Thread: SAVE ACT

One thing that still sort of puzzles me about RP is why he hasn't ditched the Republican party and set out, as, say an Independent, Libertarian to another party. I know his criticisms of much of Boosh's policy failings are every bit as strong as many Dems, and... its seems like he would stand to gain in the fund raising area and would position himself better as well (<- just IMHO, but it seems like a natural move to me...) ... Just wondering...

Oh, for y'alls benefit here, you're speaking to a half traditional conservative (social issues), half liberal (I prefer 'progressive' myself; on economic issues) as well. Or, stated another way, RINOs are not my friends.

The problem I see with a bill like this is that it is going to be chopped up in committee by special interest groups and has the potential to become a micro amnesty. On the plus side, there are many staunch supporters of immigration enforcement involved with this legislation, so it will be difficult to fold in nonsense. This is unlike the backroom dealings of Kennedy McCain Amnesty.

The Homeland Security cooperation elements to this bill are what is most troubling. We need to pursue individual legislations that deal with use of American information by Mexico and other sub civilization countries. To me this would be the key. I personally view the usage of my information by any other nation a violation of my Consitutional rights.

I think a decent critical analysis of the Save Act would come by viewing it thru Democrats eyes. What are the elements they like and support? Why are they on board? This will likely lead to the weak points of the bill.

Chosen -

I think a decent critical analysis of the Save Act would come by viewing it thru Democrats eyes. What are the elements they like and support? Why are they on board? This will likely lead to the weak points of the bill.

Yes! You're alluding to the sorts of things I have been trying to bring up gradually over the last few weeks around here. Understanding and re-packaging the debate into terms that *some* (well, enough to help get a GOOD SAVE act passed) Dems will support is so very important.

Let me revisit some basic but obvious numbers that many folks might not think of offhand:

435 Total House Reps.

Now,
198 = Number of Repubs in House
4 = Number of vacant/transition seats
233 = Number of Dems in House

# needed signatures for Discharge petition to proceed (raw majority = 218 of 435 total)

Number of current signatories to discharge petition = 181; still need 37 more - some will HAVE to be Dems (only 20 Repubs haven't signed yet)

Bill passage requires, what, 2/3s yes? (it's early and I've only had 1 coffee so far )

Not to worry, I'm not trying to convert anyone into changing into being a Dem. Just want to try to pitch the idea that we need to understand the opposed mindset in order better refine and lobby our approach to adjust to allow the greatest degree of success.

Ron Paul hasn't ditched the republican party because he needs that party's support to run for his congressional seat. He is a republican in the senate, and needs that support. He would not be elected to congress as a libertarian.

I could venture to say that if he were truly following what he believes, he would ditch the republican party, not caring about his congressional seat, and announce himself as a libertarian. Why doesn't he do that, if the majority of his beliefs are libertarian?

PhredE you should try and get your hands on some Pegasus coffee from here in Seattle, the roaster has been around for about 40 years on Bainbridge island, good stuff. Their little coffee shop downtown sits between about 3 Starbucks on the nearby blocks.

217 = Number of Dems in House

This is going to be the magic reveal. Some of the democrats in support of this also support McCain amnesty, so we should take a hard lok at what they are getting out of it. With regards to illegal immigration (not letting the Rino Grahams and such off the hook), the democrats are a barometer for corruption.

Yep, "cool/thanks" on the first, and 'yes indeed' on the second.

I'll confess, in case you hadn't caught mention of it before, that I am a former Dem - now Independent. So I know all-too-well the failings of the folks with the "Ds". Understanding who are the "real" good guys (well, just good enough to be able to secure their support of a good SAVE Act) and knowing who are the ones that are going to work against us is the real key. While I'll admit that there is only a small minority within the Dems that are likely to side with us in getting a good SAVE act into law, there are some - mostly with a populist bent - that show some past voting history in doing so. In particular, the newer class from 2006 (such as Boyda KS, Shuler NC, etc) have strong records on the subject and we need to drill down into the next 'tier' of Dems to find those with slightly less favorable records and coop their support. (all just IMHO, of course).


