The Revolt Against McCain
By Greg L | 22 June 2008 | National Politics | 42 Comments
Presumed Republican nominee John McCain set fire to the tenuous bridge he had built with immigration reform activists last week by making comments to a carefully selected group of Latino voters in Chicago saying he would quickly push for amnesty for illegal aliens, and by identifying immigration reform activists as “the opposition”. Many of us had adopted a “wait and see” attitude towards the McCain campaign, hoping that his statements, such as those made to CPAC last winter, reflected a growing realization on McCain’s part that advocating amnesty would destroy his relationship with the conservative base of the Republican Party. Instead of following through on his promises, when McCain thought the electorate at large wouldn’t know what he was saying, McCain essentially declared war against immigration reform activists. In response, many of those activists, myself included, are happy to return the favor.
McCain’s pretty obvious strategy here was to hold conservatives hostage to the notion that Barack Obama would be so terrible that no matter how much he pandered to groups seeking special privileges to ethnic or racial interests, or to those enamored of the idea of granting amnesty to illegal aliens, that conservatives wouldn’t desert him. Barack Obama is indeed a troubling figure who will support some of the most socialist and destructive policy ideas this nation has ever seen. This returns us to the “lesser of two evils” strategy seen last cycle that assumes conservatives will react to this “maverick republican” the same way they supported a “compassionate conservative” who turned out to be somewhat better than expected, but who still demonstrated little allegiance to the conservative cause. This time, conservatives may be thinking more along the lines of “fool me twice” than they are eager to fall into line and support a candidate they can barely tolerate. If conservatives roll over once again, it will be very difficult for them to demand anything of a candidate or elected official in the future. They will have sold out for short-term political expediency, and sealed the coffin of the Reagan Revolution.
For those who are most concerned about the illegal alien problem, McCain is clearly a disaster who deserves no more trust on this issue than his opponent. Berift of a candidate who is in any way supportive of their concerns, their decision in November must be based on what scenario is marginaly more appealing: a pro-amnesty Republican making another sweetheart deal for illegal aliens with the likes of Ted Kennedy, or a pro-amnesty Democrat using majorities in both houses of congress to ram through amnesty for illegal aliens. Whichever scenario provides the least chance for amnesty to pass is the place where immigration reform advocates will have to make their stand, because they have no other alternative.
McCain fulfilling last week’s promise to make amnesty his first priority in his administration would be more than troubling. There are already plenty of supporters of the notion to excuse illegal aliens from the consequences of their unlawful behavior within the Democratic Party, and doubtless many Republicans would support McCain’s proposal simply out of a desire to support their newly elected president. This would be hard to defeat, and anti-illegal alien advocates would have to work double-overtime to put a stop to this. The “bi-partisan” genesis of such a plan would mean that anti-illegal alien advocates would have to battle not only the Democratic Party establishment, but the Republican one as well. If the first iteration of McCain-Kennedy was hard to battle, the second iteration would likely be much tougher.
If Barack Obama wins the presidency and proposes amnesty, there’s a good chance that the Republican Party would strongly oppose the plan, which would make it much easier to defeat such a proposal. Part of the reason Republicans would likely do this is simply to roadblock an initiative by Democrats, but there would also be the liklihood that the Republican Party would finally understand that trifling with the highly motivated and broad base of conservatives and those fed up with illegal immigration. If the Republican Party learns a lesson by seeing John McCain abandoned by a substantial portion of the party’s core voters, the next time amnesty comes up for a vote you can bet they’d be eager to prove their bonafides in order to return this portion of the electorate to the Republican fold.
There are a lot of different issues at play this election season, and voters will be considering national security, healthcare, tax policy, energy policy and a number of other issues when they evaluate candidates. The unlawful presence of millions of illegal aliens causes more deaths to American citizens than result from the war on terror, threatens vast portions of our healthcare system more than any other cause, and costs taxpayers billions of dollars that might not otherwise be spent. Illegal immigration threatens American culture, fiscal stability, public education and domestic security. When the expected nominees of both major political parties apparently favor amnesty for illegal aliens, the long-term negative implications are so tremendous that some voters are going to set aside their concerns on a four year horizon in order to protect the future on a horizon that stretches twenty years and beyond. They clearly should. After amnesty was enacted in 1986, we went from about two million illegal aliens in the U.S. to likely more than twenty million today.
For those that consider illegal immigration to be the issue they are most concerned about, was already little reason to support John McCain. That’s not because these voters didn’t give the McCain campaign a chance — they were desperately hoping that McCain would give them a reason to vote for him. Instead, McCain decided to attack them as his opposition and advocate policies they find outrageous and flat-out destructive to our country, and they are outraged. Given the choice between a pro-amnesty Democrat and a pro-amnesty Democrat wanna-be, conservatives and those most concerned about illegal immigration have to look beyond this presidential election to find a way out of what has become a depressing mess.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
42 Comments
Views: 1522
Loading ...
Let’s face it, for all the Operation Chaos talk, Democrats helped to give McCain the nomination by voting for him in the early primaries. Romney showed that he didn’t have the stomach for a prolonged fight, and bailed. McCain has acted all along as if he has taken the conservative vote for granted, and that he can pander to the moderates as much as he needs to. He is an arrogant individual, and not worthy of my vote.
To all the folks out there who claim McCain deserves respect, remember that Benedict Arnold was a war hero once too. A war hero can also become a traitor. I think McCain has betrayed conservatives.
