According to an Associated Press article in the Washington Times, the Republican Party will also most likely remain silent on the issue of immigration because the positions between both Presidential candidates are so similar.
Personally, I believe McCain will be the better candidate to deal with this because Republicans will be more likely to work with him than with Obama.
ST. PAUL, Minn — It’s the unmentioned issue — Democrats were nearly silent on immigration during their convention, and on Sunday House Minority Leader John Boehner said the Republican convention won’t say much about it either.
“Probably nothing,” Mr. Boehner told reporters. “In every election cycle, some issues rise to the top and others fall to the wayside.”
The issue, which rocked the Senate in 2007, has fallen in importance in part because the election doesn’t offer voters much of a choice.
Both Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain sharing similar positions: Both men support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, though Mr. McCain now says that must come after border security, while Mr. Obama says they must be combined.
At Democrats’ convention several speakers did mention the issue, including Sen. John Kerry, who criticized Mr. McCain for backtracking from the broad bill the Republican wrote along with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.
“Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you’re against it,” he said.
I just think that Republicans will be more willing to back him because he’s Republican (no matter how many conservatives complained when he got the nod). In my opinion, that still doesn’t make him better for this job whether we’re talking immigration or other issues. As I’ve said in the past, I don’t think his “maverick” image in the GOP is warranted, as his Republican voting record is quite high. Additionally, I feel like there is a history of him caving to party pressure that hasn’t been fully addressed. Wouldn’t dancing around this issue be an example of that?
I just think that people shouldn’t count on a hunch or feeling that he will be able to “do his own thing” once in the White House. It is something I have heard many people say before. Take a careful look at his voting record, his statements, and his choices over time. If someone likes how he votes and what he stands for, they’ve found their man. If they don’t agree with his stance on the issues but just think he seems like a good guy, I’m hoping they’ll dig a little deeper.
Apparently Bob Dole completely ignored the republican platform when he was running for office.
I have already seen McCain back off his firm stance for border control and reform as a parallel objective. That does concern me. I hope its just to appease that faction of the party.
Alanna, I love you, you are a hero to this community but I have to disagree with your saying McCain will get more cooperation from Republicans in Congress, therefore we should elect McCain over Obama. It may seem at times like the majority of Republicans put their partisan interests first and then worry about living up to the unfortunate slogan McCain likes to use about “country first.” But that is not always the case. And let’s remember, the Democrats have the majority in both houses of Congress and by all estimations will increase their margins this election. So if there is any weight to the theory that Congress members only cooperate with Presidents of their same party, you might take a closer look at Obama if you want to avoid partisan gridlock.
But honestly, I don’t expect Republicans in Congress to work against the best interests of the country and attack our head of state rather than do their jobs as elected leaders, just because he is not of their party. That’s what they chose to do during the Clinton years, hoping the country would fail under Clinton to teach voters a lesson, and doing all in their power to see to it.
(That aristocrat lobbyist who called us “whiners” for being in a “mental recession” a few months back, you know, former Senator Grahmm who wrote McCain’s economic policy? Well he was in Congress when Clinton was President. He predicted and hoped for an economic collapse when Clinton put his economic plan to work, but was quite happy when Bush got into office to impliment an economic policy more to his liking, go look it up.)
But the one thing we all remember about Republicans during the Clinton years was they cooked up one false “scandal” after another (I noticed someone on this blog still believes the White Water and Travel Office propaganda even though it’s long since been debunked, hilarious).
Anyway in the ’90’s Republicans tried to impose gridlock and cause this country to fail because the President was a Democrat. Clinton’s Presidency and the American economy suceeded despite such partisan behavior. And the voters made the Republicans pay, reelecting Clinton by a landslide in 1994 and handing them defeats in the 1998 midterm election.
So I doubt very much if they’ll do the same thing in 2009. And even if I did believe Congressional Republicans would work against a Democratic President and against this country for four years, I’m not sure that is a good reason to reward them with a vote for their Presidential candidate.
