« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Now Is Not The Time for the Senate GOP to Divide Republicans

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  June 13th, 2012 at 04:46 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Not a day goes by these days that I don’t hear more about Senator Marco Rubio’s immigration plan and get asked my thoughts on it. The plan is just that — a plan. To my knowledge there is no legislative language yet. But from what I have heard I like the plan with some reservations.

I am to the left of many of RedState’s readers when it comes to immigration. While I oppose the DREAM Act and amnesty, I have a moral problem with telling a child brought into the country by his or her parents and who has subsequently been raised here that the child, because of the parents’ actions, must now be sent back from the only country the child has known.

I like most of what I’ve heard of Senator Rubio’s plan, though I still have some substantive problems, including my foundational belief that we should pursue no plan until we have secured the border.

Nonetheless, I write not to praise or defend Senator Rubio’s plan, but to point out that should the Republicans in Congress actually pursue this plan this year, they will have fully become the stupid party and do more than any Democrat Super PAC to aid in Barack Obama’s re-election effort.

A party, now united behind Mitt Romney, will suddenly find itself yet again divided through self-inflicted wounds dealt by Senate Republicans who, at the same time, are more and more willing to also consider raising taxes.

There is no good strategy to get Senator Rubio’s plan passed this year. Sadly, some in the Republican Party have decided they need to do what the Democrats do and embrace identity politics. For years the GOP tried identity politics issues to try to break the Democrat monopoly on the black vote. They finally gave up and have moved on to hispanic voters.

The calculus is that if the GOP offers up an immigration plan, hispanics will fall all over themselves to become Republican. It’s almost as ridiculous as now publicly talking about being willing to raise taxes.

Let me break down the politics of this for you.

The Senate Republicans offer up the plan. Some Republicans will reject the plan as amnesty. The PrObama press corps will seize on every objection, no matter how legitimate, as crazy, racist bigots who hate brown people. You need to understand that there are many, many legitimate objections to a lot of what is out there publicly related to any Senate GOP immigration proposal. There are legitimate concerns about the rule of law. There are legitimate concerns that, given the birth dating issues, etc. there will be a whole industry of new counterfeit documents springing up to illegitimately grandfather people into the country who really are not supposed to qualify.

Perhaps the opponents will outnumber the supporters. If so, the plan will die. The GOP will be dealt a PR disaster that Barack Obama will campaign on to paint Mitt Romney as the leader of a bunch of bigots. The PrObama press corps will seize on every objection, no matter how legitimate, as crazy, racist bigots who hate brown people. Shampoo. Rinse. Repeat.

But let’s say the plan moves forward.

There will be three scenarios.

In the first scenario, the Democrats will push the plan’s supporters further and further left. The Democrats will insist more compromises be made. Many Republicans such as myself who might view the plan, as proposed, to be the ideal ultimate solution, will begin seeing the GOP cut deals to pass it that will undermine the deal and cause more and more objections from the base. The PrObama press corps will seize on every objection, no matter how legitimate, as crazy, racist bigots who hate brown people. Shampoo. Rise. Repeat.

In the second scenario, the Democrats will push the plan’s supporters to cut deals and the supporters will decide they are being pushed out onto a bridge too far. The Democrats and prObama press will point to the GOP and say, “See, see, they want all or nothing. Everyone knows we have to compromise here and they won’t compromise. They are being . . . political.” Then the PrObama press corps will seize on every objection, no matter how legitimate, as crazy, racist bigots who hate brown people. Shampoo. Rinse. Repeat.

In the third scenario, the PrObama press corps will seize on every objection, no matter how legitimate, as crazy, racist bigots who hate brown people. As the GOP soldiers on with the media and Democrats pointing out every objection as racist, the plan will pass. It will pass with a bipartisan majority in the House and Senate, but the Democrats control the Senate and, you mark my words, it would require Democrat votes to get passed in the House.

The President have a huge photo-op. Marco Rubio will be on stage with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Democrat hispanic leaders, and President Barack Obama signing a bill the press will herald as a true sign of Barack Obama’s willingness to work across party lines for hispanic voters. He will get all the credit. Marco Rubio will get a handshake or maybe even a Presidential hug.

Mitt Romney will not be seen.

The goal of this election season is to elect Mitt Romney. Handing the Democrats multiple opportunities to paint the GOP as bigoted anti-brown people and potentially give the President a bi-partisan photo opportunity is definitionally stupid.

The GOP should not dare trot this out this year.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • davesinsanantonio

    they are the Party of Stupid.

    Actually, I think it will be because deep down the Republican so-called leadership as scared to death of having any real responsibility. I think they cower from being blamed for anything and everything and oh so badly want to just be left alone to “go along” with whatever the Dims propose that they will bring this up on purpose just so they can remain the minority party. They are spineless weasels and we need to get rid of them as soon as possible. With friends like them there are no need for enemies.

  • anjinconsulting

    laid out by Captain Zero. That is to say that we have listened to his admonition during his apology tour where he kowtowed to the various world leaders and have come to terms with his accusations that the U.S. is an unjust nation. However, we have seen the ligfht and we will follow the lead of the more “enlightened countries”. Like say for instance; Mexico. We should just indicate that we will use their laws for illegal immigration and political engagement by foriegners as the model to move forward.

    I agree with Erick on one aspect: just refuse to entertain the idea of discussing this issue until we secure the border. Make that the the issue and bring the Holder DOJ and the Napolitano DHS into the cross hairs. Conservtives can clean their own house after the election regardless of the outcome.

  • standingonthewall

    but you are oh so right. Well done Erick. Here’s hoping Rubio and Republicans in the Senate are listening.

  • trutexan

    it will be twisted and turned against us.

    I also agree with Rubio that something must be done (though not sure about this year being the best time). I’ve long held the belief that the US needs a dual minimum wage system. Living in South Texas my entire life, I’ve learned that illegals comprise most of the back-breaking labor industry (agriculture, construction, etc). They work for under-the-table wages and do what they can to send money home (to Mexico) for their families. They are here. They have children here. They’re not going anywhere. So what to do?

    1st – Secure the border.
    2nd – Create guest worker programs so every non-US citizen is ID’d.
    3rd – One of the deals to become a guest worker is to be actively enrolled in US citizenship classes.
    4th – Pay guest workers a $4 an hour working wage (no increases over time) with the promise that when US citizenship is legally attained, their pay goes to $8 an hour with longevity increases if they stay with the company. Guest workers will be subject to a slightly higher income tax rate than US citizens.
    5th – Lower the US citizen employment tax on employers to less than HALF what it is now and raise it if they choose to employ guest workers. This provides an incentive for the employer to hire US citizens and also encourages them to keep trained guest workers who become citzens.
    6th – Offer government preventive health and emergency services to guest workers with the promise of increased employer health benefits to them and their families when they become citizens.
    7th ? If they commit a misdemeanor, they receive a 1 year extension after the completion of their citizenship courses until citizenship can be received. If they commit a felony, they are out of the program and shipped home.

    The idea is to make the issue of becoming a US citizen an enticing idea and make it a win/win for employers. And if some say this is cruel not to pay equally, let’s hear your idea. Maybe my idea (with tweaking) would work, maybe it wouldn’t. But at least it’s an idea. Most say something must be done without actually having a clue of where to start.

  • mikeymike143

    while anti amnesty/anti dream act politicians gained seats. thats not a coincidence.

    and republican that is idiot enough to vote for any type of amnesty/dream act pretty much guarantees themselves a tea party challenger in their next primary.

    and look at the big margin that arizona’s sb1070 passed by. thats because ”illegal mean illegal”. the average republican voter understands that, if senators in congress dont, they will soon be joining pro amnesty republican senators like bennett and lugar on the unemploymeny line.

  • rhclaryjr

    . . . must now be sent back from the only country the child has known.” Doing so is rather cold and heartless.

    On the other hand I have a larger moral problem telling my children and their children that they must pay more taxes to support someone who is in this country illegally. Heck, most of us who are moral enough to pay taxes are working as much as six months to pay all the taxes we are required to pay.

    The immigration policies of the past were designed to make this country stronger by ensuring new arrivals would be a benefit to the country — not a drain ot its resources. There were (ugh!) quotas, but those quotas were designed to ensure that our economy would not be overburdened by the mass, uncontrolled immigration we are experiencing today.

    The faux argument that illegals are doing work Americans won’t do is simply horse hockey. When a raid on a Jones County, Mississippi business netted threel hundred or so illegal immigrant arrests, there were many thousands of legal local citizens who applied for the jobs that raid created.

    We have a Constitution and laws to protect the legal citizens of this country. ALL those who are here illegally should be sent home and asked to get in line behind those who have already made the moral choice to emigrate to the U. S. legally.

    George Soros, his puppet Obama and the rest of the anti-Americans would like nothing more than U. S. borders “open” to the world. Such is their goal.

  • DVPTEXFLA

    I am of the opinion that the Republicans not even consider this matter at this time, and certainly not until after Harry Reid actually presents a budget and actually gets a budget passed and signed… I think the Senate is just to busy with the budget to get anything else done..busy, busy, busy….

