Thread: Secure the border first -Michael Steele Republican Chairman

He sounds like a great choice to lead the GOP out of its sinkhole. He's not afraid to take on the OBLers and that's EXACTLY what we need. More power to him!

Originally Posted by MW

Populist wrote:

The border must be secured period, not just "first."

Period or first, what's the difference?

There is a huge difference between "period" and "first." "First" implies amnesty later (we see how McCain & others hide their amnesty advocacy this way). I wanted Blackwell to win as he is regarded as more conservative and explicity opposed amnesty, but time will tell if you're right about Steele -- which I hope you are.

Originally Posted by ChromeDome

Although I'm no longer a republican I hope Mr. Steele strengthens the GOP's stand against illegal immigration.What scares me in his column is when he says,Secure the border FIRST.It's what comes after that is worrisome.Usually someone that states that,means,secure the border then we'll see about amnesty.I think there should be only three things a sincere immigration policy should have:

#1 Secure the borders
#2 State that there will be no amnesty for illegal aliens of any nationality
#3 State that if you are here illegally,either leave on your own or be deported.

Now that's an comprenhensive immigration plan I could support.

I agree, but I would even go a step further, and change our current liberal immigration policies that in part have led to the invasion - no more birthright (anchor babies) and no more priority to family reunification. These laws just perpetuate and exacerbate the invasion by one ethnic group.

Just because a country starts out as a land of immigrants, doen't mean it can forevermore allow unlimited immigration. And I won't even get started on how immigration/immigrants of the past 30 years are a world apart from immigration prior to that.

Originally Posted by Populist

Originally Posted by MW

Populist wrote:

The border must be secured period, not just "first."

Period or first, what's the difference?

There is a huge difference between "period" and "first." "First" implies amnesty later (we see how McCain & others hide their amnesty advocacy this way). I wanted Blackwell to win as he is regarded as more conservative and explicity opposed amnesty, but time will tell if you're right about Steele -- which I hope you are.

Ditto Populist....

Populist wrote:

There is a huge difference between "period" and "first." "First" implies amnesty later (we see how McCain & others hide their amnesty advocacy this way).

I have to disagree, "First" does not necessarily imply amnesty later. Even I know that border security has to be the top priority. Until the borders are secured, we'll never achieve the level of success we desire in dealing with illegal immigration (common sense tells us that). Furthermore, IMO, it's wrong to lump everyone that feels border security should be a top priority in with the likes of McCain and other illegal immigrant advocates. Trust me, there are a lot of us that know we'll never get control of the illegal alien issue while our borders remain open (and we aren't proponents of amnesty).

Maybe the following excerpt from a Michael Steele speech will give you more comfort. Read it closely and you'll see that he does support the enforcement of our immigration laws in his five step plan. Anyone supporting the enforcement of our immigration laws obviously knows the enforcement will lead to attrition.


Excerpt:

First, the American people want to secure our borders and provide additional resources to federal and state authorities to strengthen border patrol efforts. Period.

Second, they want to strengthen enforcement and stiffen penalties on those immigrants who ignore the rule of law of this country.

Third, they want to enforce current laws that prevent employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Fourth, they oppose all efforts to reward illegal immigrants for illegal behavior. Fifth, but every bit as important, they want to keep the door to America open. We understand our success depends on legal immigrants. Look at how our nation was built. We just ask that those wanting to live here obey our immigration laws, assimilate into our society by learning English, and embrace our common identity as Americans.

We further ask that those we have entrusted with leadership meet the expectations of the American people by passing straightforward legislation that secures our borders and enforces current immigration laws. Not too much to ask, now is it?

http://townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelS ... ments=true

You're skepticism is understandable. We've been burned by too many politicians not to be skeptical where their motives are concerned. However, a healthy dose of faith can be good for the soul.

time will tell if you're right about Steele -- which I hope you are.

So do I Populist, so do I.

Well, I am thrilled with Mr. Steele.

And I dont think "first" means before blanket amnesty....I think it means
its of the highest priority...before anything else at all. First, period.

This man can breathe life into the party that has shot itself in the feet
so many times and in so many ways it has nothing to stand on anymore.

I am greatly encouraged! And its been a long dry spell with only Palin
being a glimmer of light.

Just look at some emerging stars...Jindal, Palin and Steele. Wow. I
have some hope now.

I am very disappointed in Steele's position on amnesty. He clearly said that there is no change in the GOP platform, and even said that the only problem was that it was messaged wrong.

So he wants amnesty.

This isn't change, nor does it represent the GOP base.

AngelaTC wrote:

I am very disappointed in Steele's position on amnesty. He clearly said that there is no change in the GOP platform, and even said that the only problem was that it was messaged wrong.

So he wants amnesty.

????????? I don't get it. Steele has said repeatedly that he does not support amnesty in any form. With that said, how can you be disappointed in his position on amnesty? Please explain in more detail. A large part of his platform in his 2006 run for the Senate was formed around his position against amnesty. IMO, his message to date on the issue has been clear.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, trust but verify.

Angela TC wrote

I am very disappointed in Steele's position on amnesty. He clearly said that there is no change in the GOP platform, and even said that the only problem was that it was messaged wrong.

I honestly think the GOP platform is not even close to defined by anything the GWB gang did in office. This guy was an embarassment to most Republicans, getting pulled around by his nose-ring by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. as well as corporate money men and foreign oil magnates.
The GOP idea of smaller government and more responsible spending as well as enforcement of laws and working for the American people (like the Katrina victims) went out the window. And then to produce John McCain (bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and being the sponsor of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill) and adding moose chili chef Sarah Palin to the ticket, I found it embarassing that the GOP had sunk so low.
Yes we need to close the borders and enforce laws, which GWB avoided doing for six years. If Steele can accomplish encouraging law enforcement and the embrace of the real GOP platform, more power to him.