We surely know that a President Obama would sign an amnesty bill as quickly as a President McCain. Ths, having McCain in the White House and out of the Senate could prove more of a blow to amnesty than had he remained.
“If Barack Obama wins the presidency and proposes amnesty, there’s a good chance that the Republican Party would strongly oppose the plan, which would make it much easier to defeat such a proposal.”
Or, it would silence any Democratic opposition, thus making it easier to pass (as I recall, Harry Reid never supported any version of amnesty; he’d be hard pressed to keep that up with Obama in the White House).
Look beyond immigration.
Abortion is a much more serious issue and there is a likely 3 appointments to the Supreme Court in the next 4 years, McCain will appoint Robert’s, Obama will appoint sueters and ginsburgs
Immigration is the most important issue because if there is an amnesty conservative voters will be overwhelmed by third-world, uneducated socialists voters. And this demographic tidal that crushes the conservative vote will be permanent. There is no more consequential issue than citizenship for illegals. It’s more important than Supreme Court judges.
McCain will be far worse than Obama on this issue because the Republicans won’t fight McCain but they will fight Obama.
Conservatives must vote against McCain! Write in Hunter or Tancredo.
I’m not necessarily a fellow traveler with the immigration law sentiments of most of the folks who regularly comment here. But I’m always pleased to listen to rational folks making rational arguments. The only thing I’ve ever asked is that people not delude themselves about the probable results of the policies that they espouse. (I’m silly like that!)
Anyone who didn’t hear George W. Bush & John McCain over the past several years saying loud & clear that they were planning to liberalize immigration is deaf and/or irrational. Like it, hate it, feel lukewarm about, it just doesn’t matter. The statements were fairly clear, and repeated fairly often.
I would point out to PWCon that the Supreme Court can be overridden any old time by a united Congress pushing a Constitutional amendment, unless it turns out that popular sentiment doesn’t support such a thing. In the long run, the Congress can win every argument that “it” is able to support.
Thresher: Write in Hunter or Tancredo.
Tom Tancredo Endorses McCain:
June 10, 2008 6:53 PM
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., has reluctantly come to the conclusion that he will have to vote for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., whose immigration reform bill Tancredo blasted as amnesty.
“Sometimes I say to myself, ‘Can I really do this?’” Tancredo said of voting for McCain, according to the Rocky Mountain News. “And then you listen to Obama or Hillary and say, ‘Yeah, I have to.’”
At a debate last October Tancredo sounded less sure of such an idea.
Tancredo told the News he couldn’t vote for Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, who has similar views as he does on immigration, because Barr has “a blind spot on radical Islam.”
- jpt
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/dragged-kicking.html
Since Tom Tancredo endorses McCain, I think McCain will be fine.
Greg L: If Barack Obama wins the presidency and proposes amnesty, there’s a good chance that the Republican Party would strongly oppose the plan, which would make it much easier to defeat such a proposal.
That’s not going to happen if the Democrats increase their congressional majority. We can pretty much expect that they will pick up one seat in the Senate, Virginia, with Mark Warner. How many more will they win?
its really looking like a bloodbath for the republicans.
Mccain campaigning in Canada?
Give me a break!
It’s political suicide. That’s what it is. After the boost that Tancredo had from the anti-immigration left, it’s obvious the influence that this issue has on voters.
Ref: PWConservative. “look beyond immigration”
Thompson to Vet Judges for McCain….
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27128
Greg L: “he would quickly push for amnesty for illegal aliens”
Your source (linked article) does NOT even mention the word “amnesty.”
How can you use it that way? I know how you are interpreting the meeting and McCain’s attitude, but isn’t that a little dishonest?
I believe it’s fair to say that the vast majority of American people favor securing our southern border (using whatever method or combination of methods works) AND encouraging those who are already here illegally to retreat to their native homes, one way or the other. In this regard, I believe there are several truths:
1.) Neither the current President nor the current congress has paid a lot of heed to the will of the American people on these issues.
2.) It is clear that neither John McCain NOR Obama will take action to stop the flood of illegal immigrants. So, on this issue, your vote is a toss-up.
3.) With the outlook of what the new congress will look like, we can not expect help there either.
So, what are we to do? More than ever before, it is clear to me that the real key to fixing the immigration issue rests at the local level.
My Congressman, my Senator and my President can all ignore me as an individual, but they can hardly ignore the pressure of an increasing number of local jurisdictions and states who are taking whatever action the law allows.
There’s not a lot that local governments can do in many areas….national defense being one of those…but local government CAN lead the fight against illegal immigration and take it to the federal government. We must keep the pressure on.
Is there a better alternative? I don’t see it.
In my opinion, if amnesty is the only issue being considered in your vote, there is no difference between McCain or Obama. Either of these individuals will sign any form of amnesty that passes congress. That is no different than what we have today with Bush. For the next four years amnesty will remain in the hands of congress. Be very careful who you elect to congress.
I am more concerned with which candidate will execute current immigration law. For instance which candidate will:
1. Enforce current immigration law?
2. Close the southern border?
3. Maintain and expand the 287G program?
4. Enforce the Social Security Mismatch process?
5. Allow State and Local Governments to establish their own immigration laws?
6. Stop the NAU-SPP process?
It would be very easy for either candidate to return to the previous policy of “don’t ask, don’t enforce”.
