Jeb Bush: Give 11 Million Immigrants Chance to Stay

[DCPatriot]

FLASH:  There is no way ANYBODY is going to be deported.  If anything, the next Republican president will shift away from the current African/Middle-East 'preference' and open the doors to Caucasian Europeans.  Those fleeing the Islamic tide.

No sir/mam.  They will be given citizenship with full voting rights.

As Cher said, with a loud slap to the face in Moonstruck...SNAP OUT OF IT!!

We all should know that Jeb Bush is right.   There is no other way, if you ever expect to win another election for the next 60 years.

I am no Jeb Bush fan running for POTUS.   The Bush name makes it a cakewalk to victory for the Democrats.  And it pisses me off that evidently he doesn't 'see' that.

What the hell kind of air do they breathe?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Hispanic Americans and Latino Americans (Spanish: hispanos [isˈpanos], latinos) are an ethnolinguistic group of Americans with genealogical origins in the countries of Latin America and Spain.[5][6][7] More generally it includes all persons in the United States who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino whether fully or partially. Hispanics form an ethnicity sharing a language (Spanish) and cultural heritage, rather than a race.

[Luis Gonzalez]

FLASH:  There is no way ANYBODY is going to be deported.  If anything, the next Republican president will shift away from the current African/Middle-East 'preference' and open the doors to Caucasian Europeans.  Those fleeing the Islamic tide.

No sir/mam.  They will be given citizenship with full voting rights.

As Cher said, with a loud slap to the face in Moonstruck...SNAP OUT OF IT!!

We all should know that Jeb Bush is right.   There is no other way, if you ever expect to win another election for the next 60 years.

I am no Jeb Bush fan running for POTUS.   The Bush name makes it a cakewalk to victory for the Democrats.  And it pisses me off that evidently he doesn't 'see' that.

What the hell kind of air do they breathe?

I think that if every candidate told us where they truly stood on hot button topics, rather than what they know they have to say in order to get support, we wouldn't like any of them, because basically, and as you stated the problem so clearly, the only viable solution is unpalatable to most.

If Reagan, this age's conservative icon, only saw one viable solution, who in the field is better than Reagan to come up with a better solution?

[Luis Gonzalez]

And some of those things he has said are disturbing. It all depends on what he means by legal status.

What did it mean to Reagan?

[MACVSOG68]

Funny, isn't it?

Jeb is the only candidate taking a clearly stated position on the issue of illegal immigrants already in the country, and for that, he's getting hammered as a "squishy, liberal, moderate", while the candidates dancing, skirting and avoiding the issue altogether are "rock solid conservatives".

Me?

I'd rather make a decision on who to support based on their clearly stated policy positions than on rhetoric and political platitudes that create in my head an unsubstantiated picture of what I think that candidate will do about matters that are important to me.

Hard to argue with.

[MACVSOG68]

Let me guess - those bills died an ugly death, quietly in committee.

Actually neither did.  They were filibustered to death by Republicans.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If what constitutes an ethnicity can be molded by a common language, then all the people in this picture are one ethnicity.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Actually neither did.  They were filibustered to death by Republicans.

By conservatives in the Republican Party.

[DCPatriot]

I think that if every candidate told us where they truly stood on hot button topics, rather than what they know they have to say in order to get support, we wouldn't like any of them, because basically, and as you stated the problem so clearly, the only viable solution is unpalatable to most.

If Reagan, this age's conservative icon, only saw one viable solution, who in the field is better than Reagan to come up with a better solution?

I think the key and solution for us...as voters and active citizens who care about governmental control, is to keep reminding ourselves that the outrage and screams we'll be hearing on the forums doesn't represent what the majority believe and want.

'We' are not as strong a voting bloc as some of us think we are. 

Otherwise, we're no different than Jeb Bush's mindset.  And, IMO, that's dangerous.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I think the key and solution for us...as voters and active citizens who care about governmental control, is to keep reminding ourselves that the outrage and screams we'll be hearing on the forums doesn't represent what the majority believe and want.

'We' are not as strong a voting bloc as some of us think we are. 

Otherwise, we're no different than Jeb Bush's mindset.  And, IMO, that's dangerous.

Yeah...

That whole "no man is an island" thing is blown all to s#it in here, isn't it?

[Lando Lincoln]

Stop making sense guys...

[Bigun]

I think the key and solution for us...as voters and active citizens who care about governmental control, is to keep reminding ourselves that the outrage and screams we'll be hearing on the forums doesn't represent what the majority believe and want.

'We' are not as strong a voting bloc as some of us think we are. 

Otherwise, we're no different than Jeb Bush's mindset.  And, IMO, that's dangerous.

Personally I couldn't care less about voting blocs! All I care about is electing people who will follow the Constitution and enforce the laws as they exist! NOT as they wish they existed!

[Free Vulcan]

What did it mean to Reagan?

Nice rhetorical sidestep there, but that cutsie stuff doesn't mean crap to me. I loved Reagan but by no means was he policy perfect. He had the kind of missteps of the moment that we all look back and regret, and he regretted that decision. Of course that came the promise from the Dems that they'd fix the system and the lied. Not biting a second time on that.

