See other Immigration Articles
Title: Buchanan: W's Amnesty Train Full Speed Ahead?
Source:
Creators Syndicate Inc
URL Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52985
Published: Nov 16, 2006
Author: Pat Buchanan
Post Date: 2006-11-16 17:18:36 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 161
Comments: 16
W's amnesty train full speed ahead? With the resignation of Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman, President Bush intends to fill the post with Florida's Mel Martinez, a Hispanic who led the battle in the U.S. Senate for amnesty for illegal aliens. "Martinez is going to lead the fight for amnesty that Bush could not win when Republicans controlled the Congress," one angry RNC member told the Washington Times' Ralph Hallow. Unable to extract an amnesty bill from Denny Hastert and Co. in the House like the McCain-Kennedy bill he supports, Bush is looking to cut a deal with San Francisco Nancy. Amnesty is to be the Bush legacy, and Martinez is to be the face of the party on the most explosive domestic issue of our era. For that, GOP precinct workers walked the line to hold Congress for the party. Bush and Karl Rove still have not gotten the message, and probably never will. They have swallowed the Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard line that the party's tough stance against illegal immigration hurts with Hispanics, and only a "comprehensive" immigration bill can heal the wounds. "Comprehensive" is the code word for amnesty. But Bush and Rove are misreading the returns as badly as they misread the country when they predicted the GOP would hold onto both chambers. Let's have another look at those returns. According to NumbersUSA, while Republicans lost 11.5 percent of their House seats, or one in nine, the Immigration Caucus of Tom Tancredo, the House hawks, lost 6.7 percent of its complement, only one in 16. Among Republicans given an "F" by immigration hawks, however, fully 25 percent lost their re-election bids, a bloodbath among the open-borders-and-amnesty-now crowd. It was Bush's War and Republican scandals that lost America, not the party's stand on border security and immigration. Imitation, it is said, is the sincerest form of flattery. Thus it is a testament to the popular appeal of the stop-the-invasion stand that Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton voted for 700 miles of security fence. Indulging in their favorite pastime, cherry-picking evidence, the neocons claim that the losses in Arizona by Rep. J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, both hardliners, prove that Arizona and America reject a law-and-order approach to illegal immigration. Yet Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, a hardliner, won re-election easily. More significant, Arizonans voted in landslides on Nov. 7 to deny bail to illegal aliens, to bar them from receiving any punitive damages in lawsuits and to make English the state language. Among Latinos, 48 percent voted to make English the official language, just as, two years ago, 47 percent voted to cut off all welfare to anyone who could not prove he or she was in the country legally. Latinos are patriots, too. They don't like their country's laws trampled on with impunity or their tax dollars going to support scofflaws, no matter their nationality. Why did Graf lose? Jim Kolbe, the GOP congressman whom Graf chased out of the race, refused to endorse him, and Mehlman's RNC gutted him in the primary. The neocons also point to the fall-off in the Hispanic vote for the GOP, from 38 percent in 2002 to 30 percent in 2006, and attribute the drop-off to calls for a border fence. Yet far more serious was the fall-off among white voters, whose support, as Steve Sailer of http://VDare.com points out, fell from 58 percent in 2002 to 51 percent. The relevant truth: The GOP vote fell 7 or 8 percent among all voters. But the seven-point plunge among white voters is more ominous than the eight-point drop among Hispanics. Why? Because the white vote in America, 80 percent of the electorate, is 13 times as large as the Hispanic vote, which accounts for only 6 percent of all voters. It is the defection of its white vote that is killing the GOP. The Reagan Democrats are going home. If Bush and Rove think they can win them back with amnesty and a guest-worker program that out-sources immigration policy to K Street, they will end up doing for the national party what Gov. George Pataki did for it in New York. Had Bush made border security and less immigration a dividing issue with the Democrats, fewer GOP lawmakers would be working on their resumes. That Democrats are more aware of this than Rove is apparent, as one reads the astonishing story in the Washington Post headlined, "Democrats May Proceed With Caution on Immigration: Explosive Issue Not a Top Priority for Incoming Leaders." The reporters summarized Democratic thinking thus: "In the days after the election, Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities. Experts said the issue is so complicated, so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now. And a number of Democrats who took a hard line on immigration were also elected to Congress." After being named RNC chair, Mehlman headed straight to the NAACP convention – to apologize for the Nixon-Reagan strategy that gave the GOP the presidency in five of six straight elections. And how has all that pandering availed Mehlman and Rove and George W. Bush?
Posted: November 16, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
The GOP didn't take a stand. The dear Leader Unter Gott took one position and the corrupt rabble in the House of Reps took another and the corrupt rabble in the Senate took yet another. And the people realized at some level that it was all bullshit and buzz anyway, that illegal immigration isn't going away, and that the only people it harms are working class Americans whose wages are being driven down. And since the GOP made it pretty clear where they stood on the minimum wage and on unions and on treating the poor like humans, their so- called "stand" on immigration looked like what it was. A cynical ploy to split up the Democratic base and take some border districts. The lesson of this election was not that candidates need to take a particular stand on immigration. The lesson is that when push comes to shove, nobody really gives a shit about it. Rove was wrong. It wasn't a good issue.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
"Buchanan". Hmmm. Why does that name sound familiar? Isn't this the guy who got his ass beat down in another election? Is he President Buchanan? Ex-President Buchanan? Senator Buchanan? Congressman Buchanan? Who is this guy, really, to be handing out advice on how to win?
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
There ain't a plug nickel's difference in the parties. This election really demonstrated the futility of voting ...
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry
I do. Illegals are changing the demographics of this nation and I don’t want to live in Mexico City North. Can you point to any nation, anywhere, that has survived unfettered illegal immigration? Me neither.
