PAT CADDELL: 'HIGHER ORDERS' FROM 'OTHER MASTERS' PREVENTING GOP ESTABLISHMENT FROM RUNNING AGAINST AMNESTY

[Bigun]

Luis wrote above:
[[ So Bigun, you don't support comprehensive reform of our immigration laws? ]]

I’m not Bigun, but I can tell you point blank that no, I DO NOT support comprehensive reform — or ANY kind of — “reform” to our immigration laws.

Enforce the existing laws — and there are PLENTY of them — that are on the books FIRST.

SECURE THE BORDER first.

The only thing I want to see “reformed” is the Fourteenth Amendment, and have it modified to remove “birthright citizenship” regardless of parental status. We can do this through an Article V “Convention of the States”.

The RINOS on this forum will tell you that we need “immigration reform”, just as the leftists will tell you we need “election reform”.

In either case, “reform” is a euphemism to subvert our existing laws and practices.

Reform?
NO !!!!

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/07/09/birthright-citizenship-is-flatly-unconstitutional/?subscriber=1

[sinkspur]

And in direct opposition to your statement, he's currently trashing Republicans. So, one can conclude that you just wanted to smear Caddell in some way?

He says what his audience wants him to say.  He's now trashing "establishment" Republicans, right?  On FOXNEWS, that appeals to a huge swath of their audience. 

Cadell is an opportunist.  Nothing wrong with that, as long as everybody knows what he is.

[Luis Gonzalez]

No sir I do not! But  I would HIGHLY support ENFORCING the ones we currently have!

So you don't want the laws that are in place which allows for all the hearings and delays in deportation and catch and release re-written to disallow for all those things?

The biggest problem that we have is that there are bad laws in place that are being enforced which basically achieve the exact opposite of how you think immigration laws are supposed to work.

So yes... I want immigration reform, and I want all those laws and procedures dismantled.

[Luis Gonzalez]

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/07/09/birthright-citizenship-is-flatly-unconstitutional/?subscriber=1

Yet, that notion carries the weight of law.

That would be one of those laws that when you and Fishrrman say "I want the existing laws enforced" do get enforced because it is an existing law.

Think beyond the slogans guys. No matter whose slogans they are.

[aligncare]

Of course, one can always go and look at them.  Problem with that of course is that one would have to find a reason why poll after poll is part of a huge conspiracy, especially when the same polls show results of issues favorable to the conservatives.

I don't like them because I know how they are done and for what purpose they are done.  (It isn't to measure anyone's opinion but rather influence it!)

It's not a huge conspiracy. Nor is it a deliberate manipulation of questions and answers by a polling group. It is, however, a mind set that characterizes a preponderance of folks who go into the news gathering business. It's below the conscious level, subtly influencing survey design and interpretation of findings. It's no more nefarious than that. It's just liberals being liberal.

[MACVSOG68]

I don't like them because I know how they are done and for what purpose they are done.  (It isn't to measure anyone's opinion but rather influence it!)

I can understand that way of thinking, though I don't agree with it.  When I'm curious about a particular poll, I simply go to the site, look at the questions, the sample size, the confidence level, the margin of error, and any evidence of sampling bias.  Push polls are easy to spot and should be taken with a grain of salt. 

But since some here believe that a majority of Americans don't want any sort of comprehensive reform, it should be up to them to substantiate that.  How else do you find out what 320 million people are thinking than statistical samples?

I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't believe Obama's approvals are in the tank.  How did we find that out? 

Or it could just be another issue like "faith", recently debated here.  You just believe it.   

[MACVSOG68]

The RINOS on this forum will tell you that we need “immigration reform”, just as the leftists will tell you we need “election reform”.

ESAD JimRob.  Given your expressed aspirations of taking the Country back for the white Europeans, I doubt you've cast too many votes for Republicans in any case.

[MACVSOG68]

It's not a huge conspiracy. Nor is it a deliberate manipulation of questions and answers by a polling group. It is, however, a mind set that characterizes a preponderance of folks who go into the news gathering business. It's below the conscious level, subtly influencing survey design and interpretation of findings. It's no more nefarious than that. It's just liberals being liberal.

As I said earlier, it's easy to look at the questions.  For example we know that most of the media has been supportive of Obama to say the least.  But I don't know how they do much subtle designing with a question like "Do you support President Obama"?  As I've said before, when a poll comes out that supports a principle we share, we don't usually question it.  For example, most Americans want to allow abortions, but with limits.  Only about a quarter of the Nation wants unrestricted abortions. 

For 15 years Gallup has asked people if they want to see handguns banned.  Two-thirds to Three-quarters consistently say no.  I doubt many of us would jump all over it.  But the questions about whether tighter laws are needed usually brings strong yes responses.  We wouldn't like those results.