The LA times (of all papers) has a very interesting article on the topic this morning. Worth reading.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/latinamerica/la-na-immig23-2008jun23,0,6489282.story
KO,
I do not see how Democrats gave McCain the nomination, because in most states, you cannot cross parties to vote in the other’s primary.
With a tight race themselves, do you not think they would have wanted to pick there own nominee - which is what happened more - after McCain was the defacto nominee, many Republicans crossed the line (in states where they can) and voted in the Dems primary.
ko, In which of the early states can a nominee cross party lines in the primary?
Take a look at the price you’re paying at the pump, not to mention what you’re paying for milk, bread and eggs. I daresay that that will be the most important issue of this year’s election.
Is the economy important; you bet! That said market forces and God have a bigger impact than any president. The current mid west floods will do more to increase the price of your Thanksgiving meal (and every other) than anything else. Yes the war on terrorism is impacting the price of oil, but market speculators who can buy without accepting delivery then resell at a profit are costing even more.
Now on topic. The election for President this fall is simple, do you want a moderate or a liberal. Unfortunately both have stated they favor amnesty. I personally find this apalling, but save voting for the very conservative Barr (and potentially giving the election to Obama) there is no option. Maybe we can push hard with RPV and the GOP to have amnesty opposed in the GOP platform.
Even if Mccain wins the Dems will have at least a 55-45 advantage in the Senate. Any conservative judges he nominates won’t even get out of committee.
If Obama wins they could be pushing 60-40 and thus be filibuster proof assuming all the Dems fall into line. He will have his SC nominess picked by Leahy and Kennedy.
Unless the Dems totally implode on the drilling and terrorism issues, which they already are of course, it’s going to be a pretty ugly November.
The only reason to vote for McCain is to (hopefully) watch the reaction of the MSM and Left when they see that Obama won’t win.
McCain’s Immigration Insanity
McCain has been campaigning all across the country with various cronies muttering about securing the border first and that he never really supported amnesty. McCain and Lieberman were on a PR campaign together in NH earlier in the year and lying through their teeth on McCain’s immigration record. At a town hall meeting in the granite state, McCain speaks for a while uttering his gibberish about illegal immigration and the illegal’s are god’s children (he obviously believes that they are a special type of god’s children and deserve some kind of extra compassion), etc. Lieberman takes the mike and says…”To say John McCain ever supported amnesty for illegal immigrants is a lie…” This is extremely disturbing that both of these Senators would try to deceive and directly lie to people for the express purpose of garnering votes. You can view this for yourself in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er3gSPhNSEM
McCain is trying to run from his actions and record. He is intentionally distorting (I call it lying) the irrefutable fact that he was a supporter of amnesty by claiming he was never for amnesty. He was a main architect, contributor and proponent of the Comphrensive Immigration Reform bills (s. 1348 and s. 1639) of 2007 that were written in order to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. McCain was so deep into the content and language of these bills that they were often referred to as the Kennedy-McCain Immigration Reform bills.
McCain has consistently supported amnesty for illegal aliens since at least 2003 as reported by hotair.com from a Tuscon Citizen article…“McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program,” reported the Tucson Citizen of May 29, 2003. The senator is quoted as saying: “Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it.” The newspaper also quoted McCain as saying: “I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible and at the same time make sure that we have some control over people who come in and out of this country.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/05/video-liebs-says-mccain-did-not-support-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens/
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/06/017540.php
An in-depth interview in June 2007 conducted with WBT radio Charlotte, NC illustrates McCain’s lack of knowledge of the details in his own Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. His arrogance, disdain and condescending attitude to those who disagreed with him on the amnesty issue can also be heard: http://jeffkatz.wbt.com/audio.cfm;jsessionid=2e30fbce04aa6e53e62082817536929611f5TR?ID=7
During the ABC News presidential debate on January 5, 2008 McCain said: “Let me just say I’ve never supported amnesty. A few nights ago, Joe Lieberman and I had a town hall meeting together. It was a rather unusual event. The issue came up. Joe Lieberman said John McCain has never supported amnesty, and anybody says he does is a liar, he’s lying.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-rdebate.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1199721737-2vqWJVFzkwWyQwnxeL9Sew
One day later at the Fox News presidential forum, McCain said, “I have never, ever supported amnesty, and never will”. http://www.cfr.org/publication/15179/republican_forum_transcript_fox_news.html?breadcrumb=%2Fcampaign2008%2Fspeeches
During the Fox News presidential debate on January 10, 2008 McCain said: “I know how to secure the borders. I come from a border state where our borders are broken. More people come across our border illegally every year than most any other state. And I will secure the borders first…The remaining 12 million…we must then, in my view, address it in as humane and compassionate way as possible. The three GIs who were missing last year in action, one of them was still missing in action, his wife was about to be deported from this country. I’m not going to deport the wife of a fighting serviceman who’s missing in action. I’m going to handle it in a humane, compassionate fashion.” EARTH to McMARS; if you know how to secure the borders, why is your home state’s border still unsecured (McCain has been in Congress for 26 years, the last 22 as a Senator), so much so that more illegals come across your border than anywhere else? What have you been waiting for? Amnesty (again)? Furthermore, what does a GI wife’s situation have to do with the 20 to 36 million illegal aliens here, many of which came across those borders you know how to secure but have done nothing to secure?
http://www.thestate.com/presidential-politics/story/281821.html
It’s readily obvious that McCain hasn’t changed his views on illegal immigration. “Actually, I didn’t change my position…” McCain told Sean Hannity on January 19 right after he was declared the winner of the SC Primary. McCain is constantly saying that conservatives opposed his plan because they didn’t trust the federal government. But that’s only partially true. They opposed the amnesty plan because they disagreed with forgiving the crimes of 20 plus million illegal aliens crashing through our borders by giving them amnesty and putting them on a special path to citizenship. Watch the video below carefully on the interview Sean Hannity conducted with McCain right after he was declared the winner in the SC Primary. When Hannity brings up the ‘Kennedy-McCain Comp. Immig. Reform’ bill, McCain’s arrogance flares as he starts laughing, dismisses the question with the “actually I’ve never changed my position”, babbles about he’s from a border state so he knows how to secure the borders (remember he has been in Congress for 26 years and has done nothing); then he quickly moves in another direction to avoid addressing Hannity’s question any further.