Feels a little like blackmail to me.
Oops. Reelction of President Clinton was 1996 of course.
The prospect of another 4 years of oily republicans is a scary prospect for the world.
In 2006, McCain co-sponsored the Senate immigration bill that would have legalized millions of immigrants in the U.S., strengthened border control and created a guest-worker program. As a presidential candidate, he has since said he believes in securing the borders before legalizing immigrants. He has called for strengthening penalties for those who hire undocumented immigrants. Obama voted for the Senate immigration bill to strengthen border controls, create a guest-worker program and legalize millions of foreign workers. Obama also backed the Secure Fence Act. He co-sponsored a bill to allow states to offer illegal immigrants in-state tuition. Since then there has been virtual silence on the topic on the presidential campaign trail.
In 2006, McCain co-sponsored the bipartisan McCain-Kennedy immigration bill — also supported by Obama. The bill would have stepped up enforcement at the border and in the workplace. It also would have expanded guest-worker programs and legalized millions of undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. if they paid fines, paid back taxes and learned English. Many conservatives said the bill was “amnesty” and helped stir up a grass-roots backlash. By 2007, as McCain was gearing up for his presidential bid, he backed down. When the Senate crafted legislation that year, he was nowhere to be seen, and some critics fault his absence for the bill’s eventual failure.
In January of 2008, Tim Russert asked McCain if he would support his own immigration bill if it came to him as president, McCain rejected the notion. McCain now says he would have Southwest state governors first certify the border was secure before expanding any legal visas. A flip-flop on the issue.
If elected either President McCain or President Obama might lessen some of the more aggressive immigration enforcement. In an interview last year Obama spoke about a different approach to workplace enforcement. He also said he was not impressed by the raids on plants that grab handfuls of undocumented workers and send them home. He feels there should be more serious employer sanctions.
It is probably doubtful that either McCain or Obama will make immigration a priority in their first term but I think it will come.
Imagine you’re running down the street to get some medicine to your diabetic mom who urgently needs it.
Then you turn down a street and run smack dab into a political protest.
You think this will slow you down but that you’ll get through it.
However, as you work your way through the crowd, you don’t realize that police have surrounded you and will not let anyone leave. They have in effect arrested everyone.
When you reach the police line, you naturally try to get through since you’re not doing anything wrong right? They refuse to let you through. You’re getting more worried about your mother’s condition so you stupidly try to push through and this is what happens to you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxQwdnZ5v00
So you end up in prison for trying to get from point A to point B. In the land of the free.
What you didn’t realize is that the police had a plan to trap these people. That’s right, ‘trap’ them…like what hunters do to animals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoAVce-Rc2c
Do you think these hired guns will believe that you need to get some medicine to your mother and let you go?
The fact that our elected and appointed officials take an oath to defend the constitution is a ruse meant to deceive us into believing that we can trust them.
In this mornings WAPO it was reported that the Rep Party platform has adopted a “no Amnesty” policy in direct opposition to their nominee McCain. Working together? The only way there is going to be any kind of comprehensive immigration reform in this country is if the Dems. sweep this fall. An overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress and possibly a Dem. president would have the Reps. more concerned with “job security” than policy. I think their stagedy would be to let reform occur and then hope for some sort of major failure that could be used as a political taking point to hammer the Dems. in future elections. BTW, the Rep. platform also calls for a Constitutional Amendment banning “same-sex” marriages. This issue will be decided in one way or another this fall. We must think this thing through before voting.
Good point, Ivan.
Whoops! Sorry. Make that the MJM (page A8) It is kinda early.
I agree that an Obama Presidency will be less permissive and Amnesty-oriented, for two reasons :
1. Obama will go after employers and push to turn the jobs magnet off, which will have more of an effect than scattered workplace raids. McCain almost certainly won’t.
2. An Obama Presidency will jolt the GOP into realizing that any type of Amnesty equals tens of millions of new non-white voters and ensures losses in the next 10-20 elections. They and their media mounthpieces will go APES*** at the prospect.