Oh, BTW, I mangled my numbers above due to caffeine deficit disorder. - they are fixed now

I think the election of Hillary or Obama will really purge populism from the Democratic party. There hasn't really been such an overt form of ostercization like has occured in the GOP, it is much more subtle. I spoke with a woman I know who works from time to time with a local Democratic fund raising junta. By all accounts a smart and attuned individual, but here is a transcript of what she mentioned to me about the border: (in talking about border fence)

SHE: What they (?) are saying is that the border fence they put up is actually preventing immigrants from returning home. A spokesperson from La RAza was mentioning that Clinton's fence actually made it to why all of the illegals are here. They want to go home but they can't.

ME: What fence?

SHE: The wall you see them talking about making like the Berlin Wall.

ME: What? The Berlin Wall was designed to keep people in. The population of East Germany was fleeing collectivist opression. Our wall is designed to keep people from entering illegally and to use the border checkpoints, this proposed wall hasn't really been built yet. Sand Diego is a major crossing point for illegals. Besides, if they got across how could one believe that there is a wall there?

SHE: Well he (la raza dude?) said they would but there are also vigilantes down there hunting them down and killing them. So they are afraid..

ME:...wait hold up...Hunting them down? Are you shitting me? I am supposing you are referring to the Minutemen and don't you think if there was any act of violence what so ever that the media would parade it around like the victim was Jesus Christ. Swapping the last name from Gonzales. You know, the same media that won't report the over 40,000 murders committed by illegals since the beginning of this century? Cmon...

SHE: Well I think it makes sense...

ME: What makes sense?

SHE: That they can't go home. It's blocked off. The President doesn't want them to leave.

ME: I agree he doesn't, but for different reasons than you think. Just out of curiousity, why do you think there has been such a push to build a border wall? Why would they want a wall built that's already there? I mean, if it worked so well to prevent them from escaping it sure as hell would work to keep them out, don't you think?

SHE: It's symbollic.

ME: That makes no sense to me, you just mentioned earlier that its empirical, that it exists. That it is there preventing them from leaving (laughing)...

SHE: Well...

ME: But seriously you can't believe that? Right?

SHE: Many people think thats the problem and thats why they are opposed to the wall. They want it down for that reason.

ME: I am now dumber for having heard what you just said. I have actually devolved 5 steps for simply processing that statement...

SHE: ...Its true.

ME: ...They only want a wall removed - that isnt there yet - so they can go home? (laughing) Why can't they use the border crossings? Just entertaining your theory there...

SHE: They'll be arrested...

ME: By who? Mexico? Cmon.



In any event what I found scary about this exchange is that I am SURE many folks would buy into that logic.

Originally Posted by GeorgiaOnMyMind

Ron Paul hasn't ditched the republican party because he needs that party's support to run for his congressional seat. He is a republican in the senate, and needs that support. He would not be elected to congress as a libertarian.

I could venture to say that if he were truly following what he believes, he would ditch the republican party, not caring about his congressional seat, and announce himself as a libertarian. Why doesn't he do that, if the majority of his beliefs are libertarian?

Because Ron Paul is a Republican. The party changed course, not him. He is not a Libertarian. He is a Republican.

He left the party briefly to accept the LP nod despite differences, but came back when he learned exactly how biased the system is against 3rd parties.

For example, 3rd parties aren't allowed to participate in national debates. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Sending one of the true conservatives out of the party won't do anybody any good. Did you read the platform of the guy who ran against him in the Texas Primary?

Originally Posted by Jonathan

This has already been posted several times TODAY, and we recognize it is the position shared by all of the groups in the Open Borders Lobby. It is also supported by libertarians who do not see illegal immigration as their primary issue. We reject it as do the overwhelming number of anti-illegal Congressmen, people we trust like Tancredo and Sessions and Bilbray and Rohrabacher, to name a few. So we will not fall for this fearmongering that the left wing and their libertarian allies put out.

I am a civil libertarian and I am also against it. Politics makes strange bedfellows, as they say.

Originally Posted by MW

roundabout wrote:

The jury is out concerning this SAVE ACT. Becareful what you wish for, you might just get it.

Forget Ron Paul for a minute and read the SAVE Act bill closely. It's an excellent bill.....

No it isn't an excellent bill for those conservatives who believe in small government.