  • bobguzzardi

    The New York Times Electoral College Vote graphic proves Eric’s point. This is not good news for Romney and any chance of moving the needle. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map

    The issues are the Economy and Jobs.

    Disposable Household Incomes are declining and with them our standard of living. Taxmaggedon will have a serious impact on Tax Makers. In Pennsylvania, we will be hit with the public sector pension bomb in another year or two and School Boards and Municipalities will be pounding The Forgotten Taxpayer, the Tax Makers who work, save and invest and create jobs and raise our standard of living.

    It is a depressing future economically and electorally.

  • cwfoster

    make SURE to remind at every point the issue is raised that in the 1980′s REAGAN signed an amnesty deal, “prior to a deal to secure the border” and that we’re agreeable to discussing immigration issues ONCE THE DEMOCRATS KEEP THEIR END OF **THAT** BARGAIN!

  • sesom

    To us libertarians, these borders are just
    another example government intrusion
    on our freedom.

    Let people come and go
    as they please, the same way you can
    drive from New Jersey to California without
    fumbling around for papers every
    time you cross a state line..

  • BA Cyclone

    “It’s the economy, stupid” is the most choice cut of political steak a campaign could ask for in any election season.

    Republicans across the board, and certainly Mitt Romney can ride that horse from multiple angles from now until Election Day and win every race. Go off that message and you take your political life into your own hands.

    Why divert the attention of the voters? This is already at the forefront of every voter’s mind this cycle. The economy and fiscal policy is not a single issue, but cuts to the core of the very life of every single voter. Kitchen table economics. If you want to diversify the message, use the economy from a different vantage point. Prove your mettle and gravitas against this weak President and his polyannas on this topic alone and you WIN.

    Even “moderates” and “independents” often apologetically say ‘I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate’ or something to that effect. The economy is where WINNING will happen in 2012.

    Going off that message gives our political enemies a huge “OUT” to change the subject. We should NEVER allow that door to crack open. Keep them pinned on the mat until the polls close!

  • wlcjr

    If in return we had a constitutional amendment ending the future “anchor baby” situation, and giving the states the power to enforce federal immigration law. Not just a law, which can be overturned, un-enforced or reversed, but an ammendment to the constitution.

    But of course, if you let the children stay then you are faced with solving the problem of the parents that (hopefully) support them.
    And I refuse to reward an illegal for having a child in my country. So no amnesty for them, period. They remain just as they came here. They can wait in the immigration line like everyone else.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Just because the central issue is the economy doesn’t stop Mitt from having policies on other issues. But I would prefer not bringing controversial legislation to the floor in an election year. I think a step-by-step plan is better, starting with securing the borders and mandating E-Verify, of course.

  • spinoneone

    we need to try proposing a MAJOR immigration/tax/health/transportation bill like we need to take careful aim at our foreheads with a .44 magnum pistol just to see if it hurts if we pull the trigger. There is absolutely NO compelling interest for the GOP in moving on any of this. Harry Reid is the 0bstructionist in chief and will serve us very well if we leave him alone.

    Now, does Mitt need talking points/a plan on immigration? Sure, but it need not be a piece of legislation proposed by our “excellent” Senate GOP staff corps. Team Romney doesn’t need to come out for amnesty and it doesn’t need to propose a major deportation effort. If they want to say something along the lines of “secure our borders first” and then deal with those already here that should do. Don’t make threats or promises that Team Romney doesn’t intend to keep. Remember that the Hispanics who are here legally are none to thrilled with 0′s policies, either. 0 has deported more Hispanics than any previous President. Hispanics want a plan that seems fair and equitable, but they don’t want straight amnesty, either.

  • acat

    First, you clearly ignore that illegals do pay some taxes. It’s near impossible to avoid sales taxes, and property taxes are charged to the property owner whether the property is used as a rental or owned. The only tax that illegals can effectively dodge via identity theft is income tax. That’s a problem, but less of one than you paint it to be.

    Second, the southern border has been porous for our entire history as a country. Changing this to an enforced border represents a change away from “immigration policies of the past”. In short, you are arguing for a change. That’s fine, but don’t claim otherwise.

    Mew

  • commonsenseobserver

    But start from the basics. And we must make sure that we offer a conservative alternative to Obama, just to show how obstructionist they really are. Package all our previous jobs and deficit bills.

  • Kyle-MI

    NT

  • commonsenseobserver

    Meant to reply to spinoneone.

  • morstar150

    Republican leadership.

    Get rid of McConnell and Boehner. It is not just the immigration issue it is everything they do, or I should say, it is everything that they fail to do.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    are Paulbots which is what I think you are confusing them for. This is why libertarians are some of Ron Paul’s most outspoken critics (they get painted with the same brush). At least one of the mods and quite of the few of Redstate’s most respected commentators are libertarians.

  • acat

    Which “we” libertarians are you talking about? Sounds more like you’re speaking for anarchists who have no idea why national sovereignty matters.

    Your example is deeply flawed, and I’ll wager you don’t even understand why.

    Mew

  • acat

    Further, W and the GOP congress failing to address any kind of meaningful health care reform is how the Dems were able to demagogue it into a winning issue in 2008.

    We can’t be in stasis, the world is changing around us. We must preserve that which must be preserved, yes, but we must accept that change will happen and try to get in front of it.

    Addressing this in a pragmatic, conservative way – i.e. the porosity of the border is a law&order and national security issue, even without the question of illegals – does not hurt our position, it strengthens it.

    Mew

  • uncmike

    of his stance on amnesty for illegals. I voted Republican in every presidential race since Reagan I, but I couldn’t vote for McAmnesty, so I stayed home. If the Republicans pursue this amnestry gig again, they are beyond stupid. Rubio seems to be headed to become just another go-along, get-along, reach-across-the-aisle Republican. I hope I’m wrong.

  • commonsenseobserver

    At least, that’s what he says… Will have to iron out the details. maybe Rubio should meet with Rep. King to assure conservatives.

  • PowerToThePeople

    worked out not only for you but for the rest of America as well?

    I see no reason to be proud that you stayed home and basically handed a vote to Obama. Well done sir, well done…………….

  • PowerToThePeople

    you did know that Reagan not only favored amnesty, but signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act that granted amnesty to all illegals who had entered the country prior to Jan 1st 1982, right?

    Did you vote for that “evil” get along to go along Amnesty guy? What it must feel like to be a hypocrite……….

  • morstar150

    That is the whole point. Providing a credible plan for the purpose of creating talking points in a campaign by a credible hispanic Republican is a positive development. Romney should simply state that “the New Republican Congress will address the issue and all the issues that the inept Democrat Senate has failed to address, especially out of control spending, and debt. Any immigration policy of a Romney administration will simply start with the premise that we must secure our border.”

    Until then would someone please send McConnell and Boehner to the same hotel that the recall losers in Wisconsin ran to when Scott Walker saved their state!

  • lindafrances
    Thanks to Eric Erikson endorsement of romney, conservative no longer need to voice our opionion. We are to shut up and vote for romney and do whatever the gop tells us, just like the shepople in the democratic party do. A romney presidency will continue us on the the obama road. We think we win, only to find we have vacated conservatism and moved left to be what use to be ?democrats? . This all started because obama moved the country so far left because people wanted to compromise what they believe to elect the first black president. Now republicans are making it clear, they don’t need us. If we give them what they want, president romney, I fear, we will never see an end to babies being aborted up to 9 months in the womb, we will see gay marriage/adoption…..our kids will be indoctrinated into the homosexual agenda…… remember what romney did (not said)
    Romney’s ?accomplishments?.

    1. Implemented/created Gay Marriage in MA

    2. Supported and forced Gay Adoption in MA

    3. Supported Abortion wholeheartedly

    4. Raised taxes/fees over 300% while being Governor of MA

    5. Implemented a state-level Cap and Trade system.

    6. Supported Man-Made Global Warming

    7. Supported the Brady Bill

    8. Implemented a state level ?Assault? Weapons Ban after the Federal AWB was allowed to expire.

    9. Supported TARP

    10. Supported Amnesty for Illegal Aliens (Citizenship for those already here)

    11. Supported McCain-Kennedy (Amnesty)

    12. Implemented a socialized medicine in MA called RomneyCare complete with an Individual Mandate and $50 abortions.

    13. Nominated 27 Democrats (out of 36 nominations) for judgeships in MA, many of them extreme left-wingers

    I pray we can either threaten a third party run or write in and take romney out before the convention or run a conservative third party. Everyone fears an obama win, if romney wins, we also lose.

  • uncmike

    even if they have an “R” associated with their name. McAmnesty lost a lot of votes because of this issue and others. Republicans are stupid to even touch or discuss this issue. If it’s such a great idea, let the Democrats bring it up this year.

  • uncmike

    we were supposed to secure the borders. Nothing happened to accomplish that. If Reagan were running today on an amnesty platform, he would not get my vote.

