if we choose to write in candidates names. I understand the feeling AND the reasoning to do it.....but the price we will pay for that could be awfully high!!
If you think you're frustrated and angry now, just wait until you have to sit back and endure a President Obama WITH a Democrat Congress.
I can't STAND McCain, but I'd rather fight back with him as president than Obama and a Democrat Congress. Heck we could probably lose our freedom of speech under them.Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)
-
06-16-2008, 04:46 PM #29Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizenJoin our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)
-
06-16-2008, 05:34 PM #30
Populist,
Terry Anderson made this same point last night on his show and is advising everyone not to vote for McCain because he will bully the Repubs. to do his bidding.
Lets get as many anti-Illegal congressional members elected as possible.It is our only chance so lets focus on them."A Government big enough to give you everything you want,is strong enough to take everything you have"* Thomas Jefferson
First List to Move to Archive "Non-Citizen & Illegal Migrant...
04-17-2024, 06:55 PM in Non-Citizen & illegal migrant voters