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=07767d08-f30d-4183-9834-1be8e37b45fb
Just a few days later during an interview with Tim Russert on MSNBC, McCain was asked if he’d sign his immigration bill if he were president and it came to his desk. McCain said, “Sure I’d sign my bill.” http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/27/video-sure-id-sign-my-immigration-bill-as-president-says-mccain//
In April of 2006, McCain spoke at an ALF-CIO convention. During his speech some questioned his immigration plan, which included putting illegal aliens on a path to citizenship. When McCain insulted the attendees work ethic by saying that illegal immigrants do jobs Americans won’t do, a number of the crowd started to boo and one shouted out, “Pay a decent wage.” McCain said he’d heard that before and that illegal immigrants do jobs Americans won’t. Then he said that he’d offer anyone present $50 an hour to pick lettuce in the hot, brutal Arizona sun for a season. When a number of people shouted they’d take it, McCain said, “You can’t do it, my friends” then hurriedly left the podium and disappeared. http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/04/05/50-an-hour-to-pick-lettuce-you-bet/
http://thismodernworld.com/2811
Michelle Malkin sums up his contemptuous nature well. Her recent article states, “His admission of the shamnesty failure is grudging and bitter…For all his supposed newfound enlightenment about what most Americans want—protection against invasion, commitment to the rule of law, meaningful employer sanctions, an end to sanctuary cities, enforcement-by-attrition plus deportation reform, and an end to special illegal alien benefits that invite more law-breaking—The Maverick remains a Geraldo Rivera Republican. Instead of emphasizing the need for local and state cooperation with federal immigration authorities to prevent the release of illegal alien criminals or discussing 100 percent preventable crimes by illegal alien thugs who should never have been on American soil in the first place, McCain harps on open-borders sob stories.”
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/23/john-mccain-the-geraldo-rivera-republican/
After the massive illegal alien protests of 2006 in American cities, McCain made the following statement; “If such demonstrations continue, I think we will have a bill for the President to sign soon. The more debate, the more demonstrations, the more likely we (illegal alien supporters) will prevail.”
Under McCain’s immigration bill, even members of Mexican drug gangs would have received amnesty by simply signing a statement in which they renounce their gang affiliation; the so-called ‘background checks’ that illegal aliens would have received were only of the 24-hour variety, which reveal very little (if anything) and would have then been given a six month worker card; Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents would have traveled the country handing-out amnesty applications to suspected illegal aliens (Not kidding!), and all immigration enforcement would have ended.
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=602835
On June 2, 2006 (Le Mars, Iowa) when McCain was questioned about why he didn’t support immigration law enforcement, his response was “In case you hadn’t noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France,” McCain said. “They’ve got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can’t even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don’t want that in the suburbs of America.” That’s right, John McCain, seeking to be President of the United States is afraid of enforcing our laws because of upsetting a group of people who are illegally present in America. Why would anyone vote for a candidate who lacks the faith, commitment and optimism to believe that America is capable of enforcing the law? What we have here is a presidential candidate who uses fear mongering and deceit to advance his commitment to giving amnesty to illegal aliens. It is also irresponsible and reckless, because it conveys a very dangerous message, which is: America is governed by the rule of law, except when the threat of anarchy and violence is too great. In which case, congress and the president will simply change the law to legalize what had been illegal, thereby pacifying those guilty of behavior once considered unlawful.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/03/mccain-without-amnesty-we-might-have-riots-here/
http://o-be-wise.blogspot.com/2007/06/mccain-fears-riots-if-illegals-deported.html
http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=13&num=13814
A revelation regarding McCain’s presidential campaign that had been totally overlooked by the MSM is that his “Hispanic Outreach Director”, Juan Hernandez, is the same guy who was a close advisor to Mexico’s President Vicente Fox! Hernandez headed up a Mexican bureaucracy called the “Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad.” It was designed to allow Hernandez to travel across the U.S., meddling with local, state, and federal immigration enforcement on behalf of millions of illegal aliens in America. ” Hernandez has been quoted as saying, “I never knew the border as a limitation. I’d be delighted if all of us could come and go between these two marvelous countries… There are twenty million people, like myself, who have one foot in Mexico and one foot in the United States, and we’re very proud of it… We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people.” U.S. born dual citizen Juan Hernandez is very notorious for having said of Mexican Americans on Nightline on June 7, 2001, “I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think Mexico first.” Does John McCain agree that they should always “think Mexico first?” With Hernandez as his “Hispanic Outreach Director”, I don’t think there is any question. Is there any reason that anyone should think open borders fanatic Dr. Hernandez wants President McCain to secure the border? Is there any reason that anyone should trust a man to secure the border if he is getting his “Hispanic Outreach” advice from Dr. Juan Hernandez? Is there any reason why anyone should not think that John McCain is committed to giving amnesty to the 20 million illegal aliens in America? When McCain was questioned about his immigration advisor by an attendee at a Florida town hall meeting during his campaign, his response was “He’s on my staff because he supports my policies…I don’t know what his previous positions are or [his] other positions are, he supports mine.” Mr. Hernandez does indeed support Mr. McCain — and that speaks volumes. http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-100152-.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIK9ZawRMlg