I'm strictly looking at what needs to be done going forward, and have zero desire to reward anyone who came here illegally then parked their ass on welfare while committing heinous crimes.  I'm willing though to give them a temporary reprieve while at the same time offering the carrot to streamline the immigration process so that it doesn't take so long to properly achieve legal status. But with that comes the idea that they need to have a job and keep their record clean and pay their taxes, and no identity theft crap either. We seal the border, e-verify, then institute reciprocal agreements and job sponsoring.

Those that can't cut it will be deported. Many will self-deport, much like what we saw when the economy collapsed in '08 and when various states tightened their own laws. We will put the squeeze on them and let the cream rise to the top. There is no instant solution, since we don't have the cajones to do what Eisenhower did, but a long term plan that steadily rights the ship is possible and workable.

I have no problem with Mexicans. They are hard workers, and where I grew up we had a community that have been there many generations, and many are lifelong friends. But I hate cheats and freeloaders of any stripe and that kind of thing has to stop. I also hate our leaders who pimp them for votes and want to give them the farm just because 'they are already here'.

[MACVSOG68]

By conservatives in the Republican Party.

Heh.  I prefer to use the term "right wing" rather than conservative. 

[Free Vulcan]

Actually neither did.  They were filibustered to death by Republicans.

How much crap though were in those bills that wasn't good? Knowing the Dems were in control, I expect they were all trojan horses.

[MACVSOG68]

Personally I couldn't care less about voting blocs! All I care about is electing people who will follow the Constitution and enforce the laws as they exist! NOT as they wish they existed!

Wouldn't that eliminate Senator Cruz then, given that in your opinion he isn't a natural born citizen?

[MACVSOG68]

How much crap though were in those bills that wasn't good? Knowing the Dems were in control, I expect they were all trojan horses.

Conservatives will never again see anything approaching those two bills.  They required certified border control, certified new employer sanctions, certification of new biometric id for all those entering the Country, even before any legalization could take place.  Those to be legalized had to have a job, no serious criminal issues, no gang history, no welfare throughout the legalization process, and pay a series of fines and penalties as well as go to the back of the line.  Additionally, the bills ended chain migration and the diversity lottery.  The new laws would require only those allowed in under any type of permanent status to have education and skills that complied with a congressionally approved list of needs within the Country.  And of course, Americans to be offered any new job availability before immigrants.  It wasn't amnesty, as each had to be background checked, and as I said pay a series of fines and penalties.

What is it you would like to see in an immigration reform package that wasn't covered?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Nice rhetorical sidestep there, but that cutsie stuff doesn't mean crap to me. I loved Reagan but by no means was he policy perfect. He had the kind of missteps of the moment that we all look back and regret, and he regretted that decision. Of course that came the promise from the Dems that they'd fix the system and the lied. Not biting a second time on that.

I'm strictly looking at what needs to be done going forward, and have zero desire to reward anyone who came here illegally then parked their ass on welfare while committing heinous crimes.  I'm willing though to give them a temporary reprieve while at the same time offering the carrot to streamline the immigration process so that it doesn't take so long to properly achieve legal status. But with that comes the idea that they need to have a job and keep their record clean and pay their taxes, and no identity theft crap either. We seal the border, e-verify, then institute reciprocal agreements and job sponsoring.

Those that can't cut it will be deported. Many will self-deport, much like what we saw when the economy collapsed in '08 and when various states tightened their own laws. We will put the squeeze on them and let the cream rise to the top. There is no instant solution, since we don't have the cajones to do what Eisenhower did, but a long term plan that steadily rights the ship is possible and workable.

I have no problem with Mexicans. They are hard workers, and where I grew up we had a community that have been there many generations, and many are lifelong friends. But I hate cheats and freeloaders of any stripe and that kind of thing has to stop. I also hate our leaders who pimp them for votes and want to give them the farm just because 'they are already here'.

Perfect policies in line with strict ideological borderlines are illogical and unrealistic in a nation where all ideologies have a seat at the table. That's what Reagan knew and you don't.

[Free Vulcan]

And you are an idiot and a hypocrite. It's obvious you have your own rigid ideology by the way you keep shifting and sidestepping the point, because you don't want to look at things logically and admit something might have to be done outside that rigid ideology.

I'm not going to support amnesty, even Reagan style amnesty. We've been down that road and got burnt, and hopefully are wiser the second time. That's what you want, but that's not what is needed to solve the problem.

[Free Vulcan]

Conservatives will never again see anything approaching those two bills.  They required certified border control, certified new employer sanctions, certification of new biometric id for all those entering the Country, even before any legalization could take place.  Those to be legalized had to have a job, no serious criminal issues, no gang history, no welfare throughout the legalization process, and pay a series of fines and penalties as well as go to the back of the line.  Additionally, the bills ended chain migration and the diversity lottery.  The new laws would require only those allowed in under any type of permanent status to have education and skills that complied with a congressionally approved list of needs within the Country.  And of course, Americans to be offered any new job availability before immigrants.  It wasn't amnesty, as each had to be background checked, and as I said pay a series of fines and penalties.