  • uncmike

    But, once he introduces his “not-amnesty” plan, I wonder what the Senate will do to it? What will McAmnesty and his shadow from SC (the honorable Mr. Graham) and others of their ilk do to amend it. This issue is a tar baby for the Republicans if they’re stupid enough to touch it. As others have said, Republicans have enough to run on this year without bringing up amnesty er…immigrantion reform (to be PC). It’s a lose-lose issue for them.

  • commonsenseobserver

    But we should present our plan, and I think Rubio’s plan will be a good contribution.

  • Bill S

    How’d your little protest snit work out for you?

    BTW, don’t even think about going on a jag like you just did regarding our nominee for President this year.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Being President was really helpful when it came time to spend almost a trillion bucks of our tax money on thirty years’ worth of Democratic pork.

  • uncmike

    witty reposte. I always welcome substantive criticism.

  • uncmike

    I see, you’re one who votes R regardless of the position(s) they take–a man of no principles. That’s why we have so many RINOs in Congress now. How’s that working out for you?

  • gekster

    so I don’t understand you not getting the porpose of this site.

    Anyone is better than Obama,
    and we have who we have to beat him.
    I didn’t vote for Romney in the primaries, which by the way is when you should have cast your protest vote.
    Not voting for the nominee is just the same as voting for Obama.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    so I’ll be blunt. You voted in 2008 for Barack Obama. You supported the individual mandate, cap and trade, the EPA regulations that threaten to cripple our coal industry (and Lisa Jackson is turning her evil eye to Natural Gas next), the 20 billion dollar giveaway to Obama campaign supporters, the regulations in the financial sector that have broken our economy. I could go on and on. In 2008, there were two people on the ballot, John McCain or Barack Obama, you chose Barack Obama. I can only pray in 2012, you chose Mitt Romney because again “No One” isn’t on the ballot.

  • gmhunt

    They should all be sent home……..their children being brought here or born here is their problem, NOT ours………Rubio lied to the Tea Party people who helped him be elected…..he says he is glad to represent the people of Florida, but in reality he represents the illegals and the people of Florida should start a re-call petition……. NO one can call themselves a Constitutional Conservative and be for illegals in any way………you are a RINO………

  • Bill S

    …when the election is between a socialist radical and someone who is light-years ahead of said socialist. I don’t hold my breath and whine because I didn’t get my way. Like you.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Wrong answer.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Bill S. and Moe tried to show him the error of his ways; Neil gives him a bus ticket. Perhaps, a week of hanging out in Markos’ basement over at DKos will teach him those life lessons Bill S and Moe were attempting to help him with. C.S. Lewis did say “Experience is a brutal teacher.”

  • darl444

    Would we reward the children of a thief by allowing them to keep money, after all, the thief stole the money to provide a better life for the child. Sorry, facts are difficult to deal with. If we allow the children of a thief to keep the stolen money, how many more thieves would there be? Those that live in the USA illegally, are stealing from legal citizens that would have jobs if illegal immigrants were not here.

    We can not reward the children for the illegal activity of their parents! What you reward, you will get more of the same behavior.

  • granpasmurf

    for putting it in perspective. Immigration is such an issue here in San Antonio. We realize that new legislation is probably going to affect our next door neighbors.
    Personally I would have supported the Dream Act if it were kept simple. The Dems added so many goodies to it, it became weighted down to unacceptable.
    I am with you and so many others, Close the borders FIRST, then we can settle on a reasonable guest worker program.
    Let the kids that volunteer to fight our wars have citizenship. ONLY them as individuals. Not their parents and all their cousins!
    If some of these kids, speaking English and even partially college educated go back to Mexico, maybe that would help Mexico become better than a third world country.

  • angryguy77

    but the world isn’t fair. Why should a child be allowed to reap the benefits of their parent’s illegal activities?

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Right now we have family unification as the highest priority followed by refugee status. That is just wrong. We need to elevate job skills, of the type most needed, to number one status.

  • acat

    just by following Perry’s advice and putting boots on the border to interdict illegal crossings of *any* kind?

    Treating the border as a law&order / national security issue sidesteps the lefty drama about immigration, but the same security that prevents a truckload of cocaine driving across the desert at night would stop a truckload of pregnant illegals driving the same route, eh?

    Mew

  • lineholder

    Erick, I don’t necessarily agree with you on the basic moral premise that you have stated causing you to be in favor of immigration reform, but I can respect that you are willing to stand your ground on those beliefs.

    If our economy was in a strong position, then perhaps immigration reform of some type might be feasible. But our economy isn’t in a strong position. It’s weaker now that it has been in decades.

    Many illegal immigrants do not have the skills or abilities that will allow them to legally obtain jobs that make enough income so that they can be self-supporting. Neither has it been expected of them to adapt to our culture here in this country for the purpose of accumulating those skills and abilities. The general expectations have been to make allowances for them, legally assign them as a protected minority group, and then attempt to phase them into the workplace in America on this premise.

    By attempting to address immigration reform now, Rubio will open the door for a situation where many of these individuals will find themselves faced with an expansion of opportunities for gaining benefits within our welfare system that they do not currently have. And once a person gets into the welfare system, it is very difficult to get out of it because of the way the system is constructed.

    Compassion for the circumstances these illegal immigrants might be facing aside, it isn’t “loving” to condemn them to a future whereby they become bound to the welfare system. And that is exactly what the left will try to succeed in doing via any immigration reform efforts that might be passed at this time with our current economic situation being what it is.

  • rickeyb

    So sayeth both houses of the Congress. In the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill of 2007 (the amnesty bill) the following paragraph was included in both the House and the Senate version of the bill (Pay special attention to the last quoted line)::

    From the House of Representative’s bill, H.R.1645, 110th Congress 1st Session, March 22, 2007:
    “??SEC. 240D. LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OF STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND TRANSFER OF ALIENS TO FEDERAL CUSTODY.
    ??(a) AUTHORITY.?Notwithstanding any other provision of law, law enforcement personnel of a State, or a political subdivision of a State, have the inherent authority of a sovereign entity to investigate, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal custody (including the transportation across State lines to detention centers) an alien for the purpose of assisting in the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws of the United States in the normal course of carrying out the law enforcement duties of such personnel. This State authority has never been displaced or preempted by a Federal law.”

    Note also that the States issue birth certificates and can therefore REFUSE to issue a birth certificate. What would the Attorney General do if a state passed a law requiring at least one parent to show proof of citizenship before they would issue a birth certificate? The current AG would sue the state, of course. Take THAT to the Supreme Court and force them to specify what “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means in the 14th amendment AND Title 8, United States Code (Naturalization and Citizenship). That would settle the matter for once and for all.

    As far as the Arizona law is concerned, though, it WASN’T EVEN NECESSARY and Sheriff Arpaio is correct.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    we need better border security. and for a while Obama was actually doing that, until he started running for reelection.

    But we also must change this old way of choosing who gets to immigrate legally. It is an artifact of the past.

    One more thing that immigration enthusiasts never seem to want to answer to is just how RACIST our present policies are.

    We turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, and allow family reunification direct the legal immigration, after a massive amnesty in the 1980′s which sets up more family members for immigration.

    The effect of all of this is to greatly enhance the chances of entry to one nation. Only to Mexico, Meanwhile we have people from China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Iraq, and Eastern Europe who all have long waiting lists to try to enter into the country.

  • rickeyb

    Enough complaining, here’s one suggestion for how to “fix” the anchor baby problem. See Title 8, United States Code, Sections 1101 and 1401:

    ?1101 (a) (15) amend “The term ‘immigrant’ means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens–”
    to read “The term ‘immigrant’ means every admitted alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens–”
    This adding the word “admitted” is necessary to clarify that an illegal/unauthorized alien is NOT included in the definition of an immigrant since they have not been admitted (authorized to enter).

    SUBCHAPTER III
    PART I
    ?1401 The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    add
    (a)(1) if and only if at least one parent is a citizen of the United States, or

    (a)(2) if both parents are citizens of the United States a person born in the United States is a Natural or Native citizen, or

    (a)(3) if and only if both parents are Native citizens then a person born in the United States is a Natural Born citizen referenced by Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. No other distinction or difference can be drawn or inferred between different types of citizenship.

    (a)(4) if either parent is an illegal/unauthorized alien then a person born in the United States acquires the citizenship of the father, or if the father is not present or is unknown then of the mother.

    [Important note: If the United States "awards" citizenship to a newborn baby because it was born on U.S. soil, the U.S. is declaring ownership of the baby and taking it away from its mother. The U.S. is therefore declaring that the (citizen) baby is the property of the U.S. government. What does that make YOU, Citizen???]

    This change is necessary to clarify terms used elsewhere in the law. It is placed here to ensure that it is understood to apply directly to persons entering the United States regardless of if they are immigrants, nonimmigrants, or illegal/unauthorized aliens.

    There, that should do it and it doesn’t require a Constitional Amendment or Comprehensive Immigration Reform. We don’t need immigration reform, we need Law Enforcement reform.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …oh, right, you’re already gone. This is what I get for taking my kids to the park.