At the Global Competitiveness Roundtable meeting of California technology executives on May 22, 2008 McCain, with Schwartzenegger beaming at his side, advocated the comprehensive amnesty legislation he had backed with Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy last year as a solution to provide more visas for technology workers. McCain, as before, advocated a humane approach that treats illegal workers as “God’s children.” McCain has repeatedly stated his ‘God’s children” refrain ad nausem whenever he gets questioned on illegal immigration. Earth to Deep Space John: All people are “God’s children”, John. It’s just that the vast majority of Americans are adamantly opposed to giving amnesty to those that are foreign nationals with no regard of our nation’s soverignity and laws by illegally entering our country. http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=691714
Lest we forget or if anyone is unsure as to what the definition of amnesty is, I will provide it below:
AMNESTY, in relation to immigration matters, is legislation to forgive the breaking of immigration laws and to make it possible for illegal aliens to live permanently in the United States. Amnesty represents a system of federal rewards and assistance for illegal aliens, and they entice an even greater number of foreign nationals to illegally enter a country. Amnesty rewards illegal aliens with the very thing they seek by illegally entering our country…legalization of their presence here.
AMNESTY:
1. A general pardon for offenses against a government
2. An act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole
3. Forgetting or overlooking any past offense
Not only is McCain a supporter of amnesty, he is not fond of any fencing for immigration control or for security reasons. McCain said, “By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.”[Prisoner of Conscience - Vanity Fair, February 2007: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/02/mccain200702
”We are not going to erect barriers and fences” (June 5, 2007 CNN Republican Presidential Candidates Debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5G3kH1PvvU ) That’s surely true if McCain gets his way as he has demonstrated over and over again how anti-fence and border security he is. In 2006, McCain voted for the Specter Amendment to the Senate’s Immigration Bill that required consultation with Mexico to seek their approval before constructing any border fence. He’s so concerned with hurting Mexico’s feelings at the expense of our border security that he made sure the consultation language was put into the main body of the 2007 Kennedy-McCain Amnesty legislation attempt. That’s right, the Straight Talk Express who now says he’s all for border security is committed to consultations with Mexico to ask them if it would be OK if we built a border fence.
I suppose McCain has never heard of the 14-mile double-layer fence between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. Its benefits in stopping illegal entry into the U.S. were immediate and long lasting. According to a 2005 Congressional Research Service report illegal alien apprehensions along the fence region dropped from 202,000 in 1992 to 9,000 in 2004, a reduction greater than 95%.
Particularly galling is that December’s omnibus spending bill did not include the appropriations for construction of the double layer 700-mile border fence, which was passed into law just a few months earlier. Additionally, the requirement of a double-layer fence mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was removed, so if funding is ever restored, a truly effective fence being constructed is unlikely.
I’m sure if McCain was somehow elected President; one of his first official acts would be to take down the fence surrounding the White House and the Green Zone in Bhagdad…right John?
McCain advisor is Mexico’s former Mexicans Abroad Director
McCain’s “Hispanic Outreach Director”, Juan Hernandez, is the same guy who was a close advisor to Mexico’s President Vicente Fox! Hernandez headed up a Mexican bureaucracy called the “Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad.” It was designed to allow Hernandez to travel across the country, meddling with local, state, and federal immigration enforcement on behalf of millions of illegal aliens in America. Prior to aligning with the campaign staff, Hernandez has been serving in McCain’s Reform Institute as a Senior Fellow of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Initiative.
Hernandez has worked for years lobbying U.S. governors to issue drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens living in their respective states. While in his official role for the Mexican government, he pressured Western Union to lower or drop altogether their fees for wire transfers for illegal aliens sending money back home to Mexico.
Hernandez is an ardent supporter of the re-conquest by Mexico of the American Southwest, and hosted lectures on the subject at the Center for U.S.-Mexico Studies in Dallas which he founded in 1995. He once told Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) that the North American Southwest “is not two countries, it’s just a region.”
U.S. born dual citizen Juan Hernandez is notorious for having said of Mexican Americans on Nightline on June 7, 2001, “I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think Mexico first.”
Does John McCain agree that they should always “think Mexico first?” With Hernandez as his “Hispanic Outreach Director”, who began serving last year, I don’t think there is any question. Is there any reason that anyone should think open borders fanatic Dr. Hernandez wants President McCain to secure the border? Is there any reason that anyone should trust a man to secure the border if he is getting his “Hispanic Outreach” advice from Dr. Juan Hernandez? Is there any reason why anyone should not think that John McCain is committed to giving amnesty to the 20 million illegal aliens in America?
Hernandez also said to the Associated Press in 2001, “I never knew the border as a limitation. I’d be delighted if all of us could come and go between these two marvelous countries.”
Two poignant quotes below are from Hernandez’s 2007 (propaganda) book, “The New American Pioneers”:
“There are twenty million people, like myself, who have one foot in Mexico and one foot in the United States, and we’re very proud of it.”
