The Voice of Principled, Thinking Conservatism Needs Your Support

[AnybodyButaDem]

Alien concept these days, eh?

Three videos that I have seen from Cruz that show me principles can win:

1. Speaking to Middle Eastern Christians, Cruz suggests persecution is bad, even for Jews. The crowd boos - Cruz leaves. "If you will not stand with Israel [you filthy bigots], then I will not stand with you." He looked great as a result. (I may have added some subtext there.)

2. An illegal immigrant at one of his rallies tells him how "scared" she is that he will deport him. He says, "Yep, our broken system creates human tragedies, but we're a country of laws, so I will deport you." Excellent!

3. An Iowa farmer tells Cruz he can't support him because Cruz doesn't support the subsidies. Cruz very carefully articulates why the subsidies are bad, and how he can actually do better without them.

In all cases, the man didn't pander. He stood on principle and sounded mature and great - like a leader.

Great examples!  Go Cruz!!

[Bigun]

Alien concept these days, eh?

Three videos that I have seen from Cruz that show me principles can win:

1. Speaking to Middle Eastern Christians, Cruz suggests persecution is bad, even for Jews. The crowd boos - Cruz leaves. "If you will not stand with Israel [you filthy bigots], then I will not stand with you." He looked great as a result. (I may have added some subtext there.)

2. An illegal immigrant at one of his rallies tells him how "scared" she is that he will deport him. He says, "Yep, our broken system creates human tragedies, but we're a country of laws, so I will deport you." Excellent!

3. An Iowa farmer tells Cruz he can't support him because Cruz doesn't support the subsidies. Cruz very carefully articulates why the subsidies are bad, and how he can actually do better without them.

In all cases, the man didn't pander. He stood on principle and sounded mature and great - like a leader.

VERY well said!  And VERY true!

[Wingnut]

 

Alien concept these days, eh?

Three videos that I have seen from Cruz that show me principles can win:

1. Speaking to Middle Eastern Christians, Cruz suggests persecution is bad, even for Jews. The crowd boos - Cruz leaves. "If you will not stand with Israel [you filthy bigots], then I will not stand with you." He looked great as a result. (I may have added some subtext there.)

2. An illegal immigrant at one of his rallies tells him how "scared" she is that he will deport him. He says, "Yep, our broken system creates human tragedies, but we're a country of laws, so I will deport you." Excellent!

3. An Iowa farmer tells Cruz he can't support him because Cruz doesn't support the subsidies. Cruz very carefully articulates why the subsidies are bad, and how he can actually do better without them.

In all cases, the man didn't pander. He stood on principle and sounded mature and great - like a leader.

 

[ArneFufkin]

Alien concept these days, eh?

Three videos that I have seen from Cruz that show me principles can win:

1. Speaking to Middle Eastern Christians, Cruz suggests persecution is bad, even for Jews. The crowd boos - Cruz leaves. "If you will not stand with Israel [you filthy bigots], then I will not stand with you." He looked great as a result. (I may have added some subtext there.)

2. An illegal immigrant at one of his rallies tells him how "scared" she is that he will deport him. He says, "Yep, our broken system creates human tragedies, but we're a country of laws, so I will deport you." Excellent!

3. An Iowa farmer tells Cruz he can't support him because Cruz doesn't support the subsidies. Cruz very carefully articulates why the subsidies are bad, and how he can actually do better without them.

In all cases, the man didn't pander. He stood on principle and sounded mature and great - like a leader.

The encounter with the Iowa farmer made a big impression on me and provided assurance to me that Cruz was a wonderful messenger for thoughtful, well-reasoned and intentioned GOP conservatism.

[MACVSOG68]

I'm talking specific policy proposals, such as 100 Day Amnesty, and not the empty platitudes that Obama used to fool dumb people.

Far as I know and have heard, his plan is not different from those Republicans who have been pushing for comprehensive immigration reform.  He has said you can't deport eleven to twelve million illegals who have no criminal activity.  Most Americans would agree with that.  I believe he favors much stronger border security; again Americans go along with that.  Immigration reform has been a big issue since 2005 and a minority of Republicans have tried to negotiate with Democrats and other Republicans over comprehensive reform.  With the economy, world terrorism and long term energy issues facing the next president, it would be a prime issue to put before Congress sooner rather than later and move on to the big problem areas.

