THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal

CHECK US OUT AT: http://delawareliberal.wordpress.com/

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

 

Republican's Love/Hate Relationship With Illegal Immigration

If you are a Republican you HATE illegal immigration. That is - unless you are an "addicted to cheap labor" Republican who LOVES illegal immigration. This story in the Cantonrep.com digs into the schism that is threatening to blow the party of racism apart.

WASHINGTON--The House Republican leadership and the nation's business lobby, usually close allies, are battling each other over the issue of immigration.

Comments:
The cheap labor side has got to prevail.
The true GOPer is a deep-pocket insurance policy wonk.
It is all about the money.
The other agendas serve the voting blocks with a superficial convenience. Don't cha love one citizen one vote...was that one of Sammy Alito's sticking points?
 
Nancy,

You are right. The huffing and puffing about illegal immigration is for show. The money guys will win in the end. Bush indicated as much when he sided with the amnesty crowd.
 
I think illegal immigration is the first non-partisan issue to come around in a long time. I think you can find people on both sides of the issue in both parties. It seems to be more of a regional or territorial issue. It will be interesting to see what happens in the California election. But I'm sure folks like you will find a way to spin it so it looks bad for the GOP. It's what you do instead of winning elections.
 
I'm not so sure Goopher. What if we spin it to make Republicans look bad AND win elections.

Like the elections this November when we swept out Republicans en masse from the Dover PA school board and defeated an anti-gay ballot initiative in Maine and gained seats in the New Jersey state legislatures and kept the Governors office and gained seats in the state legislature in Virginia and kept the Governors office.

Seem like we can do both when we want to.
 
goper said...
"I think illegal immigration is the first non-partisan issue to come around in a long time. I think you can find people on both sides of the issue in both parties."

I absolutely agree, goper. Illegal immigration is a major problem, and both parties have been grossly remiss in doing anything to fix it, albeit for different reasons.

If Jason had any intellectual honesty, (which he obviously does not) he would acknowledge that Republicans are not the only party at fault here. He claims that he is objective, and an equal opportunity basher, but so far I haven't seen any proof of that, have you?
 
Being accused of intellectual dishonesty by a Republican is like being accused of being a drug addict by Rush Limbaugh.

FYI: The article in question was about the schism in the Republican Party. Okay?

If you want wall-to-wall coverage of problems in the Democratic Party try watching Fox News for two minutes. I'll save my "democrats suck" rants for when they deserve it.
 
jason said...
"Nancy,

You are right. The huffing and puffing about illegal immigration is for show. The money guys will win in the end. Bush indicated as much when he sided with the amnesty crowd."

Jason and Nancy, I am not a great supporter of the President's guestworker program, but I would invite you to lay out your own party's solution to the illegal immigration problem, because so far I haven't seen anything too productive coming from them.

Here is a recent article I came across, laying out the DNC's stance on this issue.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=54568

To give you a hint about the Dems' position, the title of the piece reads like this:

Democrats’ position backs citizenship for illegal immigrants
 
jason said...
"Being accused of intellectual dishonesty by a Republican is like being accused of being a drug addict by Rush Limbaugh."

You probably don't even know any Republicans personally, or you would not think that. In any case, it was YOU who started with the personal attacks on the McCain blog, if you'd care to go back and read what you said to me there.

And big surprise! Another personal attack, on Rush Limbaugh this time. I think I detect a pattern of name calling! ;)

jason said...
"FYI: The article in question was about the schism in the Republican Party. Okay?"

Sure that's okay. What I was responding to, in case you missed it, was the exchange that you and Nancy had. Is that not permitted on your blog?
 
DEMs I would hope want LEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Toss the bums out of the country if they can't get legal passage in.
Stop pregnant illegals from giving kids born here a birthright......it is a simple question of law.
The GOPers are turning law on it's head (nothing new there).
Keeping the American wages down by
paying less than the minimum going rates to illegal workers (what, no bennies?, no problema)

Having an illegal labor force that you don't have to pay any SS and other tax on since they get cash under the table
 
So you want to toss 10 million people out of the country tomorrow?

Such a shortsighted argument is typical of the left.

Do you honestly think every small business owner employing undocumented workers in America is a Republican? (I know they SHOULD be, considering the tax burden, but they're not.)
 
I refer to a platform.
I would expect a Democratic platform on illegals that respects US law.

Did I say "tomorrow? Did I say that only GOPers hire illegals.....?

Keep your own words in your own mouth and leave them out of mine!!
 
You said "GOPers are...paying less than minimum going rates to illegals." So either you think Republican and Democrat business owners are paying different wages to illegals, or that only GOP business owners are hiring illegals. Which is it?

You said, "Toss the bums out of the country." Elaborate on how you would see this done.

Go ahead and use your own words and try to dig out from what you actually said.
 
No, goper, you missed the PERIOD at the end of the sentence.

I said GOPers turn the law upside down (paraphrasing).

The next sentence refers to the staus quo in our country, a generality that makes narry a reference to party of the employers paying low rates..I am not a one-sided, narrow-sighted kind of arguer.
Please don't try so hard to read that into my words.

And I do think that just as an amnisty (sp?) program would work by identifying each of the aliens for that purpose, the same could be done to simply identify the illegal foreigners and ship them home....if the borders aren't sufficiently guarded, of course, back they'll sneak.
 
Nancy Willing said...
"DEMs I would hope want LEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Toss the bums out of the country if they can't get legal passage in."

Nancy, would you consider that it's entirely possible that what you would hope the Dems would support, and what they actually support, might be two entirely different things?

For instance, Hillary Clinton will very likely be your party's candidate for President in '08. Could you tell me what she has said that might make you believe that she supports legal immigration only? Do you know how she intends to solve the illegal immigration issue?
 
Hillary has lost much ground with her patronizing support of the flag burning bill.

Freedom of expression and the desecreation of a SYMBOL deserve protection afforded, in my view, by constitutional right.

Low would be the standing of someone to mistake violence to a symbol with violence to the country. It is a general, simple expression of frustration with representation gone awry....The symbolic burning of effagy (sp?) was once very popular in our state.

The man who built La Grange in Glasgow, Dr. Sam Black was a state rep who wanted to help pay for the nascent Delaware College with taxes on the travel between New Castle and Frenchtown, MD...everyone in the colonies went through our state back then.

The vested interests in this interstate route in the early 1800s took up a mighty hie and cry against the traveler tax and poor Sam Black was symbolically set afire in Wilmington and New Castle. His fellow Galsgow area state senator was "burned" along with him.

Burning a flag protests the actors of power at the time, NOT THE COUNTRY. Similarly, protesting the Iraq war does not impugn the warriors, but the people who don;t seem to have any clue as to what to do about the quagmire.

So, to answer about Hillary, she is not a sure shot for '08 in my book.
 
Nancy Willing said..."Hillary has lost much ground with her patronizing support of the flag burning bill."

Well, I'm not sure how much that is going to hurt her really. I think her most avid supporters understand that she is just doing some political posturing, trying to appear less liberal than she really is. Liberals all move to the right when they run for national office, or they'd never get elected. lol

She's definitely pandering to that 70% number that polls show are against the burning and desecration of our flag.

Nancy Willing said..."So, to answer about Hillary, she is not a sure shot for '08 in my book."

Fine, but Hillary is still one of your party's leaders, and as such, can affect our immigration laws. I think you completely dodged my question about where she stood on illegal immigration.
 
love doll
 
love you
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

Archives

November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   May 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]