“We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people.”
Be aware John McCain supporters. One of his closest advisors is a former Mexico cabinet member. As well as a globalist, open borders, illegal alien advocate, amnesty demanding dual citizen with his allegiance given to Mexico.
McCAIN: THE AMNESTY KING FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS
2003- Sen. McCain was a co-sponsor of S. 1645, the AgJOBS amnesty.
2003- Sen. McCain was a co-sponsor the S. 1461 amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.
2005- Sen. McCain and Sen. Kennedy introduced S.1033, the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty for virtually all illegal aliens, co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman.
2005- Sen. McCain was a co-sponsor of S. 239, the AgJOBS amnesty.
2005- Sen. McCain voted against providing funding for additional Border Patrol and ICE agents by voting against the Byrd Amendment to H.R. 1268.
2006- Sen. McCain voted against extending the border fence in the Sessions Amendment (2) to H.R. 5441.
2006- Sen. McCain voted to prevent the border fence from being built by voting in favor of the Managera Amendment to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.
2006- Sen. McCain voted to allow illegal aliens to receive Social Security by voting to table the Ensign Amendment to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.
2006- Sen. McCain voted against funding additional immigration investigators by voting against the Sessions Amendment (1) to H.R. 5441.
2006- Sen. McCain voted in favor of S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. This bill would have awarded amnesty to 10.2 million illegal aliens.
2007 Sen. McCain was heavily involved in the backroom negotiations of S. 1348 with Sen. Kennedy and Pres. Bush this was an amnesty (permanent residency & path to citizenship) for more than 10 million illegal aliens.
2007 Sen. McCain cast several votes to protect the amnesty in S. 1639 and to move the amnesty toward a vote.
2007- Sen. McCain is a co-sponsor of S. 774, the DREAM Act. The bill would grant in-state tuition and amnesty to more than a million illegal aliens under the age of 30.
2007- Sen. McCain is a co-sponsor of S. 340, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007 (AgJOBS). This bill would grant amnesty to millions of illegal agricultural workers.
How in the world can the Republican Party get saddled with a nutcase whack-job who knows nothing about economics, is so anti-capitalist he uses “profit” as a term of derision, has never run a business or had any job outside of government, will raise taxes, is so stupid that he believes “stopping global warming” is worth destroying the American economy, won’t drill ANWR to alleviate our energy deficit, won’t appoint strict constructionist justices, won’t protect marriage, would throttle free speech given another opportunity, hasn’t protected the borders in his 26 years in Congress, will give amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens, is beloved by the New York Times in addition to other liberal media, and lives in a delusionary world of rage and self-appointed war hero vanity?
Well said zeezil…I will vote for the left wing loony Obama before the two face lying worthless piece of feces Juan McAmnesty!
McCain’s Hispanic Outreach person was a Cabinet member in Mexico’s Vicente Fox’s government and is openly for reconquest of Southwest USA.
Some of his comments.
“I never knew the border as a limitation; I’d be delighted if all of us could come and go between these two marvelous countries.”
“We have recognized that the Mexican population is 100 million in Mexico and 23 million who live in the United States…We are a united nation.”
Mexican immigrants “are going to keep one foot in Mexico and are not going to assimilate.”
“We are betting that the Mexican population in the United States …will think Mexico first.”
McNut,s reasons for Amnesty
McCain’s God,s Children Argument!
Then there is they are all God,s children argument(Another McCain favor) well isn’t everyone God,s children? If so then guess McCain is saying everyone and anyone has the right to Invade this Nation, waving their flags, demand their rights, while feasting at the trough of public welfare and Kill, Rape and Rob thousands of American citizens each year! There are 100,s of millions probably billions from India, China, Africa, etc. that would like to immigrat to the USA. If it ok for Latinos to pour across our borders then unless the open borders crowd are racist it should be ok for any and all of the world people to invade this nation!
McCain’s Lettuce Argument!
There’s the “lettuce” argument — we’ll be paying $50/head (or starving)( McCain really likes this argument) if we don’t have illegal aliens working in the fields. As Phil Martin, ag economist at UC Davis shows, the field labor cost in a $1 head of lettuce is about 6 cents. Triple those wages and Americans will do the jobs. (They’re not career positions. They’re seasonal jobs for young people, starting in the world of work. I have did similarly menial jobs.) And you’ll be paying 10% more for lettuce and other produce. Do you spend $1,000/year on produce? OK, you’ll pay $100 more.
There are approx. 20 to 30 millions Illegal Aliens in the USA less than 2% work in the fields but 43 % are on Welfare. If you count their Medical cost and Educating their Spawn at a cost of 7 to 10k per year to American Tax payers as Welfare then close to 100% are on Welfare that American poor and middle class pay an average of 20k per year so the rich have a unlimited supply of slave labor and the Democrats the Welfare vote!
The lettuce argument also parallels that for the retention of slavery.
Immigrant Argument!
There’s the “everyone’s an immigrant except for the ‘Native Americans’” argument. Well, the American Indians didn’t sprout from the land, they came across the Bering land bridge from Asia. So if the criterion is “You’re an immigrant if you had an ancestor who immigrated here,” then American Indians are immigrants, too.
In that case, “immigrant” is no longer a useful word, since Everyone’s an immigrant.
Stole Southwest Argument!