  • cbartlett

    I have also lived in Texas my entire life and this seems like a good plan to start with. I heard a proposal discussed by a state representative at an informal gathering several years ago that called for a “purple card” (in addition to the current “green card”) that sounds very similar to your #2. These people are not citizens (and can’t vote) but get them an identifying number of some sort (SSN?) so that employers can put them in the system. The payroll taxes on “purple card” workers goes directly to the State coffers (not the feds) to help pay for schools & health care, which are the two largest drains on state funds in states having to deal with large numbers of illegal immigrants. This number could then be used to track progress on citizenship, access school registration, emergency health care, etc., in a more controlled fashion.

    Yes – I’m sure this needs lots of tweaking to actually work but we certainly need to do something to make US Citizenship (and learning English!) a desirable goal for these people. I really, really resent efforts to display the Mexican flag, participation by several generations in parades and events that encourage anti-US sentiments, and the very defiant attitude against learning English. I once heard an interesting comment made by someone who is old enough to remember when we got an influx of Japanese and, later, Vietnamese immigrants following world events. They said the first thing people from those cultures did was learn English so that they would be able to communicate with customers when they started businesses. How is it that they could see that contributing to society was the pathway to success and our current crop of border crossers prefers to just take from the system? Is it because we give it out so easily?

  • earlgrey

    rewarding than wasting keystrokes on this?

  • PowerToThePeople

    on the always interesting ban explanations, kids are going to have to wait in the future so we do not miss out. :)

    Kids grow up OK without parental involvement………..right?

  • BA Cyclone

    Every voter has a laundry list, but there is always one thing (maybe more) that the voter says ‘you have to be strong HERE to get my vote.’ They will buckle to varying degrees on other things — and that is variable in each cycle and within a cycle.

    I am saying that issue in this election is going to be the economy. I hold that you can talk about other issues but you risk deflecting attention away from the core issue that will drive swing voters to your column. People that otherwise might be inclined to vote Democrat will buckle and say — ‘I want X and Y and Z but these guys are so crappy on the economy and jobs that I am going to vote Republican, even if I can’t admit it to my friends.’

    Sure a candidate has to take a position on these things, and maybe offer a handful of specifics — but I believe at the end of the day we must always seek to steer the conversation directly back to our vision for freedom in the marketplace that job creators can do their thing with as little interference as possible from the heavy hand of government.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    I came very close to not voting for McCain, though I ultimately did. Brave of you to admit it, but understand that we here want to defeat Obama and that means voting for Romney, warts and all.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

  • tnguy

    From the Red State rules page:

    The purpose of RedState.com is:
    ?to promote conservative ideals within the vehicle of the Republican Party,
    ?to clean house in the Republican party,
    ?to help elect conservative Republicans,
    ?and to encourage and educate conservative Republican activists committed to the above.

    Not a word of that encourages voting for big government republicans. Though I’ve seen numerous moderators and posters claim such.

    They also say: “It is forbidden to promote or give any kind of support for parties other than the Republican party, or candidates running against Republican primary, caucus, and/or convention nominees. Exceptions to this rule are granted when announced prominently on the front page of the site.”

    Nowhere there does it say that “conservative in the primary, republican in the general” is a requirement for posting. I don’t see that the poster in question has advocated voting for another party. Perhaps he did and I missed it. If this unwritten rule is what RS editors really mean, they should maybe consider updating the rules to reflect that.

    And not voting is the same as voting for Obama? UNCMike’s vote counts double? Must be some of GHWB’s fuzzy math.

    Further, the Rules say: “Namecalling and personal attacks directed at other users is not allowed.” Read Neil and Bill’s posts. They violate this rule repeatedly with any poster who dares disagree with either of them.

  • gekster

    It may not be written, but it IS a standing rule here at RS since I got here in 08.
    Conservative in the primary,
    Republican in the general.

    (or maybe I missunderstand your little rant)
    (and I was actually replying nice to uncmike this time, but some don’t see it that way I guess)

  • lemmi

    Obamas recipe for the economy

    2 trillion America clams
    1.5 trillion borrowed foreign clams ( Chinese recommended )

    1 goose

    Greece

    Put goose and clams in oven add Greece and bake until your goose is cooked

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    in his reprieve “understand that we here want to defeat Obama and that means voting for Romney, warts and all.” Look at Redstate’s main purpose is to send some U-Hauls up to the White House so that Obama can pack his stuff and move back to Chicago. Choosing to “not vote for Romney” is against that purpose.

  • tnguy

    …most of which were copied and pasted from the rules page.

    But continue with your illogical rant.

  • gekster

    But since you see it that way,
    I can only guess what other things you missinterpret. ;)

  • spolson

    My father had a chance to invest in a property that later became one of the largest international airport in Texas. Had he made another decision, I would be a wealthy Texan now. Why should I suffer from his decision.

    My father robbed many many poor people of their lives savings and got caught and they took all our stuff away. Why should I have to suffer. Your theory about the poor children of Illegal immigrants are innocent and should be made citizens is flawed. Every child is subject to the results of their parents actions. It isn’t sweet and it isn’t fair. Life isn’t fair. Don’t feel guilty it is the Parents fault for sneaking into a country Illegally and exposing their children to the results.

  • tnguy

    Hardly. It’s pretty obvious what the rules say. If you have a criticism, it should be of those rules.

    Republicans rightly despise Obama’s socialism to the degree that they’d vote for anyone this side of Lucifer to get Obama out of office. None of that changes the broader point that the ideology of voting for big-government republicans is the reason our nation is in a mess. Obama could’ve done very little without willing accomplices in our party. It’s foolish to keep focusing on the opposition when most conservatives are completely unwilling to dispel the rot in our own party.

    The national debt and enormous unfunded liabilities were there before Obama had spent a nanosecond in the oval office. He’s made them worse, and double the rate of his predecessor but that doesn’t change what a fiscal disaster GWB was for the country. Or perhaps you’re in favore of Medicare D? Or TARP? And now we’re electing someone to Bush’s left to be our standardbearer?

    Keep voting for big government. Then come back on RS and post about how big government republicans are destroying our chance to reclaim the country. Leon posts something almost daily on the front page about how liberal and moderate republicans are undermining our freedom. We vote for bad republicans, all we’re doing is extending the time until they can be replaced by a conservative.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    for the statement conservative in the primary, GOP in the general. Technically, you’re correct that it doesn’t show up in the rules.

    I certainly wasn’t a McCain fan (or Romney fan in the primary), however, I’d argue that not voting violates the rule of giving “any kind of support for parties other than the Republican party, or candidates running against Republican primary, caucus, and/or convention nominees.” You know, the whole “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” thing, but maybe that’s just me.

  • JSobieski

    Conservative in the primary
    Republican in the general

    As the votes on stimulus and Obamacare made clear, there is a HUGE difference between liberal/RINO Republicans and even the most conservative democrat.

    Not a single Republican Senator voted for stimulus or Obamacare.

    So the question you have to answer is: Are you a results oriented person willing to pick the best of two options, or are you so impractical that you are willing to make it more likely that Obama will get re-elected.

    Even the worst Republican is better than any Democrat. You don’t burn down the house just because some of the rooms need to be refurbished.

  • Bill S

    the Redstate About page

    At RedState, we are conservatives in primaries and Republican in general elections and we aim to win.

    We are not “conservatives in the primaries and act like whiny babies in the general”.

  • Bill S

    .

  • gekster

    1. Is that how you spell misinterpret? i see I got that wrong. Thanks.

    2. Who are you going to vote for that has a chance of beating Romney.

    The primary is over and Romney won, as he got more votes than anyone else.
    (or are you like garfield and still have hopes for
    the non existant ‘brokered’ convention.

    And like I have told some others on this site,
    your points should have been brought up during the actual primaries, when they might have had an impact.

    It’s to late now, and Romney is the nominee.
    Get behind him or get out of the way.
    Barack is not an option.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    my $wc+=9;

  • tnguy

    Experience should have taught each of you how terribly difficult it is to “primary” an entrenched republican. Sad thing is, most of you know in your heart that’s true.

    You just want Obama out of office, no matter the cost. It could not be more obvious that the way we’ve done things for the last quarter century is not working. Obama never sniffs the oval office if conservatives would have done things differently.

    We had a republican president and congress for 5 years during Bush’s terms, and what did it get us? One of the greatest expansions of the federal government in U.S. history. That’s the answer? Really? Personally, I held my nose in ’08 and voted for McCain, just as I have every republican since I was old enough to vote. I’ve pledged to vote for every conservative republican on the ballot henceforward.

    I am a republican in the general as well. I’ve yet to vote for a democrat in any election, federal or state. That “about” statement says nothing about posting rules… it simply tells us who Erick Ericson is. That I refuse to vote for noxious republicans doesn’t seem to be spelled out as a violation on that page or any other. Maybe I wasn’t thorough enough and overlooked that part.

    And speaking of rules, were an outsider to read many of your posts, Bill, they would have to assume that RS rules either are irrelevant or aren’t strictly enforced. It’s a rare day that you aren’t violating the rule I posted above concerning other posters. Or perhaps those rules are allowed to be freely violated by moderators. If that part of the rule was there and I missed it, you have my apologies.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …use the Contact link below.