Still, both men will push for some form of amnesty. It’s our job as Americans to react vociferously and make this issue the new third rail of politics. Won’t you all please join me in phoning and faxing your elected representatives and berating them as harshly as you can without using profanity as soon as the issue comes ANYWHERE NEAR the floor of Congress again.
Latinos will go to the polls in record numbers this fall and hand the republican party a devastating defeat across the board.
Then the republican party will never try this crap again.
Any politician with a brain will avoid the word “amnesty.” That word needs to be removed from everyone’s vovabulary. It means nothing.
kgottardt,
I agree with you regarding the word ‘amnesty.’ That is one of those words that has been hi-jacked by a political movement for political purposes. The political movement has given it a totally new meaning. Therefore it means nothing other than to those faithful to the movement.
Both Obama and McCain are smart politicians and may, when pushed, dance
around immigration, but attempt, for the most part, to avoid it.
For now, it appears the avid anti-immigrant (especially the undocumented)
crowd has lost – no matter how the presidential election turns out. On this issue,
they have no dog left in the fight.
Poor Richard,
Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. The term ‘balance’ keeps coming up. Yes, we need reform. No we aren’t going to deport 12 millon undocumented immigrants.
I expect the zealots will posture and thump and try to make loud noises in hopes of convincing everyone that they are far more politically powerful than they actually are.
Communities will continue to have their Coreys and their Gregs to keep the momentum alive and the dog in the fight.
Rick Bentley, 1. September 2008, 9:18 said:
“Still, both men will push for some form of amnesty. It’s our job as Americans to react vociferously and make this issue the new third rail of politics. Won’t you all please join me in phoning and faxing your elected representatives and berating them as harshly as you can without using profanity as soon as the issue comes ANYWHERE NEAR the floor of Congress again.”
I certainly will act vociferously and try to make this the new third rail of politics but I will be pushing for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. As a matter of fact, I have been writing letters, calling and faxing but not for the same reasons as you, Rick.
This issue is far too big to ignore, is very complex and reform is needed. As Moon-Howler stated we are not going to deport 12 million undocumented residents.
You can say what you want but immigration reform will come, maybe not this first year but it will surely come.
Pick up Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope” and read through the chapter titled “Race”. It clarifies his position(s) on illegal immigration. I believe he may recognize it’s in America’s best intersts to turn off the jobs magnet and encourage people to self-deport. He doesn’t want the caste society we’ve been moving towards.
Of course, he panders to Hispanic crowds as McCain does and race identity politics may well preclude any such patriotic gesture. However with the continued outcry against Amnesty, I have a feeling no one should hold their breath for any type of “Amnesty”, i.e. legalization of those here illegally.
Do you think if Obama’s 17 year old was pregnant it would be received the same way?????
Just wondering. 🙂
Perhaps in the immediate future, “Reform” may take the form of simply cutting funding for ICE and shifting that money over to stronger border security. It would not require any new legislation, just shifting of budgetary priorities.
NotGregLetiecq said “(I noticed someone on this blog still believes the White Water and Travel Office propaganda even though it’s long since been debunked, hilarious).”
I am really glad that you find it hilarious. First off, nothing was debunked. There are numerous points made by the Independent Counsel (not Ken Starr by the way but nonetheless appointed by, I guess you would call her, the Clinton hater, Janet Reno.) The only conclusion was that they would find it difficult to get a conviction of a sitting president and first lady–not that the lying expecially in the travel office case didn’t take place. I will be glad to provide links to the Independent Counsel’s report.
By the way, my comment was:
“they also include the firing of the travel staff (a nonpolitical structure), the making of thousands of dollars by Hilary in a stock issue, Whitewater (which I still feel had some merit just not proven) and frankly during the campaign, Hilary and Bill showed how truly nasty they could be.” And I stick with what I said. If you doubt the travel office case, do some research on the internet about whether they were eventually offered other government jobs–so much for allegation by the White House of these awful employees stealing and other financial malfeasance. Perhaps before you laugh too much, it may be that I may know something of the consequences of the White House actions.
The other comment was Watergate in which all I said that I felt it may have had merit just not proven.
Rick, I haven’t read Obama’s book, but he is fairly vague on his website about the 12-20 million undocumented persons:
From http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/ImmigrationFactSheet.pdf
And a little more detail from the McCain camp at http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a70dd8416efa.htm
I am a little concerned with McCain’s generic “Ensure that families are reunited” statement on his website (how does he define “family,” and how levels of “family” will be reunited?) but otherwise both candidates seem to be singing a similar song, and the sands seem to be shifting a little on Obama’s views.
True, both candidates for President have somewhat similar views on immigration reform that nearly, if not exactly, match the sitting President’s view. As we all know, the bill in 2007 failed despite the support of the Executive’s Office. So lets not fool anyone here that the President’s support alone will pass immigration reform.
So it comes down to what bill, if any, can get through Congress. Of course, Congress has a lower approval rating than the President as I write. Unless Congress has the courage (and I do not think they do) to address Immigration reform and forwards legislation to the next President to sign, once again, nothing will be done.
It really does not matter who wins the Presidency, its all about the ability of the next Congress to break their deadlock and paralyzing behavior – on both sides of the aisle. Pelosi is as pitiful as Boehner.
Lucky, I agree with you that neither candidate will be able to break the immigration-reform paralysis on his own,no matter how encouraging the rhetoric.Congress is too beholden to special interests to allow any threats to them–primarily businesses big and small that thrive on cheap labor. So I guess what it really comes down to is that we need comprehensive Congressional reform before we can even dream about comprehensive immigration reform. Let’s take a good hard look at the 435 so that we can arrive at a consensus for the 12-20 million.
Emma, here’s my personal interpretation of what to expect from those 2 candidates.
Obama understands that the issue is primarily about wages and business reducing wages. He will want to enact the type of reform that will pressure employers not to hire illegals with impunity (a situation that Bush is a chief architect of, though he has belatedly supported efforts at raids, out of either petulance at ). He is a big believer that families shouldn’t be seperated, and probably will be less prone to ICE raiding workplaces and deporting people ad hoc. He wants a compromise, wants to split the difference – let some number become citizens and keep the rest illegal, with the jobs magnet turning off and drawing far less illegals in in the future. I predict that’s what he’ll try to do as President, another Amnesty deal, but public pressure will push it further out – you will have to have been here for more than a year or two or 5, more like 10, and I think the thing will probably collapse. And we’ll have something like the status quo. I am hopeful though that he might manage to help turn the jobs magnet off and prevent waves more of illegal aliens.
McCain in my opinion stands as a f***ing idiot full of complete lies. He has no plan to address the jobs magnet – instead he speaks in falsehoods about “securing the border” which we know is not possible if when once in illegal aliens are safe sound and gainfully employed. It’s just the boldest most transparent of lies. “Guarantee that no person here illegally receives a green card before those that have been legally waiting outside the country. ” Right, because it’s pretty well-established he wants to grant them Amnesty in the form of citizenship, not green cards. I expect that a McCain Presidency would give us the status quo, no hope of turning off the jobs magnet, and that his attempts at Amnesty would go down in flames.
Things will either remain exactly the same, or maybe get a little better, unless and until the American people start to udnerstand what is going on and force the government to do what is best and stop coddling illegal aliens. I will bet you dollars to donuts there either is no “compromise solution” i.e. Amnesty, or that if there is it will be one where a heck of a lot of people have to wave bye-bye.
I see amnesty in the future, Rick, because it’s the path of least resistance and won’t p*ss off business interests or the Hispanic vote. Raids are a stupid waste of time and resources, because they don’t get at the problem of the jobs welcome mat and rarely punish the employers in any meaningful way.
I still would like to understand what both candidates mean when they say they want to ensure that families are reunited. How do they define “family”–aunts, uncles, cousins, godparents-when the 12-20 million become 24-40 milllion? Just wondering.