There’s the “the U.S. stole the southwest” argument. Well, the land in dispute was “owned” by Spain for a couple of centuries. Then by Mexico for about 25 years. During these periods, there weren’t more than a few thousand Spaniards or Mexicans in the entire territory. It’s been owned by the U.S. for about 160 years now, much longer than Mexico’s reign. And the U.S. has actually done something with the land, made it habitable for tens of millions. As Robert Kaplan has described, the difference between American and Mexican “twin cities” straddling the border is like night and day, yet the land is obviously the same. It’s not the dirt that’s important, it’s the people. Put another way, if culture didn’t matter, Mexico and Central America would be paradise.
Illegal pay taxes Argument!
There’s the “illegal aliens pay tons of taxes” argument. Sure, they all pay real estate taxes (in rent) and sales taxes (most states). Those working on the books (typically using stolen Social Security numbers) pay FICA and, perhaps, income taxes. But they’re mostly ill-educated and low-skilled and pay very low taxes connected to their working — in fact, most claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, i.e. negative income tax! If a family with both parents working has two kids in school, that’s at least $15k/year just for schooling, way more than the taxes on, say, $35k/year aggregate income.
Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation has done the systematic accounting on all this. A typical household headed by a low-skilled illegal alien is a net drain of about $20k/year for the rest of us, year after year. (Low-skilled Americans are a similar burden, but they’re part of the national family, not gate crashers from other societies.)
Illegal Bad..Amnesty good Argument!
There’s the “illegal immigration is bad, but make them citizens and problem solved” argument. Nope. If that were the case, legalizing (i.e. amnestying) the illegal aliens would solve the problem. But they’d still be (on average) low-skilled workers whose burden on the rest of us would continue. In fact, once legal they’d be able to access more public benefits programs, so their cost to the rest of us would actually rise substantially. In short, most of the problems of mass illegal immigration are shared by mass amnestying them.
The flood of immigrants drives wages and living conditions in our central cities toward those of the Third World.
- The influx imposes both sprawl and gridlock on our metropolitan areas.
- Immigrant families needing services overwhelm our schools, taxpayer-funded health care facilities, and other public agencies.
- Those requiring services don’t assimilate and, instead, expect to be served in their native languages.
- American civic culture frays as each ethnic group establishes its own grievance lobby and pushes for preferences.
- Communicable diseases such as tuberculosis (new, drug-resistant strains) return.
- Shortages of water and other resources loom, especially in immigration-blitzed Southwest.
Most that come across our open borders come from countries where, Crime, Corruption, Poverty, Misery, Anti-education, and hate for Americans has existed for centuries and is normal. Should anyone be surprised they bring those same family values across the border with them?
I am more concerned with returning the Republican party to its conservative values than I am about who will be the next president. I have written off the next four years. It’s apparent to me that we have to burn the party down now in order to rebuild it. Moderates will continue to rule the day if McCain is elected. And there isn’t any real difference between a Republican moderate and a liberal in my book.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, so let the bashing begin….
zeezil said on 23 Jun 2008 at 9:39 am:
And don’t forget the last presidential election:
By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff | April 6, 2004
McCain has said he would not run with Kerry and has vowed to campaign for Bush, but last month he renewed speculation about a potential matchup when he was asked on ABC’s “Good Morning America” whether he would consider running with Kerry. He replied, “Obviously, I would entertain it.”
He is prone to change …..
1988: Honored by La Raza for opposing official English
Do everything I can to help all immigrants learn English
Deport 2 million illegal immigrants who committed crimes
Would no longer push his own 2006 immigration proposal
“Let me just say I’ve never supported amnesty.”
May 29, 2003 interview: “Amnesty has to be an important part …
Amnesty is forgiveness; we offer fines; lines; & long waits
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Immigration.htm
And never forget you do have a choice ….as long as it is between the two THEY choose to offer to you.
As far as the idea that Tancredo is supporting McCain, this item from an email by the Team America PAC should put that notion to rest:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PRESIDENTIAL WATCH
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Behind Closed Doors, McCain Promises Hispanics Amnesty
Maybe we’re beating a dead horse, but just in case anyone still believes John McCain when he said, “I got the message” and will “secure the border first,” this item should dispel that notion. Yesterday, McCain held a closed door meeting with Hispanic activists in Chicago where he promised “comprehensive immigration reform.”
McCain assumed they all supported his agenda, but a patriotic Hispanic named Rosanna Pulido spilled the pinto beans, and exposed McCain’s pandering. Not only was he calling for amnesty, but he was also kissing up to the Reconquistas, “I bet some of you don’t know this — did you know Spanish was spoken in Arizona before English?”
Pulido says she’s outraged “that he would reach out to me as a Hispanic but not as a conservative.”
It is funny to me that he toyed with running as Kerry’s VP and nowadays if a reporter asks him about it he just blows a gasket and then gets a pass on it.
I don’t see any quotes from Tancredo in Greg’s post.
It seems to me the most concise and catchy way to get the message across is to consistently refer to him as Juan McCain. This might be interpreted by some as an anti-Hispanic slur, but it can be taken as poking fun of McCain’s superior love for citizens of Mexico as opposed to our own. It is a defining issue.
Juan McAmnesty has a nice ring to it also.
I respect McCain’s sacrifice for this country - as I do Max Cleland’s also, for example - but I’d be very, very, very afraid to undergo a McCain presidency. Folks, this guy is a wack job. He has a split personality and a quick temper and an innate desire to pi** people off. I don’t doubt that he’s capable of bizarre behavior that would make the current President’s pale by comparison.