What is it you would like to see in an immigration reform package that wasn't covered?

You dodged the point. What did the Dems put in that created some loophole to make the law crap and advance their liberal agenda? No doubt there was something, and they knew that when they did it to get the GOP to reject it.

[truth_seeker]

Wouldn't that eliminate Senator Cruz then, given that in your opinion he isn't a natural born citizen?

The definition that I understood for "natural born citizen" would have precluded Cruz, due to birth outside the US.

When George Romney ran in 1968, a legal opinion was written for the Congress, which concluded he was NOT eligible, because he was born in Mexico, although to US citizen parents. It didn't matter, because Romney dropped out, and many other issues and topics dominated politics and the news that year.

When all the controversy arose over Obama, mention of McCain arose, and the bill passed to deem him eligible.

McCain was born in an hospital in Panama while his Navy father served there. It was tantamount to declaring the location of a hospital and the father's service, were equivalent to a diplomatic situation.

The historical determination was either born in the US, or if born abroad must be diplomatic status.

Following that interpretation Cruz would NOT be eligible, but Rubio and Obama would be eligible.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You dodged the point. What did the Dems put in that created some loophole to make the law crap and advance their liberal agenda? No doubt there was something, and they knew that when they did it to get the GOP to reject it.

You opposed the bill but you don't know what was in it that you would object to?

And you call me an idiot?

[massadvj]

In principle I agree with Bush on this issue, but I take issue with the idea of "granting legal status" to illegal immigrants.  This granting will inevitably lead to bureaucracy, patronage, a path to citizenship and the conferring of public benefits as the president expands policies and the courts weigh in once the law is enacted.  I would prefer simply "removing the illegal status" so that these people are not prevented from exercising their fundamental human rights in this country if they so choose.  Beyond that, there should be no capability for them to receive public benefits or influence public policy in any way, shape or form.  And there should definitely be no "path to citizenship," which is code for "use your numbers to vote yourself benefits from the public purse."

Some are arguing that the proposals that were defeated were the best we could do.  Not true.  None of the amnesty proposals put forward was better than simply keeping the existing laws in place.  The existing law is flawed, but it is better than new bureaucracies, expanded benefits and basically letting the Democrats add 10 million people o their party so they can accelerate their time clock for turning the country into a socialist "paradise" like Cuba, Venezuela or Argentina.

[MACVSOG68]

You dodged the point. What did the Dems put in that created some loophole to make the law crap and advance their liberal agenda? No doubt there was something, and they knew that when they did it to get the GOP to reject it.

I dodged no point.  I told you what the main parts of the bills were.  And the GOP didn't reject it, a handful filibustered it.  Had it gone to a vote, it would have passed.  Those who voted to continue the debate were influenced by issues having nothing to do with the bill itself, but rather attempts to paint all Hispanic/Latinos as drug peddling, tax cheating welfare chasing rapists who refuse to speak English, and come here simply to make and drop off babies.  Much easier for Tanton's groups to go after non-Europeans in general than issues within the bill, especially since most Americans wanted exactly what was in the proposed legislation.

What Obama has done in his "amnesty" program is deplorable.  But the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves.  In almost every poll for the past 10 to 12 years, most Americans want comprehensive immigration reform, and want some type of legalization for those already here.  No one, either R or D is going to deport 11 million illegals, not now, not ever.  It's time the GOP woke up and determine to deal with it, rather than put it off year after year. 

It's not just about better border security or employer sanctions, legalization decisions or a multitude of other absurd sections of the current law.  It's about all of it!  And that's the only way it can be dealt with.

[Luis Gonzalez]

In principle I agree with Bush on this issue, but I take issue with the idea of "granting legal status" to illegal immigrants  This granting will inevitably lead to bureaucracy, patronage, a path to citizenship and the conferring of public benefits as the president expands policies and the courts weigh in once the law is enacted.  I would prefer simply "removing the illegal status" so that these people are not prevented from exercising their fundamental human rights in this country if they so choose.  Beyond that, there should be no capability for them to receive public benefits or influence public policy in any way, shape or form.  And there should definitely be no "path to citizenship," which is code for "use your numbers to vote yourself benefits from the public purse."

Some are arguing that the proposals that were defeated were the best we could do.  Not true.  None of the amnesty proposals put forward was better than simply keeping the existing laws in place.  The existing law is flawed, but it is better than new bureaucracies, expanded benefits and basically letting the Democrats add 10 million people o their party so they can accelerate their time clock for turning the country into a socialist "paradise" like Cuba, Venezuela or Argentina.

That's a single generation issue.

The children of illegal aliens, irrespective of their parent's legal status, will be born US citizens, with all rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution. So then, in a strictly political sense, are Republicans better off marginalizing that future voting block or just bitting the bullet now and making a play for it?