Bush and Rove are doing what most voters do - they're voting their wallets. The interest of the elite Republicans is in cheap labor and high profits for their companies. That's all they care about so everything they do, every policy and action can be followed back to that narrow self-interest.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
Mr. Buchanan, with his philosophy, has created his own wing of conservatives known as paleocons. These folks, along with libertarians have given the neocons grief every step of the way. He saw the handwriting on the wall years ago and left the republicans as they were being hijacked. You are correct. Buchanan never won an election for public office. Bush was elected TWICE. Buchanan forgot more about everything than Bush ever knew. What's your point?
On immigration I think you are correct.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
I've already lived there. It's called "San Antonio" Texas. 85% Hispanic. And a beautiful, nice place to live. Mexican Americans are (by and large) fine folks. They've got their bad apples just like we do, and just like among us, the poor folks produce more bad apples than rich folks do, so we get a disproportionate level of crime with illegal immigration (by definition, mostly poor folks). As for the "demographics" of it, I'm pretty sure that we can get along reasonably well with Hispanic culture. They won't be speaking Spanish at all by the third or fourth generation. The biggest negative impact they have is on wages; and that is caused by the continuous nature of the flow of poor folks across the border, not by their culture or demographics. We need to stop that flow, clearly. But do Mexicans or Mexican-Americans hurt America through their culture or by their racial nature? I ain't seen it.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
I disagree. Once they tip into a majority, their nationalism will make Americans uncomfortable. They do me. Illegals should be ushered back over the border and a fence(s) build ASAP. The goal of this flood is to create a union with Canada, us and Mexico. The CFR outlined this scheme in it’s, “Building a North American Community.” Borders will slowly be erased and our culture will become a footnote in history.
I disagree completely. You may not have problems in an area like San Antonio which was largely Hispanic to begin with, but we are seeing large influx of Hispanics (and S. Americans like Brazilians) here in New England, including the more remote parts, and frankly, I can't stand them. Their culture and behavior is totally different from ours and they're just flaming obnoxious in groups and snotty as individuals. I don't think they have any intention of becoming "American". They're just here to make a buck, and they still consider themselves Mexicans. For us to allow such a massive influx of people from a border country is simply insane. I believe we will reach a point in a generation where several of our states will be more part of Mexico than the United States because that is where the sympathy of the majority of the population will lie. I think we are at risk of losing several states or becoming embroiled in a war. You folks down in the Southwest may like the Hispanics, but I beg you - keep them down there. They are truly obnoxious and annoying people.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico (almost there)
The report recommends a single economic space that expands economic opportunity for all people in the region, and the establishment of a security zone that protects the region from external threats while facilitating the legitimate passage of goods, people, and capital. Containing French, Spanish, and English texts in a single volume, Creating a North American Community is an essential guide to possible futures for Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
Can anyone actually miss the meaning of these words?
Absolutely. The NAU is the most traitorous thing done in this country since Benedict Arnold. Now I admit I just can't stand the Hispanics - I find them annoying on several levels. The cultures just don't mix. However, even if they were Swedes, I would STILL be against this attempt to destroy our national sovreignty. Bottom line here - we have allowed Mexico to import their most impoverished people - they people THEY DON"T WANT - to THIS county, just as we took in Castro's boat people, many of them right out of the prisons. We've got to stop just letting ANYONE with no skills or means of support, into this country en masse. It's an insane policy that is destroying the country. If the Mexicans don't want them - why the hell should we?
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
Yep. I asked earlier in this thread
if anyone can give an example of a modern nation allowing an unfettered flood
of 3rd world people into their country, illegally, and surviving? I can't
think of one. To those who spend their day thinking of unique ways to halt
illegal immigration, save your time. This scheme to create a NAU is going as
planned; The destruction of our nation and culture is very well advanced.
Well, on a very basic level, aside from cultural issues, or whether someone likes or dislikes Hispanics, it makes NO SENSE to allow millions of impoverished, third world people to pour unimpeded into your country across an open border. No sense as WE would think of it unless there were an ulterior motive - the NAU.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
It was Bush's War and Republican scandals that lost America, not the party's stand on border security and immigration.
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
Buchanan: W's Amnesty Train Full Speed Ahead?
#3. To: bluedogtxn (#1)
And since the GOP made it pretty clear where they stood on the minimum wage and on unions and on treating the poor like humans, their so- called "stand" on immigration looked like what it was.
#4. To: bluedogtxn (#1)
The lesson is that when push comes to shove, nobody really gives a shit about it.
#5. To: Brian S (#0)
#6. To: bluedogtxn (#2)
#7. To: noone222 (#3)
There ain't a plug nickel's difference in the parties.
#8. To: Jethro Tull (#4)
do. Illegals are changing the demographics of this nation and I don’t want to live in Mexico City North.
#9. To: bluedogtxn (#8)
(Edited)
As for the "demographics" of it, I'm pretty sure that we can get along reasonably well with Hispanic culture.
#10. To: bluedogtxn (#8)
#11. To: mehitable (#10)
I believe we will reach a point in a generation where several of our states will be more part of Mexico than the United States because that is where the sympathy of the majority of the population will lie. I think we are at risk of losing several states or becoming embroiled in a war.
#12. To: mehitable (#10)
(Edited)
http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/clientpr/cfr/creatinganorthamericancommunity.htm
#13. To: All (#12)
The report recommends a single economic space that expands economic opportunity for all people in the region
#14. To: Jethro Tull, christine (#12)
(Edited)
#15. To: mehitable (#14)
(Edited)
Bottom line here - we have allowed Mexico to import their most
impoverished people
#16. To: Jethro Tull (#15)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest