Bush Push On Immigration Would Lead To GOP Self-Destruction

Martyn4802

New member
Bush Push On Immigration Would Lead To GOP Self-Destruction
By Matt Towery
Thursday, June 14, 2007

It's already clear that Republican candidates in the 2008 season will face a difficult political climate in light of the continued war in Iraq and the overall low job-approval ratings for President Bush. Now the president apparently wants to ensure the collapse of his party by attempting to drag GOP Senators over the cliff and into the abyss of his current immigration reform bill.

Multiple InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion surveys indicate that a majority of voters in numerous states, particularly those "red" Southern states the GOP desperately needs in order to have any prayer of holding on to the White House, oppose the president's immigration bill. It does no good to examine the minutiae of the immigration proposal, or to debate any of its potential merits. Once the public has been handed a convoluted piece of legislation in which they have no confidence, the political die is cast.

The Bush immigration proposal has no coherent or tangible aspects that would provide the average voter with answers to the many concerns they have expressed about the bill. The public does not view this legislation as punitive to those who have entered the country illegally. More importantly, the public has little trust in the legislation's promise to secure our borders in the future.

In a meeting with the president earlier this week, Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., expressed his belief that until emergency funds are appropriated to build the proposed fence that would span hundreds of miles along our border with Mexico, the public will never believe that other aspects of the president's immigration bill will be implemented. Isakson, a pragmatic conservative viewed as an extraordinarily effective freshman U.S. Senator, makes a great point. Our polling reveals that the public has little or no confidence that any meaningful immigration reform will ever take place. Securing our borders in a realistic and effective manner is, in the public's mind, of paramount importance.

But the White House is more than a day late and a dollar short in understanding the mood of the country. Just as they were insulated and unapproachable as to the public's feelings on the war in Iraq, this same White House seems completely out of touch with not only the vast majority of Americans, but with their own GOP face.

There are other instances in which presidents and Congress have gone against the obvious will of the public. There was the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which contributed to the defeat of a number of freshman GOP Senators who had come into office as part of the "Reagan Revolution." And, of course, the "read my lips" reversal on taxes by President George H. W. Bush likely not only cost Bush the White House, but also put Republicans on the ropes.

This immigration bill has the potential to be another one of those "bipartisan and seemingly reasonable" pieces of legislation that is urgently needed and supported by leaders from both parties. We are past the point of trying to provide analysis as to the merits of the bill. Now, the commentary becomes purely political and strategic.

The solution for Republican Senators in this potentially disastrous political season is simple: When you are in a hole, quit digging. To continue to discuss a complex piece of legislation that ignites this degree of virulent opposition is political suicide. Isakson's suggestion that the border fence must be built in order to gain the public's confidence should be used as the "jumping off point" for GOP members of the Senate. They should demand that the president demonstrably secure the borders, and then address the issue of those already illegally in our country. After, if they care to survive as a party, they should just shut up.

The Democratic Party has outmaneuvered the Republicans on this issue. The most significant segment of voters who would reject a candidate over their support of this bill would never vote Democrat in the first place. At the same time, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid has managed to make Bush appear weak and ineffective, while at the same time making his own members look proactive.

From the objective view of one who follows politics, the question must be asked: Who in the world is creating the Republican Party's policy and strategy? Moreover, who is responsible for communicating whatever that strategy might be? If the message is "I'll see you at the bill signing," as Bush reportedly quipped on Monday, he might as well add, "and at the conclusion of your political careers."

Matt Towery is a former National Republican legislator of the year and author of Powerchicks: How Women Will Dominate America.
 
They should demand that the president demonstrably secure the borders, and then address the issue of those already illegally in our country.

Absolutely.

It is now becoming more clear why Bush did not secure our borders starting after 9/11. Many of us have suspected for a long time that this would become a big carrot offered to the American people in exchange for their support to his & Kennedy's flawed immigration bill. Bush knew that if he secured our borders he would not have a bargaining chip to pass his immigration bill. So, now here we are today. We thought our security started in circa 1776, or with the IV amendment of the Constitution, or with Bush's oath to office to protect this country. But now we know border security is just a prize only to be rewarded if we do his bidding on the immigration bill.

Bush is gambling with something he has not right to gamble with....our border security.

BTW, his poll ratings are at an all time low. Due to loss of Republicans(like me) support.
 
A few years ago, when Bush showed his true colors on illegal immigration, I made a post on another forum slamming Bush for turning his back on the voters who elected him, all of us being against having illegals here in the US.
Someone unknown to me responded to my post by saying;
"George is my favorite son. Watch to see what happens after he is out of office, and you'll see that he and President Fox (of Mexico) have something going on."
I never found out who it was posted that statement, but, I haven't forgotten it.

Martyn
 
Would lead to?

Thanks to Jorge and Gonzo, that ship's already down by the bow at a 45 degree angle and picking up speed, with the last few conservatives jumping off the stern.
 
he and President Fox (of Mexico) have something going on."

Too much information, I don't think I can handle that. I have enough problems knowing Bush won't protect this country. :barf:
 
Last edited:
Well, try to figure out in what context the behavior of the President and the other players would make sense. Pure evil and sheer perversity, I think, are unlikely motivations.


Evidently, the President does not deem "open borders" to be a security threat. Why not? Well, it may be that all known and imaginable threats would have no problem circumventing "secure borders." Whether or not allowing tens of millions of 3rd world people to attach themselves to America's alimentary canal is a good idea, the kind of open borders needed to accomplish that might not do much good or bad to America's security position.


It's also possible that America's security is already so compromised (prepositioned nukes and so forth) that nobody can be bothered to close the barn door at this point.
 
Evidently, the President does not deem "open borders" to be a security threat. Why not?

Well, many of us following the President on this issue for the last three years think it has to do with his personal convictions rather than security. Bush has decided that the flow of illegals should be allowed. He developed these feelings in Texas. Do family ties with his brothers wife have any thing to do with this?.....well you be the judge. Bottom line, Bush is simply willing to take the risk of terrorist coming across open borders to accomplish passing of his immigration bill. It's a gamble. If there is a terrorist act traced to open borders then he will lose big time. For him, border security is a bargaining chip to be used to help pass his & Kennedy's bill. Bush knows full well he can order the border secured any time he wants, but that would take away his bargaining power. Guess who loses!

This is simply another in a long line of poor judgments by Bush. Many Republicans, like myself, could support a reasonable immigration bill. Most really understand that we are not going to deport 12 million plus people. Most of us understand the desire for someone to work at any price to support their families. Most of us believe that US employers are at more fault than the people trying to come here and fill jobs illegally. In fact, the provision of the proposed bill that 12 million re-cycle back through Mexico is a joke. It will never ever happen. Sure I would like to see video of long lines of illegals going back to Mexico to fulfill the bills requirements....give me a break.

Pass a separate immigration bill, but do not hold me hostage by telling me that we cannot have border security unless we pass a flawed bill. We verified that right circa 1776....don't need to re-verify in 2007.
 
Can't separate open borders from the deep integration plan seen in the SPP. They are pushing unified road systems (Trans Texas corridor), open trucking (due to start in July this year), social security totalization agreement with Mexico, open skies agreements with Mexico allowing flights over the US to originate in Mexico (tougher sell), and a host of other initiatives we've only begun to hear about. The sell out is progressing nicely.
 
Can't separate open borders from the deep integration plan seen in the SPP. They are pushing unified road systems (Trans Texas corridor), open trucking (due to start in July this year), social security totalization agreement with Mexico, open skies agreements with Mexico allowing flights over the US to originate in Mexico (tougher sell), and a host of other initiatives we've only begun to hear about. The sell out is progressing nicely.

Oh, THAT will be fun. What sort of laws does Mexico have regarding CDL licensing and truck maintenance, and how easily are their licensing agencies bribed?

So they'll drive the trucks Americans won't drive for far less pay, I suppose, and a few minivans full of kids being killed by Mexican trucks with ductaped airbrake lines isn't too much of a cost, right? :barf:

In a speech peppered with Spanish phrases, Bush today thanked Latino religious leaders "for making comprehensive immigration reform your top priority," adding, "I share that priority." Also attending the prayer breakfast were two senators who support Bush's vision of an immigration-law overhaul: Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Mel Martinez (R-Fla.). Bush hailed them as having " corazones grandes[big hearts] on the immigration bill."
:barf::barf::barf:

Here's a Spanish phrase for you. [deleted phrase and PM sent]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The trucking initiative in some ways is just as preposterous as the senate's amnesty bill. No one can get the US govt to answer a few questions about the agreement. All we know is it will kick off mid July on a program demonstration of 100 Mexican truck companies. Just a few of the unresolved issues include:
--driver criminal background checks
--hazardous substances endorsements
--equipment safety inspection
--equipment certification
--driver logging requirements
--cargo inspections
--then there is that whole thingy called insurance
--tort ???????????
--etc.

We are doing this as a requirement of the NAFTA agreement. It has been tied up in court for 5+ years and only now beginning to be implemented. Interestingly enough, observers discovered drug cartels have taken on interest in trucking companies. I wonder what that is all about.

The senate would write into laws provisions the goverment has no chance of implementing (e.g. 24 hour background check which defaults to a pass through if not completed) and we see the same thing with trucking. We have pretty tough regulations on trucking for some pretty good reasons. Appears all that will be bypassed as we worship at the altar of globalism. I could be wrong and everything about the trucking agreement could be nailed down nice and proper. . . . don't know because no one says anything. Just shove it down our throats.

WorldNetDaily is running with the ball on this story. Do a site search for "trucking mexico" and you return 27 pages of articles.
 
How many privately-owned independent rigs could be organized to entirely jam up D.C. in front of Congress and the White House, I wonder, with protests painted on the sides of trailers?

I'm sure the truckers know their current contract pay rates will go down the toilet if places can hire Mexican truckers instead. But hey, saves everyone money, right? Cheaper prices on Mexican black tar heroin because it's in every few trucks, cheaper meth, and more Wal-Mart greeters who were independent truckers who could no longer afford to pay off their rig...

Oh, and the uranium collision atomic bomb driving right into the middle of a major city in the back of a Mexican truck, hidden in a long steel pipe or such? Added bonus!
 
When it takes two people to hold down a house hold with a job each. What happens when you need two jobs each and there are not that many jobs to be had?

People will do crazy things when they find their children starving and they cannot do anything about it. They may even lash out at the ones they believe caused the problem. What in the hell do these politicians think they are going to get from doing things that are this absurd? They can't be this stupid. What devils do they have a deal with? Something just isn't right here and I can't put my finger on it.

Let us hope that this doesn't lead to an American Kristallnacht. That would be a very sad day in history for our country.
 
My earlier point about America's security situation remains valid. It may be that "open borders" in the sense of labor mobility has no big effect on security. But it affects a lot of other things.


It may be that one way of thinking about it is not just that the "high-function" Mexicans are being brought to America, but that the relatively "low-function" Americans are, in a sense, being sent to Mexico. If you're below average, you're going to be pushed down by an economic union between America and Mexico. If you're in some other category, there are other things happening. You might attribute these changes to globalization first of all and it could be argued America is farthest along the path to globalization.
 
Sometimes disaster creates strange opportunities. Certainly any Republican in the bush camp is in trouble come election day. But It does appear more & more Republican Senators & Representatives are prepared to dump Bush. Now if the GOP could rally and show itself to be the party that opposes this ridiculous immigration bill, then maybe they might have a chance at election time. It looks like to vote yes on this bill they are going to have to fall in line with the likes of Kennedy, Reid, McCain, and La Raza. Surely even middle of the road Republicans are losing sleep over that prospect. If the Republicans don't draw a strong line between how they think and the Dem's, then they are just going to look like any other Democrat come election time.

And no one should feel bad about dumping Bush...he dumped us first!

You might attribute these changes to globalization first of all and it could be argued America is farthest along the path to globalization.

It's been a lot years since I read Das Kapital, but something sounds vaguely familiar. I knew it sounded familiar, but it was a statement in his other writings.

Published: 2006-03-08 03:10:32 for the Che-Lives E-Zine
Karl Marx and Globalization
Globalization as we know it can be described best as the increasing
mobility of capital through the transfer of goods and services as well as the greater flow of information across borders due to the improvements.

Last time one of my kids said something to me like that I made him write 1000 times "I really don't know what I am talking about":D
 
Last edited:
Marx gets a bad rep for some reason, but he didn't invent Lenin. Refute him point by point, if you disagree.

Sorry, no way I would spend time on that...just not that important to me. More concerned with real issues like border security & when I can make my next trip to the range.:cool:
 
Back
Top