  • lineholder

    ,

  • Bill S

    Must hit close to home, since my comment was aimed at the original poster and not you.

    That I refuse to vote for noxious republicans doesn?t seem to be spelled out as a violation on that page or any other. Maybe I wasn?t thorough enough and overlooked that part.

    You obviously missed clicking the link that I and others have quoted. So yeah, you weren’t thorough enough.

  • streiff

    let me know when his complaint hits the system., we can take it up then.

  • earlgrey

    believe me you are anti-science and a hypocrite (spelling?).

  • earlgrey

    nt

  • fishgod3

    What about the Kennedys or the Rockafellers?

  • fishgod3

    They should`nt just like the Kennedys

  • tnguy

    You’d ban me under the pretense that I’ve violated a rule which does not exist? Or is it something EE has said is a rule but never placed on the rules page? Perhaps it is, and, again, I missed it. Given the repeated violation of rules that we see here daily, what is it about my particular violation that merits banning? I’ve repeatedly asked people to point me to the rule that says a poster can only post with the assumption that they will vote for the candidate with the (R) after their name, no matter what sort of person was in front of that (R). The best they’ve done is that EE said “we’re republicans in the general” (to paraphrase).

    If I recall, you even once said, in a response to me, that you’d vote for a pro-abortion candidate, had they an (R) after their name. If my recollection is incorrect, I apologize. At some point, conservatives will have to make a choice on how important their core principles are to them. Including you. Or maybe they simply do not share my principles.

  • gekster

    You vote for the liberal radical marxist,
    or you vote for a moderate Republican.
    Not voteing for the Republican puts the marxist that much closer to another term.
    If that’s what you want, then go ahead and take your ball and go home.
    You fight the war with the general you have, not allways with the one you want.
    (I know this will fly over your head, because you just don’t seam to get it)

  • PowerToThePeople

    get a life, you really are not a very bright one and the sunshine would help you a bit.

  • tnguy

    1. I don’t know. That looks right. I’m not a very good speller and if there is a spellcheck here, I don’t know how to use it.

    2. I don’t think there is anyone that can beat Romney. I don’t think there is anyone who could’ve since Florida. And since my primary was months ago, I couldn’t vote for anyone else, even if there was such a person to vote for. And in accordance with Red State rules, I have not once advocated voting for a different candidate in the general election. And don’t plan on voting for any other candidate.

    Since we’re talking hypothetically (spelling?), let me ask you this:
    if Romney, tomorrow, said he was in favor of raising taxes, Roe v. Wade, keeping federal spending at Obama’s level, and saving Obamacare, would you still vote for him? If not, which violation of your principles would be the straw that broke the camel’s back? Just curious.

  • Tbone

    I think you should have left out the comma.

  • gekster

    He hasn’t said anything like that in any of his campaign stops.
    And yes, I would.
    A liberal Republican would still be light years better than keeping Obama in office.
    And no it would not violate my principles, as I have said, you fight the war with the general you have.
    The one I wanted is not there, nor the one I would hope for.
    I held to my principles in the primary.
    Now I have to put my country ahead of them, and I will feel no shame in doing that.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    We don’t deport the children of illegals.

    It’s even in the Constitution.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    .

  • arthritic knee-jerk lib

    Since a totally impervious land border is a physical impossibility, the term “secure border” or any term like “Secure the Border.” is really code for elect a Republican president.

  • acat

    The Europeans drift south across the Great Lakes, the Irish somehow make it to Boston, go figure. The Chinese arrive in cargo containers, or walk north with the coyotes…

    It’s not just the Mexicans .. not even just the South Americans.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    “we hate Hispanics”. Moron.

    D+ trolling

  • lineholder

    !

  • funwithknives

    doofus.

    Just got here today, huh? Lonely,… Bunkie?
    Two physical impossibilities and you only mention one.

    #2) I go where I’m not wanted , but they’ll still LIKE ME……..

  • Bill S

    Blam.

  • fishgod3

    If it ain`t broke, fix it till it is.

  • tnguy

    That clarifies things. If you think that voting for someone with those positions were for the good of your country, your principles are vastly different from mine.

    Mine dictate that I should try to adhere to those principles, no matter the outcome (not that I haven’t fallen short of the mark many times). That I should do the right thing and let God be concerned with the outcome. I can’t imagine a circumstance that would have me voting for a pro-abortion candidate. I simply couldn’t do it, no matter who was on the opposite side of the ballot. I’d be shocked if the vast majority of conservatives disagreed with me on that point.

  • beltwaylvr

    I think this post should have said “I am to the Left of most Americans on immigration,” not just RedState readers.

    Why do the GOP and “conservative pundits” refuse to acknowledge that Hispanics may be to the right of the average Democrat, but they are STILL to the LEFT of the average Republican?!

    Also, I think Rubio’s introduction of this amnesty bill is sort of spitting in the face of his fellow Cuban-Americans. Cubans overwhelmingly vote GOP and they don’t care about in-state tuition for illegal aliens who largely hail from Mexico and South and Central America. They are U.S. citizens and they speak English, their children are citizens and they also speak English. Why would they care about the DREAM Act?! They don’t!

  • gekster

    use reading comprehension.
    I think you missed his point.

  • acat

    Did someone downgrade our service?

    Mew

  • acat

    More disagreeing with “Shut up!” as a valuable debating tactic.

    Look, because every voter is different, and a candidate has to attract a plurality or majority thereof, they have to put out positions that are broadly .. inoffensive or appealing.

    Romney has been clubbing Obama like a baby harp seal on the economy, and shows no sign of letting up. I’m not worried that an immigration spat is going to knock Romney off his game.

    Frankly, the GOP congresscritters who think now is a good time to be pro-amnesty need to be put out to pasture.

    Mew

  • streiff

    and and obnoxious jerk.

  • texasref

    but I think, with all due respect, that you are overanalyzing this.

    Let Rubio come forth with a good plan. We can’t be the Party of No. Yes, there will be a vocal minority who are to the right of us on immigration who will be unfairly characterized as bigots, but we can’t decide our course of action out of fear of how the media and opposing campaign will label us!

    Do what’s right and the rest will follow.

    I welcome Rubio’s plan to the discussion, and I hope if it is sensible and doesn’t deport kids who grew up here, that it passes with bipartisan support.

    I refuse to believe that nothing is allowed to be done in an election year. We’re paying them six figures a year to do some work up in Washington. The popularity rating can’t get any worse. Let’s do something! The reform is long overdue

    Newt Gingrich had the right idea on this issue (as he did on just about everything–too bad he and Santorum split the difference and allowed Romney to run up the middle, but I digress).

  • texasref

    I also disagree that we can’t do reform plus…we should not have to wait til all our border control ducks are in a row before taking one step toward immigration reform. The only disaster would be to proceed without also securing the border.

  • texasref

    You don’t speak for conservatism or Republicans with your crass analysis.

    You might get 80% disapproval of your remark in a focus group of a cross section of the general election likely voter. Give or take.

    That’s like saying you’re in favor of abortion in cases of rape because, after all, why should a child be allowed to reap life, which is the benefit of his/her parent’s illegal (!) activities.

    Give me a break.

  • Tbone

    mascara. Cool decoder ring, though.

  • gekster

    We don’t need immigration reform.
    Our immigration system has served us well for years.
    it is not broke.

    What we do need is immigration enforcement.

    We have the laws on the books to deal with illegal immigrants,
    our officials just don’t enforce them.

    Anyone who is calling for reform is just saying that the’re ok with some form of amnesty.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’ve banned men for less than that. PERL? In the age of Python AND Ruby? :)

  • aesthete

    Don’t trust anything that came out of that… man’s legislative career.

    Our system is terrible because it selects not for people who want to work, but for people who want to live here, and leaves very little room for people who want employment, but who would rather live in and eventually return to their own country. We should be allowing those who want to work, to come here. We should be discouraging immigrants who have no intention of supporting themselves. We should not have diversity visas at all.

  • acat

    Could be COBOL.

    Mew

  • gekster

    I really don’t see a problem with the overall bill.
    It seams to have opened up the rest of the world to legal immigrants.
    Just a quick take on it.

    My main point being is that we should deal with the illegal immigrants according to the laws we have on the books.
    With both them and the ones who employ them.
    Lets seal the border, and then have a nice discussion on any immigration reform.

  • adair

    it would have to be assumed that you wouldn’t vote for him either, leaving us all to go back to whoever first posted that he stayed at home rather than vote for McCain or Obama.

  • northplatte38

    Testing. Testing.