[MACVSOG68]

So you don't want the laws that are in place which allows for all the hearings and delays in deportation and catch and release re-written to disallow for all those things?

The biggest problem that we have is that there are bad laws in place that are being enforced which basically achieve the exact opposite of how you think immigration laws are supposed to work.

So yes... I want immigration reform, and I want all those laws and procedures dismantled.

Well put Luis.

[Relic]

So you don't want the laws that are in place which allows for all the hearings and delays in deportation and catch and release re-written to disallow for all those things?

The biggest problem that we have is that there are bad laws in place that are being enforced which basically achieve the exact opposite of how you think immigration laws are supposed to work.

So yes... I want immigration reform, and I want all those laws and procedures dismantled.

The FUD factor regarding immigration reform is high. There is also a stench around the issue. That smell comes from Democrats deciding immigration reform is an issue, and Republicans falling in line. It seems to me, when Democrats lead, and Republicans follow, the results are undesirable.

So, the average American might ask, this has been a nation for 200+ years, and now, suddenly, immigration is a huge issue. How does that happen? Americans who were around remember the Reagan immigration reform with the associated Democrat bait and switch.

So, here are my concerns:
- Democrats want unrestricted immigration because it leads to a Democrat dynasty.
- Republicans want immigration, maybe not unrestricted, because their masters at the Chamber of Commerce want cheap labor.
- I don't trust either party to reform immigration, only to naturalize those that are already here.
- Finally, I realize that many people were lured here. This is not just a numbers game, or a game on paper. There are real people who have a lot at stake in how this is all handled.

If an agreement was reached that started with closing the border, I'm for it. I don't mean iron curtain closed. But, make it difficult. The Democrat argument is that no matter what you do, some people will still cross illegally. That's a stupid argument, it is saying, since you can't be perfect, do nothing. Close the border, punish those that are caught, and have a real guest worker program. Streamline immigration.

As for those already here... you have to give them a path to citizenship. It's unfair to those who immigrate legally, but sometimes pragmatism isn't pretty.

It really isn't hard, if there is genuine desire to fix the problem.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The FUD factor regarding immigration reform is high. There is also a stench around the issue. That smell comes from Democrats deciding immigration reform is an issue, and Republicans falling in line. It seems to me, when Democrats lead, and Republicans follow, the results are undesirable.

So, the average American might ask, this has been a nation for 200+ years, and now, suddenly, immigration is a huge issue. How does that happen? Americans who were around remember the Reagan immigration reform with the associated Democrat bait and switch.

So, here are my concerns:
- Democrats want unrestricted immigration because it leads to a Democrat dynasty.
- Republicans want immigration, maybe not unrestricted, because their masters at the Chamber of Commerce want cheap labor.
- I don't trust either party to reform immigration, only to naturalize those that are already here.
- Finally, I realize that many people were lured here. This is not just a numbers game, or a game on paper. There are real people who have a lot at stake in how this is all handled.

If an agreement was reached that started with closing the border, I'm for it. I don't mean iron curtain closed. But, make it difficult. The Democrat argument is that no matter what you do, some people will still cross illegally. That's a stupid argument, it is saying, since you can't be perfect, do nothing. Close the border, punish those that are caught, and have a real guest worker program. Streamline immigration.

As for those already here... you have to give them a path to citizenship. It's unfair to those who immigrate legally, but sometimes pragmatism isn't pretty.

It really isn't hard, if there is genuine desire to fix the problem.

That, is immigration reform.

re·form
rəˈfôrm/
verb
1.
make changes in (something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.

[Relic]

That, is immigration reform.

re·form
rəˈfôrm/
verb
1.
make changes in (something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.

And I have no confidence that either party has real reform in mind.

[GourmetDan]

And I have no confidence that either party has real reform in mind.

Depends on what your definition of 'improve' is...

[Luis Gonzalez]

And I have no confidence that either party has real reform in mind.

That is true.

But the point that I was originally addressing, is the statements to the effect of "I don't want reform".

What's happened is that words have taken an alternate meaning, so "reform" elicits an emotional reaction very much as "diversity" elicits an emotional reaction.

We all want reform, because we all acknowledge that the system (as it stands today) isn't yielding the results that we want it to yield.

To say that the system isn't working isn't necessarily true. It's working exactly as designed.

It's just designed to work in a fashion that most of us don't like.

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote above:
[[ re·form
rəˈfôrm/
verb
1.
make changes in (something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it. ]]

That's the textbook definition which has next-to-nothing to do with politics and political expediency.

I said it above, and I'll say it again:
"Immigration reform" is an attempt to "bend the process" to the needs of the democrats, their greatest goal to change the ethnicity of The United States and to give themselves an unbeatable majority.

"Reform" -will- "make changes" to the immigration system -- just as "election reforms" have made their changes to the election system.

