Jul 03 2007

GOP Wants More Disaster On Immigration

Published by at 8:46 am under All General Discussions,Illegal Immigration

Think the amnesty hypochondriacs were appeased with their disasterous “Do Nothing Now” tanking of the immigration bill? LOL! Think again. The far right is now feeling its oats and is going to try and ram down everyone else’s throats their fantasies about immigration reform – naively still thinking they have the country behind them:

House Republicans are planning to use the ashes of the Senate immigration bill to resurrect the debate on border security.

The GOP leadership move to go on offense on immigration is politically tricky. While polls show that most Americans back stronger border-security measures, some House Republicans — such as then-Rep. J.D. Hayworth (Ariz.) — faced strong criticism last year for their so-called “hard-line” approach. Hayworth subsequently lost to Rep. Harry Mitchell (D) in last year’s midterm elections.

Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said he expected many of his members to line up behind a bill crafted by King and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

“I think many of us will be supporting the Lamar Smith/Peter King bill,” Blunt said. “I actually think it carves out a special spot for temporary workers for agriculture. The concern that House Republicans have and have had for some time now is the order in which these things are accomplished.”

A draft of the Smith-King legislation includes an increase in the size of the Border Patrol and would boost the number of Customs and Border Protection Officers at U.S. ports by 1,000 people over four years. It would also expedite the removal of individuals in the country illegally, make English the national language and refine the system that verifies the identities of those applying for employment in the United States.

Note it does not address the 12 million illegals here now. Oh well, another couple of months of berating the culture and societies of our neighbors to our south – what could be the harm in that? It will be interesting to watch Bush. If I have him pegged he is going to push for the full comprehensive bill again. I am not sure if he will bow down to the hypochondriacs – though there is nothing wrong with the proposals, they just won’t do anything about national security as the other bill did. All our threats come from legal entry, not field hands crossing the border.

This should be interesting to watch. It seems the GOP wants more disaster on immigration – they have not torn the party apart to their satisfaction yet. Don’t be confused. This is a purity push. They want to get moderates on the record as to not being far right enough. Given democrat control of both houses this BS is going nowhere – so it has another purpose. A “cleaning house” purpose. It also is a lame attempt to show that the GOP can do more than “Nothing Now”! Which of course it cannot. It will be more acrimony and zero progress from the party that has mastered the art of going in circles with violent intensity.

35 responses so far

35 Responses to “GOP Wants More Disaster On Immigration”

  1. crosspatch says:

    I don’t think you need to be in total agreement, but I do think you need to not make personal attacks or call people “liars” or other names when you disagree. Simply state that you disagree and why. I can’t read AJs mind but what I get out of this is that if you disagree and want to use logic in a dialog to explain why you disagree and possibly try to persuade someone with some kind of argument of logic, I don’t think AJ would have a problem with that.

    If you simply want to lash out at anyone who disagrees and you difference is more rooted in emotion than in logic, then one probably won’t last very long here these days.

    I use some words like cement-headed or knuckle-headed but I try to use that in a broad context and not aimed at any specific individual and I also try to explain why I think that to be so.

    There are many “sheeple” out there who look to the opinion leaders like Michelle to see how they are supposed to think or what the “correct” position is. Part of what causes me problems in the blogging area is that I use information these people put out to form an opinion but I don’t fall in lock step with them nor to I have a lot of respect for those who do. We should form our own opinions independently and discuss them and have a dialog. My problem politically is that I don’t fall in lock step with either the Republicans or the Democrats. I loved Ronald Reagan as a great man who understood that American political thought ran across the entire spectrum. He knew how to find the common ground that united us rather than focusing on the issues that divided us. We need more politicians (and pundits for that matter) who do the same.

  2. AJStrata says:

    No Steve, it is a simple rule. Don’t insult the host or lie about his views. FE was snipping my posts and comments and twisting them in a childish game. I warned him. He did not listen.

    R05 called me a racist. That was one in a long line of insults I got fed up with.

    Smill went after my character too. Warned, he went on anyway.

    I have banned left and right. If you think I put this site up to have people disparage my good name (OK my moniker since my name is not known widely) then you are crazy.

    Disagree all you want. Don’t go after the host on a personal level. When I decided to leave comments open the consensus was ban those who couldn’t control themselves, they are gone.

    Not that hard to understand. I just got tired of reading their garbage about me when I want to debate isues.

  3. AJStrata says:

    Schlussel was never banned btw.

  4. crosspatch says:

    “Mexican “society” has an underlying racism against the dark-skinned indigenous citizens of Mexico.”

    I would say that was more so a decade or two ago than now and it is becoming less of an issue as time goes by.