  • northplatte38

    I doubt if there will ever be a secure border with Mexico. By secure border with Mexico, that means a secure border with Latin America also, so to speak. Politicians talking about immigration and national security issues relating to the border would be laughable if it were not so sad and tragic. They all need to shut up about this issue or actually secure the border. I will leave it to you imaginations to figure out how borders are made really secure. But it probably will never be done. This whole business about immigration “reform” with millions of people here illegally already is ridiculous. How do you go about deporting millions of people who have already entered the United States illegally. Of course you can really secure the border to prevent more from flowing in like a tidal wave, and then deal with the millions of people already here in some sort of humane, fair and decent manner. But in the meantime, millions more come across through the years. Unless the American people tell big mouth politicians they will be voted out of office unless they really secure the border the border never will be secure. WHY? Because there are too many people north of the border making too much money along with a lot of people south of the border and they have friends and influence to make sure the border is never secured so they can continue making billions of dollars a year on drugs, cheap labor, sex slavery, and weapons. That’s the long and short of it folks. There is no solution to this issue unless the border is secured. Again, use your imagination as to how borders are secured. You know the answer to this, and you also know a really secure border would probably be repugnant to the American people.

  • gekster

    I don’t think we could come up with anyone short of Reagan to please him.

    Whith him it’s ‘screw the country, I have principles’

  • Dave_A

    Because it can’t be done.

    Period, flat out. Cannot. Be. Done.

    Fixed linear defenses are, in general, a bad idea militarily – and that’s in a context of holding back an enemy that wants to find and kill you, as an organized & massed group. And the longer the defensive line, the weaker it is…

    When you change the thing you are trying to keep out from something big, organized and cohesive like ‘An Enemy Army’ to ‘little groups of smugglers & criminals’…

    Inefficient becomes impossible.

    Now, this is NOT an argument for amnesty or toleration of illegal immigration… Not at all.

    It’s an argument for a responsible approach to ELIMINATING illegal immigration – and the first part of that is recognizing that almost 2,000 miles – much of it absurdly harsh terrain, some of it private property – is an indefensible position.

    Now we can blockheadedly sit there & insist on holding the un-holdable for pride reasons – and fail..

    Or we can fall back to a defensible position, and win.

    In this case, a defensible position means a supply-side economic approach.

    Cut the supply of jobs, financial services, and the ability to purchase property, and you will eliminate illegal immigration in the United States.

    As a bonus, you will also get rid of the 40 PERCENT of all illegal immigrants WHO NEVER made an illegal border crossing.

    The first step to victory on immigration, is freezing (or even cutting) border spending.

    Use the money where it can be effective, not where it will do no good.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    and I’ve been listing rubbish since before some of you were either eclectic OR pathological!

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I mean to give Markos a break, the qualifications on a troll would be:

    1) Unintelligent
    2) Lacking Social Skills
    3) Lives in parents basement

    Hard to recruit a high grade from those qualifications unless your hanging out at OWS rallies. I am sure after a while the lack of soap and deodorant gets to even Markos so he takes what he get. Perhaps now that Ron Paul has admitted the obvious and Rand Paul has done the expedient thing some of the more anarchist bent of the Paulbots will make themselves available for Markos for troll training. I mean if nothing else to increase the available pool.

  • Dave_A

    I look at the illegal problem, and I think in dollars-and-cents…

    It is way to expensive to even try to ‘secure’ the border, or to round up and deport all the illegal aliens by going looking for them…

    So, we need better ‘weapons’ – we need a way to make them go home and either stay home or get in line to come here legally.

    For the cost of even the most blase ‘border plan’, we could upgrade our immigration and ID documents to use public/private-key digital signatures & electronic validation…

    We could use existing audit infrastructure (via the IRS) to enforce hiring laws…

    We could extend the PATRIOT Act ID requirements for financial transactions, so that no one gets a loan or wires money unless they show ID.

    We could de-fund any state that refuses to upgrade their drivers licenses & state IDs to use PKI, that issues ANY ID documents without verifying citizenship or legal immigrant status, or that does not verify status before transferring title to property (cars, boats, houses, etc).

    We could collect biometric data on anyone deported from the US, and permanently ban them from ever entering legally – even as a 1-day tourist.

    We could create a work-visa program, to allow migrant workers to enter the US legally if they so chose – on the condition that they leave within 1 month of becoming unemployed or become subject to the above sanctions…

    We could do this for a few billion at most – probably less…

    It would not require taking of private property – as border fortifications would…

    It would not require paying and training a ‘Second US Army’ to attempt to ‘secure’ the border….

    It would work not only for those who sneak across the border – but also for those who come in with legal paperwork & refuse to leave (40% of all illegals are in this category)….

    It would virtually ELIMINATE illegal immigration, without spending a dime on the border.

  • northplatte38

    Saying we cannot secure our border with Mexico because of harsh terrain and private property is bumwad, hogwash. claptrap and drivel!!! I have heard all of this before. We always seem to have enough money to fight un-winnable wars in distant lands, and yet when it comes to our border at home we have all sorts of excuses as to why it can’t be done. I’m not buying this excuse that our 2,000 mile border cannot be fortified and patrolled properly including the use of our Armed Forces to do so. Of course, all the wrong people would still try to tunnel under it, fly over it, and boat around it, but far, far less illegals would get in and I bet the drug and other criminal trade would slow down a lot. Of course be prepared for more crime north of the border when addicts don’t get their fix. In any event the previous post telling us the border cannot be secured is inadequate.

  • tnguy

    I doubt anyone could read my posts and think that I’m happy with Obama. Or congress.

    Every time you vote for a moderate or liberal republican, you’re delaying the time at which a conservative might win the seat. You vote for the guy now, you’re working to ensure it’s doubly hard to beat him next time, and you’re almost guaranteeing that a conservative won’t even be on the ballott come next election. That’s what’s screwing the country. Listen to yourself “Hey look at him. He and his conservative principles are ruining the country.” Kos much?

    You appear happy to continue to support go along, get along, back room dealmakers and those who have no qualms with shucking aside any principle they might have once had. Like Boehner and McConnell.

  • gekster

    Which at this point is a vote against the Republicans, and not a vote against Obama.
    OK. Gotcha. ;)
    It’s people with your attitude who got us Obama in the first place,
    and will help keep Obama in office.
    So more or less you are supporting Obama.
    Gotcha.

  • tnguy

    I thought only UNCMike’s vote counted twice?

    Keep putting moderates in liberals in office. Evidently, that’s what passes for a conservative these days. But every time you do, you delay the possibility of a conservative taking that office.

  • gekster

    You would rather see the country in ruins as opposed to vote for someone who doesn’t meet your high standards.
    I hope ypu can live with that, but i for one will not.
    There does come a time when you have to face reality.
    It seams you don’t want to.
    Keep your narrow blinders on.
    It obviously keeps you from seeing things you don’t want to see.
    I guess you are an ostrich Republican,
    keeping your head in the sand.
    Pathetic.

  • checkmate2012

    (the period was not a mistake), like Boehner signaled a few weeks ago in case the SC delares it unconstitutional. Fool hardy he is to touch it with a ten foot pole!

    Leave both issues alone & let the Dems wallow since they prove time and time again, to have no earthly ideas on real solutions to real problems. They cheat, lie, and steal and then blame to force their will.

    Best not give them any ammo that they don’t generate on their own. Those paying attention, know that the Huse Reps. have passes numerous bills to help job creators but all blocked by Reid in the Senate. Now that would be a great ad: bills passes & bills blocked.

  • westcoastpatriette

    the problem is the lack of political will to do any of those things.

    And that is what has so many furious with our impotent government that twiddles its thumbs while Rome burns. The problem just festers and worsens until reasonable solutions become untenable.

  • zachv

    Legal immigrants. Especially those who are STEM career minded. The BRIC countries and the EU are catching up to us economically and are snatching a lot of our talent away from us. If we want to stay competitive, we either have to keep out talent here or steal it right back.

  • zachv

    Who have insight into their home countries, and thus are very valuable to US companies wishing to expand overseas. Is it possible to expand the amount of immigrants from those countries alone?

  • Dave_A

    Anyone who says otherwise has no idea of the expense entaled in constructing those fortifications & manning them…

    You know, if we could secure even small borders, then we’d have a much easier time in Afganhistan and Iraq…

    But it wasn’t militarily feasible in either of those places, and we never really tried for exactly that reason…

    Our US-MX border alone (nevermind the one with Canada – the most likely point of illegal crossing for terrorists & such) is much larger & harder to secure than AF-PAK, Iraq/Syria, or Iraq/Iran….

    It simply cannot be done, and anyone who says otherwise just doesn’t understand…

  • Dave_A

    States cannot, under the 14th Ammendment, deny birthright citizenship.

    Further, birthright citizenship has been the law of the land since before there WAS a land! We brought it over from Britain (which held, at the time, that anyone born in Britain was a Subject of the King)…

    The US version, as we do not have a king, is ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States’ (eg, bound to follow our laws).

    The ONLY PEOPLE who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, are those with treaty-immunity – foreign military forces (either under SOFA or as an invading army with combatant-immunity under LOAC) and ambassadors.

    Further, every single time some IDIOT tries to deny children citizenship because of the crimes of their parents, it reenforces the Democrat line that we are an anti-Immigrant bigoted party.

    The reason to eject illegals is because they broke the law. A child born while inside the United States broke NO law to come here, and thus is NOT an illegal immigrant. There is NO basis to deny citizenship.

  • Dave_A

    Having a US Citizen child does NOT ‘anchor’ a parent against deportation.

    It simply doesn’t happen.