Both candidates are dishionest and fuzzy on any definition.
Amnesty won’t happen. We the people still run this country.
I think there is a fatal flaw in this discussion itself. Before we speak of the ‘illegal immigration problem’, first we should determine if an ‘illegal immigration problem’ actually exists.
I don’t think an ‘illegal immigration problem’ actually exists. Illegal immigration is just a symptom. The real problem is a deficient and corrupt bureaucracy called ICE. There’s no reason in the world that they cannot issue enough visas to meet the demand for labor. All the other problems we’re talking about have ICE as the root problem.
So how do we fix this bureaucracy?
good question mackie!
It’s not ICE that’s dysfunctional, it’s our government. They deliberately do not give ICE the resoutces to do what you suggest. It’s Obama, McCain, Clinton, Warner, etc.
The problem is, the American people have one consensus and the elitists who run us have another. They’re sticking to their guns as hard as they can but it’s not enough.
ICE cannot and does not set the visa limits…Congress sets those numbers. So that kinda takes the air out this argument. We DO have an “illegal immigration” problem.
“Moreover, this tiny economic benefit was entirely erased by the fiscal drain
immigrant households imposed on taxpayers. Perhaps worst of all, the
researches found that to generate this small gain, immigration reduced the
wages of the least educated and poorest Americans.”
“How Many Americans?”
By Steven Camorata
Wash. Post op/ed (9-2-2008)
This is primarily an economic issue – and while I don’t accept everything in
Mr. Camorata’s article as the gospel truth – he is on the right page for many American
citizens. What is the impact on us economically? Yes, it is
most often the best choice for the undocumented to come to our country,
but what about the people already here? What is fair and right for us?
Poor Richard, Steven Camorata is director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, an affiliate of FAIR. FAIR has tended to monopolize much of the debate about immigration in this country because it came out early and vocally – both for very limited immigration and zero population growth. It has an agenda which can’t be ignored. And it’s also responsible for PWC’s current brouhaha.
I’m not sure that truly unbiased data about the costs/benefits of immigration – legal and otherwise – is available. It seems logical to say that native-born Americans at the lower end of the wage scale may have their wages driven down by immigrants willing to work for less. It’s true in some cases and not in others. Sometimes the influx of immigrants allows a business to continue to operate when it would have a labor shortage otherwise. (And the locals may be unemployed if the business closes or relocates.)
Censored by bvbl, Mr. Camorata’s article appeared in the Washington
Post and not a right wing rag like the Washington Times so it
deserves some weight. Still, like you, I don’t accept it all on faith.
Both sides need to end the name calling and dueling images of Hispanics.
We need to work with unbiased concrete facts – or as close as we can get.
“One of the most basic facts is that immigrants cost local governments
money even as they fill federal coffers with income, especially from
payroll taxes. ‘ The tax cost are local, but the tax windfalls are
national, ‘ says Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at the
National Council of La Raza, ‘ and there is othing local governments
can do.’ ”
“A Debate Beyond The Fence”
by E. J. Dionne (Wash. Post – 5-26-2006)
Segments of American society – like poor,less educated individuals and local
governments have suffered from rapid demographic changes.
That is a fact we all should recognize and address.
Detectives from the City of Manassas Police Department are actively
investigating a homicide that occurred early Sunday morning.
According to reports, officers responded to the 9600 block of Grant Avenue
just a few minutes after midnight on August 31, 2008 to investigate a report
of an assault. When they arrived, they found 24-year-old Carlos Roas-Escalante
unconscious in a parking lot suffering from apparent knife wounds.
Rescue was summoned to the scene, but he succumbed to his injuries.
The Medical Examiner’s office will be conducting an autopsy to determine the
cause and manner of death.
Anyone with any information about this case is encouraged to call the
Manassas City Crimesolvers at 703-330-0330.
(Note: 9600 Grant is between the GTS shopping center and the RR overpass.)