    “They deserve all of the belittling they get.”

    That is an example of the kind of crap I don’t like to see. NOBODY deserves to be belittled for any reason. And doing so makes YOU the social retard, not them. You don’t do someone justice by doing someone else an injustice. That simply causes a spiral down to the abyss.

  5. crosspatch says:

    “And doing so makes YOU the social retard, not them.”

    And by that I meant the collective “you” of those who would engage in the activity of belittling people because they “deserve it”.

  6. Jake70 says:

    would say that was more so a decade or two ago than now and it is becoming less of an issue as time goes by.

    I don’t see a whole heck of a lot of dark-skinned folks in the Mexican government despite making up the majority of the population.

    That is an example of the kind of crap I don’t like to see. NOBODY deserves to be belittled for any reason. I disagree. Government officials who legislate based on race most certainly deserve to be called out like any other scumbag.

  7. crosspatch says:

    Called out and engaged in dialog yes, belittled, no. And I didn’t get that you were talking about “calling out” any specific individual to be accounted for their actions so much as saying that Mexico as a whole deserves to be belittled because of the actions of some.

    I wouldn’t have a single bit of problem with finding issue with a specific policy proposed or supported by someone and then presenting a counter argument and even saying why you might think their position is “moronic” or some other term would be okay as long as you explain why you think so. Too many people, though, are “spring loaded” to call names without presenting any clear statement as to why they think so.

    That is rooted in the fact that *most* people are sheeple and simply parrot the positions of others without really forming their own and put it in their own words. I would want to know what you think, not whose opinions you like. Chances are I can read their opinions in many places, I can’t read yours anywhere but where you state it. We need to get people involved in debate and actually forming their *own* opinion rather than simply adopting those of others. That is how it was in the old days (17th and 18th century) when we would sit around the tavern table and discuss things. Our founders weren’t in lock-step with each other in their ideas for our Republic, neither should we be.

  8. Terrye says:

    If they put the guest worker program in there Bush might go for it, but then again, the Democrats run the House and it will not even get up for a vote if Pelosi does not want it too. King does not get to make those choices.

    But I have to say, if they succeed in actually deporting all these people, who will do the work? Michelle and her ilk? I doubt it.

  9. crosspatch says:

    They don’t care about anything other than ideological “purity”, who cares if it ruins the country. That’s why we have BOTH groups in positions of power, so they compromise. We don’t end up spinning out into left field or right field because to some degree they need each other to get anything done. When they decide they don’t need each other, nothing gets done. It doesn’t matter what the majority of pundits say on the Internet. What matters is how people vote in November.

  10. apache_ip says:

    It also is a lame attempt to show that the GOP can do more than “Nothing Now”!

    It was never “Nothing Now”. It was “Secure the border and enforce existing law NOW!”

  11. Terrye says:


    So how are they going to enforce those laws? Wave a magic wand? What exactly will you be doing that you are not doing now? Specifics please.

    And what exactly does it mean to secure the borders? Does that mean all the borders? Completely secure? How are you going to do that?

    Slogans are not policy.

  12. Terrye says:

    I think Apache is a good example of the problem. He is insisting on making a complex problem simple, even when it is not. He is sure that there is some magic simple answer to all this, it is just a question of will.

    But that is not true. That is like saying we just should put a man on Mars. Just cure cancer. Just end war. Just end poverty.

    How? If it were that simple we would not be here talking about it.

  13. tomfromPV says:

    The Senate bill was the best example of the problem. We all want the illegal flood curtailed, right? So the bill should have legislated something that could be “benchmarked” — some kind of metric that once met would trigger the Z Visa part. Instead, the bill did nothing but spend money and immediately grant the Visas (with 24 hours for background check!!). If the flood continued (which is what most of us think it would), we wouldn’t have accomplished a damn thing except legitimize some 12 to 20 million people. And we’d still have even more illegals flooding across.

    Its terrific the bill went down in such glowing flames (not even a majority for cloture). This means the Bush-Kyl-Kennedy folks got blasted out of the park and won’t show that face again. It also means the plan of shoving something down our throats won’t be tried again either!! Next time, we’ll get a bill with plenty of time to read and debate — none of this 24 hours and vote nonsense.

  14. crosspatch says:

    Apache, can you quote the existing law you would like to see enforced? A pointer the the section of the appropriate code would be sufficient. I think that is part of the problem. The “enforce the law” crowd doesn’t have the foggiest notion what the current law is.

  15. trentk269 says:

    AJ, if the amnesty bill made such good political sense for the GOP, how come co-sponsor and presidential aspirant John McCain is lagging so far back in the polls right now?