    Birthright citizenship is a fundamental principle of American law – the 14th just made it fundamental for all races & nationalities nationwide, rather than just whites…

    The ONLY persons exempted by ‘jurisdiction’ are foreign troops, foreign ambassadors and prior to 1924, ‘Indians Not Taxed’ (as per the Constitution’s census provision).

    Essentially, two of those groups were seen as being subject to the jurisdiction of the nation they served, and the 3rd (those Indians who’s tribes were not subject to US law & thus exempt from tax) a separate nation by treaty, in and of itself.

    In 1924, the ‘Indian’ exemption went away, as Congress granted all Indian tribes citizenship.

    The background and case law is very, very clear – no matter how the anti-all-immigration bigots want to twist it…

  • Dave_A

    Deportation isn’t ‘your parents going bankrupt’..

    Deportation is legal action against the person in question.

    Now, if the child made illegal entry themselves, then they are guilty and should be deported.

    However, if the child made no illegal entry, then there is no basis to take legal action against that separate human being, who committed no crime.

    That would be like your father robbing poor people of their savings, and YOU being put in jail for it.

  • gekster

    I see we have another with blinders on.

    from:
    http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/anchor_babies.html

    excerpt:
    The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

    Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, (which I just learned was pushed by Ted Kennedy) they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

    The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

    “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

  • checkmate2012

    if one would look at a our Visa/Green/H? card laws, they are biased as all get out, meaning they favor mostly anyone who does not come from European decendents. Sad.

  • gekster

    If he would have binged ‘anchor babies’ he wouldn’t have posted that.

  • checkmate2012

    n/t

  • Dave_A

    There is absolutely NO PROVISION that allows an illegal immigrant to stay in the US because they have a citizen child.

    NONE.

    Illegal parents get deported all the time – it’s one of the Left’s favorite ‘aww, think of the children’ moments.

    The law does NOT provide for ignoring parent’s illegal status because they have citizen kids.

  • Dave_A

    And who cares what continent immigrants come from, seriously…

  • Dave_A

    If you would look up the history of citizenship in the US, you would not have posted your screed… Birthright citizenship goes all the way back to the UK, and has a solid foundation in SCOTUS precedent long before the 14th, as well (to the point that the Court decided citizenship cases based on weather a person was born in a city while it was under US vs British control)….

    It doesn’t matter what that one Senator wrote, because the law as adopted doesn’t contain his qualifications.

    The only exceptions, are for those not subject to the jurisdiction (laws) of the US – those who have treaty immunity.

  • gekster

    Don’t be so stupid. It doesn’t fit you.

  • Dave_A

    The original premise for the term (which has no place outside of the Constittion-Party/RonPaulRelovution land) is the premise that a US Citizen child provided an ‘anchor’ against deportation.

    This flat out does not happen.

    Now, your complaint about the 1965 immigration act, is a flat out dig against LEGAL immigrants – not illegal, LEGAL.

    You see, the 1965 act allows a US citizen child to sponsor their parents for LEGAL immigration to the US from a foreign country.

    It does nothing for ILLEGAL immigrants who are already here, to protect against deportation.

    In fact, the only way it can ‘help’ illegal immigrants is if they never get caught, and decide to become legal – but that is a matter of innocent-until-proven-guilty – the law treats the illegal family that goes home the exact same way as the legal family that had a kid here while on a tourist or student visa.

    Birthright citizenship is a fundimental fact of US law that predates the 14th.

    Yes, the 14th was enacted to expand it to blacks – but that’s because EVERYONE ELSE ALREADY HAD IT.

    Further, there is no harm done to the US by those who never broke our laws having citizenship – even if their parents were criminals.

    We need every law-abiding citizen we can get, again, regardless of parentage.

  • gekster

    I knew you wern’t bright, but this is beneath even you.
    Go ahead and go stupid, it’s what most maroons do.

  • Dave_A

    ntxt…

  • Dave_A

    ntxt…

    BTW, this isn’t the first time I’ve had this debate…

    So far, your sources are a nutter website, and oblique references to being the only non-Microsoft employee who uses bing…

  • Dave_A

    If they all lack credibility…

    I could search 9/11 Truth, Obama Birth Certificate, or FEMA Camp and get the same glut of crap…

  • gekster

    I looked it up and found more than one definition, but all say the same.
    Look homer, do the search and find outf or yourself, not what you think.

    Idiot.

  • gekster

    It means you ignore facts to fit your premise, and you are an idiot because you can’t accept what might be against waht you say and believe.

    idiot.

  • gekster

    idiot.

  • gekster

    sorry mods, he opened the door.

  • Dave_A

    Because you don’t have a response…

    Kind of like your performance the last time we argued over another made-up bug-a-boo, so-called ‘creeping sharia’…

  • gekster

    I won on the sharia thing, as no religeon should influence an American court, which YOU homer, could not dispute.

    And now you say illegals don’t use ‘anchor babies’?

    from wiki:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

    excerpt:
    “Anchor baby” is a pejorative term for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents, who, as an American citizen, supposedly can later facilitate immigration for relatives.[1][2][3][4] The term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen and can later act as a sponsor for other family members.[2][5] The term is often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States to refer to children of illegal immigrants, but could also be used in a similar sense outside of that context to refer to the child of any immigrant “when the child’s birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother’s or other relatives’ chances of securing eventual citizenship.”[

    from:
    http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/07/anchor_babies_no_more_us_citizenship.html

    excerpt:
    All told, federal law (not the Constitution) gives citizenship to an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don’t have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant. This is a huge impediment to efforts to stabilize U.S. population to allow for environmental sustainability. And it is a great incentive for more illegal immigration.

    Each of these babies becomes an anchor who retards deportation of unlawfully present parents?and who eventually will be an anchor for entire families and villages as chain migration leads to the immigration of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.

    from:
    http://www.aim.org/special-report/6-billion-a-year-for-mexican-anchor-babies/

    excerpt:
    Another major flaw in the Senate immigration bill is the failure to repeal the provision that babies born to illegal aliens in the U.S. get automatic U.S. citizenship. This is known as birthright citizenship.

    Birthright citizenship is one of the media?s powerful tools to advance the Senate immigration bill. The media use young children, even babies, as showpieces, arguing that if the government does not legalize, or grant amnesty to their parents, then these children will be left without mothers and fathers if their parents are deported. It?s one sob story after another.

    from:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129279863

    excerpt:
    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has argued that illegal immigrants come the the U.S. with the intent to have babies, who are automatically granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Attorney Walter Dellinger III explains the citizenship clause, and what it might take to change the Constitution.

    The latest hot button issue in the immigration debate centers on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads in part: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. Some Republicans suggest it’s time to think about changing that. They argue too many illegal immigrants come into this country specifically to have a baby and hope to use that so-called anchor baby to get the whole family in. Most Democrats are opposed, and it’s important to point out that some Republicans are too.

    So all of those millions of posts are wrong.

    idiot.

  • gekster

    Ain’t got a rebutal?
    Not uncommon for an idiot.

    idiot

  • Dave_A

    Helps to understand the subject matter beyond what you can google (or worse, bing)…

  • Dave_A

    1) The word restitution is used as if the illegals are the ones who owe it, not society making ‘resitutiton’ to them.

    2) There are ways to accomplish what was described without amnesty.

    As I’ve said many times before, we can create an environment using economic and law-enforcement tools, that makes following the immigration laws mandatory in order to participate in the economy.

    Folks who talk about building walls, troops on the border, round-ups, or who cry about citizenship-by-birth do us no favors. That actually does harm the Party’s future – in addition to being bank-breaking expensive…

    However, by using economics, we can actually create an environment where the illegals will ‘come out of the shadows’ by voluntarily going home and applying to enter the US legally.

    Enforcement of employment regs by the IRS – combined with truly secure ID documents (use the Army’s CAC format – a smart-card with encrypted biometrics & a digital signature) and mandatory ID validation for financial services or the purchase of titled property…

    Combine that with a promise of easy legal immigration for anyone who applies & follows a strict set of rules in regard to employment and non-use of public-assistance….

    And you have a ‘win’ without a single soldier’s time wasted on border-duty, or a single fence-post planted… And without murdering the 14th Ammendment in a futile quest to ‘save American culture’ as if there is such a thing…

    They’ll all be gone in a year, under that system…

  • gekster

    Try saying idiot, I know you can.
    And google shows the same results.
    Show me where it shows I am wrong, other than your idiotic opinion.c;mon homer, show me.

    idiot

  • northplatte38

    The rebuttal Comments to my post that our border with Mexico can and should be secured are typical of the “logic” that it can’t be fortified and manned because it costs too much. IT CAN BE DONE!!! We have spent billions on two ridiculous wars that we really have not won. Many of those billions could have fortified our southern border. AGAIN, the reason our border with Mexico is not fortified is because too many people are making to much money from drugs, weapons, sex traffic, and cheap labor. THEY DON’T WANT IT FORTIFIED, NOT EVER!!! In any event, those who say it can’t be done for this and that lame brained excuse will get their wishes anyway, because the border WILL NOT BE SECURED ANYWAY. So, you guys win anyway. Right?!