Take a look at those election process "changes". Each and EVERY one of them has the effect of distorting our traditional system of free and fair elections (conducted on election day), and bending and twisting them into a Rube Goldberg like contraption that makes election fraud easier and harder to oppose.

So it will go with immigration.

[Bigun]

So you don't want the laws that are in place which allows for all the hearings and delays in deportation and catch and release re-written to disallow for all those things?

The biggest problem that we have is that there are bad laws in place that are being enforced which basically achieve the exact opposite of how you think immigration laws are supposed to work.

So yes... I want immigration reform, and I want all those laws and procedures dismantled.

That' EXACTLY right!  I fail to see the point in reforming laws until such time as we have a government in place that is intend on ENFORCING them!

[Bigun]

It really isn't hard, if there is genuine desire to fix the problem.

And therein lies the problem!

[Bigun]

That is true.

But the point that I was originally addressing, is the statements to the effect of "I don't want reform".

What's happened is that words have taken an alternate meaning, so "reform" elicits an emotional reaction very much as "diversity" elicits an emotional reaction.

We all want reform, because we all acknowledge that the system (as it stands today) isn't yielding the results that we want it to yield.

To say that the system isn't working isn't necessarily true. It's working exactly as designed.

It's just designed to work in a fashion that most of us don't like.

I've said already what I'm against now here is what I'm for IF done in EXACTLY this order and with genuine intent to make it work.


Secure the borders through:
o Increasing the number of border security officers
o Increasing joint operations and training with local law enforcement, DPS and the
Texas State Guard
o Contiguous physical barrier coupled with electronic, infrared and visual
monitoring
 Ending in-state tuition for illegal immigrants
 Enhancing state smuggling laws
 Prohibiting sanctuary cities
 Prohibiting the knowing employment of illegal immigrants
 Providing civil liability protections for landowners against illegal immigrants39
 Protecting the ability of law enforcement officers to inquire of the status of someone in
custody
 Modernizing current immigration laws to address the following:
o Any form of amnesty should not be granted, including the granting of legal status
to persons in the country illegally
o We support replacement of the current employment visa system with an efficient
cost effective system
o We support ending country of origin quotas
o We support ending the annual green card lottery
 Once the borders are verifiably secure, and E-Verify system use is fully enforced,
creation of a visa classification for non-specialty industries which have demonstrated
actual and persistent labor shortages

Source: http://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-Platform-Final.pdf

[Luis Gonzalez]

I've said already what I'm against now here is what I'm for IF done in EXACTLY this order and with genuine intent to make it work.


Secure the borders through:
o Increasing the number of border security officers
o Increasing joint operations and training with local law enforcement, DPS and the
Texas State Guard
o Contiguous physical barrier coupled with electronic, infrared and visual
monitoring
 Ending in-state tuition for illegal immigrants
 Enhancing state smuggling laws
 Prohibiting sanctuary cities
 Prohibiting the knowing employment of illegal immigrants
 Providing civil liability protections for landowners against illegal immigrants39
 Protecting the ability of law enforcement officers to inquire of the status of someone in
custody
 Modernizing current immigration laws to address the following:
o Any form of amnesty should not be granted, including the granting of legal status
to persons in the country illegally
o We support replacement of the current employment visa system with an efficient
cost effective system
o We support ending country of origin quotas
o We support ending the annual green card lottery
 Once the borders are verifiably secure, and E-Verify system use is fully enforced,
creation of a visa classification for non-specialty industries which have demonstrated
actual and persistent labor shortages

Source: http://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014-Platform-Final.pdf

So you DO support migration reform.

[Bigun]

So you DO support migration reform.

Yes but ONLY after the borders are secure and shown to be so!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yes but ONLY after the borders are secure and shown to be so!

Which also falls under the definition of immigration reform.

So you, Bigun, are one of those "most Americans" who support comprehensive (your list is very detailed and quite comprehensive) immigration reform mentioned on the survey that you questioned earlier on the thread.

[Bigun]

Which also falls under the definition of immigration reform.

So you, Bigun, are one of those "most Americans" who support comprehensive (your list is very detailed and quite comprehensive) immigration reform mentioned on the survey that you questioned earlier on the thread.

If you want to put it that way but as you say, what I support is VERY specific and detailed and even that is totally worthless until we make up our minds that we are going to ENFORCE the law!

I guess by your reasoning I've always been for major immigration reform since simply enforcing the law would be exactly that!

[GourmetDan]

If you want to put it that way but as you say, what I support is VERY specific and detailed and even that is totally worthless until we make up our minds that we are going to ENFORCE the law!

Some people only engage in discussion for semantic victories...

[Bigun]

Some people only engage in discussion for semantic victories...

Yeah! I know! Laws, every last one of them, are completely worthless if they aren't enforced and if you aren't going to enforce them why have them in the first place!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Some people only engage in discussion for semantic victories...

Dan, quit making everything personal.