Immigration: Three Quotables

1. "It is just a fiction that these are jobs Americans aren't willing to do. The main reason that big corporations want a guest worker program is that it will drive down U.S. wages." -- North Dakota Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan, Associated Press, 22 May 2007

Senator Dorgan gets it, and sadly the greedheads and "Hispandering" immigration dreamers in the Republican Party do not.

What was the key to Reagan's victories in 1980 and 1984? Former Democrats, disgusted with the Commiecrat factions that had taken over that party. The Democrat party became dominated by either racist hypocrite hucksters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, or America hating pseudo academics and communist leftovers (think Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich). Today it is a Demunist Commiecrat party.

The working class, disgusted, voted for a man like Reagan, who shared their patriotism and their contempt for nanny state Commiecrats who wanted (and still want) to be their overlords.
Unfortunately, Bush the Elder lost touch, which led to a charlatan like Ross Perot appealing to many of these people in 1992. Newt won them back in 1994, but now Bush The Younger is losing them again.

Sadly, Bush The Younger is cheered on by (1) the cheap labor greedheads at the Wall Street Journal and (2) by the dewy eyed dreamers who think we can "Hispander" and make people vote Republican who frankly will be seduced by the welfare state into voting Democrat, even hardcore Commiecrat, anyway.

Now dreamers and greedheads have their place in the Republican Party. The Contract With America was in large part idealistic; thinkers like Newt who dare big dreams can be very beneficial to the Party if they are tempered by realism. Greedhead economic policies HAVE stimulated our economy, in the face of terrorism and rising commodity prices.

But the greedheads and dreamers have run amok and need to be put in check. Hopefully Tancredo (or Hunter, or Thompson) can help to do it.

2. "I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people [illegal aliens] and forcing them at gunpoint from our country."-- Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Associated Press, 29 March 2006

Obviously, Mitt Romney is right, if only for pragmatic reasons--without a border wall to keep them out, the deported illegals are back within days, weeks tops, after they are thrown out. Dog chasing tail. It is EASILY cheaper for us to build a Great Wall from San Diego to Brownsville, stemming the flow of illegal aliens, than it is to hire that many ICE (formerly INS) agents and pay that large a bureaucracy staff to administer the roundups. Seriously. Local law enforcement is overwhelmed and cannot do it.

But this is a false argument, and very disappointing of Mitt. No significant politician, not even Tom Tancredo, has ever proposed such an action, so Governor Romney has stated a politically safe, yet useless point. Which, sadly, is all to familiar in present day American politics. Sure, we can't just round 'em up and throw 'em out, but we can better enforce our immigration laws, go after those who employ illegal aliens, secure our borders, and above all, STOP rewarding the illegals with "Z-Visa" de facto amnesty.

3. Michael Medved says that an "enforcement only" immigration bill is impossible in a Democrat controlled Congress, which is why he continues to insist on this fraud known as "Comprehensive Immigration Reform". He continues the mantra that "it's better than the status quo" because it at least secures the borders a little bit more....

Sorry, a partial securing of the border is NOT ENOUGH, it must be a FULL securing, or else it is the 1986 scam all over again. Everyone with half a brain knows that.

For starters, I wouldn't be too sure of the impossibility of real immigration reform in a Democrat dominated congress, since Tom Tancredo, the congressman that Mr. Medved loves to impugn and smear, just managed to get a bill through the U.S. House of Representatives to withhold federal emergency services funding for "sanctuary cities" that protect illegal immigrants. The House passed the amendment, 234 to 189, with 50 Democrats voting in favor.

But even if what Michael is saying is true, I can only reply: FINE. LET THE DEMOCRATS TAKE THE BLAME. Republican congressional victories in 2008 and 2010.

Why does Michael now suffer from the same "Do Something Disease" that he so rightly diagnoses in others, when it comes to this issue???? Is he that much of a Bushyrovie hack?