  • texasref

    all these acronyms!

  • zachv

    BRIC – Brazil, Russia, India, China (assumed to be the next big economies)

    STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering, Math

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I wrote Perl CGI in 1997. So… not an early adopter but not bad. :)

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    My first db admin job was with a company whose accounting system was DB2 fronted by COBOL. I am still paying the therapy bills.

  • acat

    How much will it cost to find them?
    How much will the buses to take them them all to the border cost?
    How much will the gas cost?

    Further, while this is not good timing, it’s not sufficient reason to throw the senator out.

    Mew

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Is it sufficient reason that Romney will throw him off the VP list…hmmm? I agree with you cat on the point rounding up millions and millions of illegal citizens is too cost consuming both in transportation and detention cost. However, offering up guest visas that allow undocumented workers in the legitimate work place (i.e. McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc) where they were not likely to be hired is going to cause stress in that workplace. My beliefs as a Christian are that I should dedicate portions of my own time and treasure to helping those less fortunate (blessed) than myself here and around the world. However, the function of the US government is to protect the welfare and security of US citizens first and foremost. Allowing another stream of workers in an already depressed job space does not serve that purpose. I standby earlier statements that this is a steaming pile of poo and an unforced error from Rubio (one that Obama is going to try and seize on).

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Good thing I said “some of you”! I was still [gn]*awk’ing at that point–my prison doors were not blasted free until a few months later.

  • Bill S

    that there is in excess of 200B lines of COBOL code out there. You can’t use an ATM or work with most insurance companies without hitting COBOL somewhere, and that’s just scratching the surface.

  • acat

    Probably just as well, the whole “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” thing.

    That said, whether this dumps Rubio off Romney’s short list depends on two factors.

    The more obvious of the two is just how far out of step Rubio’s plan is with the Romney campaign stated plan. As I haven’t bothered to read the Romney campaign plan, I cannot answer this.

    The less obvious is whether anyone inside Team Romney actually had Rubio on their short list. No, Dick Morris doesn’t count.

    (the particularly malevolent part of my brain wants to know when Mr. Morris became aware of Rubio’s views …)

    Mew

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I think Romney’s plan is to try to prevent the tragedy of people trying to swim Lake Michigan to get into Canada for oil energy jobs since Obama is set on killing those jobs in the US. I do think when Romney announces the VP pick it will not be the junior Senator from Florida (hopefully soon to be the Senior Senator from Florida after the voters “retire” Bill Nelson).

  • acat

    The Great Lakes, if you don’t stray too far out and the weather’s good, are sufficiently placid …

    I like and respect Rubio. As long as his immigration plan contains a serious border enforcement piece, it may even work. Realistically, there will be a mix of amnesty and deportation .. but talking about what the mix should be without border security (and e-Verify) is pointless.

    That said, I’m not one of the ones who’s said the veep “must be Rubio”. He’s a possibility, but I’d rather see him in the Senate and in the FL Gov mansion before the White House.

    Mew

  • julianalien

    I can not believe so many registered Democrats and Republicans have forgotten about the Constitution.That is what is supposed to lead us to the decisions that we make in all our policies and laws.The founding fathers who wrote this document to base our laws upon were quite clear on the intent.Illegal is illegal.I have yet to find a substantive argument to the opposite,except for the bums who depend on cheap labor and could not survive in a free American market.To them I say Waaugh!Get over it.Get in the back of the bus.Get in the new conservative food line.Get to the labor ready office,downtown at 4:30 in the morning with the winos,because I am going to buy your farm from the bank,you lazy bastards.I challenge anyone to the contrary,respectfully.

  • mikeymike143

    no amnesty and no dream act.

  • gekster

    ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL.
    Somehow with immigration we have to ignore the laws.

  • acat

    Perhaps a more pragmatic stare decisis ?

    Seriously, anyone discussing anything that comes after the border is rendered non-porous is just wasting breath.

    Mew

  • gekster

    makes them less ‘illegal’ ?
    Does the more we ignore it make the word mean different?
    Illegal is illegal, despite what the previous did or thought of them.
    Not saying what we should do with them, but llet’s not distort the deffinition of the word.

  • checkmate2012

    part of illegal don’t our LAWmakers get. We don’t need comprehensive immigration laws; we just need to enforce those on the book, plus a few tweaks, minus many of this admin. Simple math.

  • checkmate2012

    If no one reads my very long diary, I hope everyone reads this part of it as it truely is shocking:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

  • acat

    by a century of non-enforcement. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying there’s better arguments to deploy.

    The better argument is that the border is a “law & order” issue, i.e. there’s lots of illegal substances coming across, and that the border is a national security issue, i.e. if it’s porous enough to let illegals in, it’s porous enough to let other criminal/hostile elements in.

    Close the border, then we can talk about the illegals with certainty. Until we close the border, we can’t have a serious conversation….

    Mew

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I was wrong. I originally saw this as an unforced error by Rubio that distracted from what should be the narrative but now it is looking like a brilliant political manuever by the Romney camp (or it couldn’t come out better if they had planned it). To wit, immigration reform polls decently (the Bloomberg poll today will show Obama “winning” the debate) about to the middle. However, the polling is not for what I call “intensity” i.e. do you really care and would the outcome affect your vote. There are only two categories of people really that immigration reform is a game changer (or what I call “burns white hot”). Generally, this is a portion of the Latin-American community on the left and a subsection of conservatives on the right. With this action, Obama has managed to tick off both groups. Seriously, both groups. One need only read through this thread to see how conservatives are taking being thrwarted in a policy important to them by Presidential fiat without even giving the issue a debate in Congress. What we have ignored is how it is playing in the part of the Latino community that as I said the issue burns white hot. The answer is not well; turns out voters do remember when you promise chicken salad and deliver chicken crap. I don’t think I am going out on too far a limb when saying Ruben Navarette, Jr is a leading voice in the media for the pro-immigration reform part of the Latino community. Surely there is little coincidence, Obama’s fiat came just scant days after Navarette took him down on CNN.com. I encourage everyone to read what Navarrette has to say about Obama’s fiat “broken promise”. Seriously, conservatives on redstate and Ruben Naverette are both calling this fiat crap. If the Romney camp cooked this up, I can only say, well played, sir…well played.

  • rightlane1111

    God help me, I do not want to be banned from this site, however I do not agree with your last sentence.

    I will be voting for Romney this November. My goal is to get as many Conservative House and Senate candidates elected to insure that a Conservative agenda is followed. That being said…here is where I disagree.

    Take for instance the now Senator from WV. If I didn’t live in the South and know the mindset…I would say…let’s get Manchin to switch parties. His state and the Senator himself do not agree with Obama. I find him more Conservative than Olympia Snowe…who is retiring…thank God.

    However, look at who voted Kagen into the Supreme Court…why it was Lindsey Graham! She should not even be sitting on that Court and her involvement in Obamacare is a direct conflict of interest. Then…Sobieski…we have Senator McCain focusing on boxing being corrupt! Let me see…we have the fast and furious going on, we have many, many bills held up in the Senate that need to be focused upon, we have the UN trying to dictate the 2nd Amendment, Solyndra (our money) is back in the news, Obama just gave amnesty, Holder won’t obey his duty to office, we have a GIANT oxymoron going on…wherein we cannot ask for ID’s from people of color because of violation of their civil right (I thought they did not have any if here illegally) BUT WE HAVE DRONES FLYING AROUND CHECKING OUT US CITIZENS.

    What is Senator McCain focused on…BOXING! We are now $16 trillion in debt thus far, Medicare/SS in trouble…and we are worried about BOXING.

    I don’t want to burn down the house by any means…I have been a Republican all my life…but we need more than a refurbishment with some of our current representatives.

  • rightlane1111

    This is not about amnesty. We can’t see the forest from the tree again. This is about Obama not adhering to his oath of office. Congress makes the laws..PERIOD. The press is out there spinning the amnesty deal…meanwhile…Obama has once again usurped the Constitution.

    Coercing the Catholic Church and other organizations against abortion/contraception is about the First Amendment…not about Women’s Rights.

    However, as Kitty has said…as well as Rick Perry…this is a law and order issue but Obama/MSM has spun this in to some compassionate nanny state issue instead of following the laws on the books.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    especially to Romney PACS if they want to go this route…that the only two US Presidents to take up immigration reform were George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, both at a political cost to their base with no political upside while Obama has talked a great game and promised a lot of chicken salad; he has delivered chicken crap and never once had the “stones” to take up the issue even when the Dems controlled both the Senate and House. I might even run that commercial in Spanish.

  • rightlane1111

    This is something that must be addressed once Romney is elected. For starters…English MUST be the official language. All other nationalities that came to America had to learn English…this press 1 choice has to be abandoned by business and they would learn quickly.

  • checkmate2012

    you read my diary I posted yesterday that uncovers more lies of O and his immigration decision. It’s long I know but I had many things to cover and ended it with the speech you read. thanks

    Another Step Closer to the Destruction of America Thanks to the Order-by-Fiat-in-Chief