Hi Juan here from Juan’s Tacos, Survey says most people in America support some type of Taco Reform. I say no to taco reform. Leave tacos the way they are. We here at Juan’s Tacos are busy bringing you quality tacos at the lowest prices possible. Let’s just leave untaxed, unlicensed, unregulated tacos alone OK?
http://www.zillow.com/aerial/DualMapPage.htm?zpid=37520815
We should wait until he names a Vice, and consider the long and short term options.
Let’s all hold our breath waiting until McCain names Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo as his running mate. Like that’s going to happen — not. I’m sure we’ll all feel a great sense of relief when McCain names someone like Arlen Specter or Olympia Snowe as VP, at which time the collective conservative movement is going to fill every toilet in America with vomit.
Now, with THAT, I wholeheartedly agree, Greg!!
:)
What really happened here to cause this mini-furor in our little corner of Northern Virginia? The whole sequence of events shows that many of you can just as easily be played on the national stage as you were on the local level. Opportunistic pols told you what you wanted to hear and got themselves elected last year. When you analyze where you ended up, it’s not appreciably different than the status quo ante other than the direct and indirect costs of public silliness. Most of you still don’t realize you were had.
On this particular incident with McCain (or, to be precise, about McCain - I’m not sure McCain did anything at all), if you dig through the links and try to figure out what happened, you come down to the fact that the furor on this site (and, presumably, others like it) is totally attributable to some tossed off remarks by Ms. Rosanna Pulido. I have found no direct links to the exact content of McCain’s remarks, only to Ms. Pulido’s description of them. Even her account says only that the Senator used the phrase “comprehensive immigration reform” three times (adding her personal interpretation that she thinks of that phrase as meaning “amnesty”). Taking her account that the Senator continues to think that federal immigration reform is in the national interest at face value - is that any reason for Greg and others to go into a death spiral? All of you know that we need federal immigration reform. There may be disagreement about what the content of that reform should be, but I haven’t heard a soul defend the current situation.
In the link that Greg himself provides, there’s strong evidence that the Obama camp is acting as an agent provocateur on this. Are you guys really that controllable by the most liberal candidate since George McGovern? You’re like Pavlov’s dogs. By November you’ll be completely programmed. Child’s play.
NOVA Scout, this account was confirmed by a Spanish-language newspaper, so I think the account is legit.
While Pulido got in an uproar about “comprehensive immigration reform” what bothers me most is McCain’s depiction of immigration reform advocates such as myself as “the other side”. If he wants to declare his opposition to effectively enforcing our immigration laws and those like myself that advocate for that novel approach, I am more than happy to declare I’ve no use for this charlatan. My longstanding concerns about his views on the First Amendment (McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform”), the Second (numerous votes supporting a gun-grabber agenda), and his previous support for amnesty have not been addressed at all, but reinforced.
I’m not going to fall for this nutty idea that I have no choice but to support McCain. McCain doesn’t support me. He doesn’t support my community. He doesn’t deserve my support, and he’s not going to get it. Maybe in the long run this might help folks realize that conservatives can’t be taken for granted as a Republican voting block.
I’ve never known McCain to support an amnesty provision. I know that propagandists have had a field day saying so, but unless he’s saying just give every uninspected entrant a free pass (something I’ve never heard or seen him advocate), I am unaware of any amnesty provision that has ever received serious consideration anywhere in the federal government. Give me the link to the Spanish paper and I’ll take a look at it. “This account”, as far as I can tell from anything that you’ve offered up, is Pulido’s statement that McCain uttered the phrase “comprehensive immigration reform” three times. Again, not sure what the problem with that is unless you take the Pulido leap that “comprehensive immigration reform” is a code for amnesty. Because “amnesty” has been applied loosely to an approach that would level fines for illegal entry, I’ve always been wary of such sloppy verbiage.
NOVA Scout, the confirmation was referenced here. As far as McCain’s demonstrated policies, one really needs to look no farther than the McCain-Kennedy amnesty plan that McCain said he would not vote for, but now is saying to select audiences he would promote again.
There’s “no there there” in any of those links. McCain has said that, given the response to last year’s reform legislation, he would push for border security in the first instance and would not back reform legislation that didn’t address this point. Nothing that I can find in any of your links or elsewhere indicates that he has contradicted that position. It looks to me like you guys all jumped off a cliff because Pulido and Obama agents told you to. You’re going to be a lot worse for the wear by November if you are that programmable.
Romney will be his running mate and it’s pretty obvious they made some backroom deal before Romney dropped out and helped keep McCain in the race.
Greg you said, “I’m not going to fall for this nutty idea that I have no choice but to support McCain. McCain doesn’t support me. He doesn’t support my community. He doesn’t deserve my support, and he’s not going to get it. Maybe in the long run this might help folks realize that conservatives can’t be taken for granted as a Republican voting block.”
…and your better alternative?
Politicians are always talking about comprehensive reform.
But they end up just spinning their wheels over…
Immigration reform
Campaign finance reform
Welfare reform
Medicare reform
Social security reform
Education reform
Banking reform
Bankruptcy reform
The list is never ending
The politicians know what they must do…
re•form
1. To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition
They realized the magnitude of the task…
com•pre•hen•sive
1. So large in scope or content as to include much
So who is going to tell them…
comprehensive reform
1. Phrase not found in the Dictionary