[Relic]

Far as I know and have heard, his plan is not different from those Republicans who have been pushing for comprehensive immigration reform.  He has said you can't deport eleven to twelve million illegals who have no criminal activity.  Most Americans would agree with that.  I believe he favors much stronger border security; again Americans go along with that.  Immigration reform has been a big issue since 2005 and a minority of Republicans have tried to negotiate with Democrats and other Republicans over comprehensive reform.  With the economy, world terrorism and long term energy issues facing the next president, it would be a prime issue to put before Congress sooner rather than later and move on to the big problem areas.

People get so hung up on words without examining the context. Amnesty gets a lot of people very upset. The reality is, a lot of people were lured here by the promise of jobs and government benefits. You shouldn't punish people you entice. The answer to this is not difficult to formulate. The political will to enact the reforms isn't there. That's another reason people are so angry, (no, it's generally not racist motivations, contrary to what Democrats and the media say).

People who have come here and made a life, they are Americans, it's that simple. Make it official.

Pick an arbitrary dividing line, people here less than say... 1 year? 2 years? Whatever. Those people will get visas, and go into the queue to be Americans. If they do all that's required, then they become Americans.

Punish employers who knowingly hire illegals. Real punishment with a bite.

Tighten up criteria for government benefits. If you aren't legal, or in the process of becoming legal, then you're not entitled.

Build a wall. It's not that hard, and not that expensive. Close the border. Try going the other way, as an illegal into Mexico and demand government benefits, see how that works?

I'd favor a plan along those lines.

[Bill Cipher]

People get so hung up on words without examining the context. Amnesty gets a lot of people very upset. The reality is, a lot of people were lured here by the promise of jobs and government benefits. You shouldn't punish people you entice. The answer to this is not difficult to formulate. The political will to enact the reforms isn't there. That's another reason people are so angry, (no, it's generally not racist motivations, contrary to what Democrats and the media say).

People who have come here and made a life, they are Americans, it's that simple. Make it official.

Pick an arbitrary dividing line, people here less than say... 1 year? 2 years? Whatever. Those people will get visas, and go into the queue to be Americans. If they do all that's required, then they become Americans.

Punish employers who knowingly hire illegals. Real punishment with a bite.

Tighten up criteria for government benefits. If you aren't legal, or in the process of becoming legal, then you're not entitled.

Build a wall. It's not that hard, and not that expensive. Close the border. Try going the other way, as an illegal into Mexico and demand government benefits, see how that works?

I'd favor a plan along those lines.

Reasonably tend to agree with most.  I agree that things get inflamed when people talk in terms of code words and simplistic solutions to hard problems.  In terms of a wall, I'd prefer to think in terms of walls, as in there must be places where walls in the lower case may be quite useful and worth building, if for no other reason than to direct border crossers to other points where it would be easier to corral them.  Keeping people out of truly dangerous places would also be useful. 

[Relic]

Reasonably tend to agree with most.  I agree that things get inflamed when people talk in terms of code words and simplistic solutions to hard problems.  In terms of a wall, I'd prefer to think in terms of walls, as in there must be places where walls in the lower case may be quite useful and worth building, if for no other reason than to direct border crossers to other points where it would be easier to corral them.  Keeping people out of truly dangerous places would also be useful.

Understood. I use wall as a generic term. There are places where the terrain wouldn't allow a wall. Just make it so that the equivalent of an evening stroll doesn't end up with people here illegally. Why should Mexicans be given preference to Indians? Asians, (yeah, India is part of Asia, you know what I mean)? Africans? Europeans? Canadians? 

[Bill Cipher]

Understood. I use wall as a generic term. There are places where the terrain wouldn't allow a wall. Just make it so that the equivalent of an evening stroll doesn't end up with people here illegally. Why should Mexicans be given preference to Indians? Asians, (yeah, India is part of Asia, you know what I mean)? Africans? Europeans? Canadians? 

I totally agree that small "w" walls are part of the solution, as are fences, and areas that are well-lit and patrolled by border guards. Some will obviously still get through, but at least we can pick off or divert most of the low-hanging fruit. 

[Relic]

I totally agree that small "w" walls are part of the solution, as are fences, and areas that are well-lit and patrolled by border guards. Some will obviously still get through, but at least we can pick off or divert most of the low-hanging fruit.

Bingo. That only makes sense. But the Chamber of Commerce doesn't see it that way.

[Sanguine]

Far as I know and have heard, his plan is not different from those Republicans who have been pushing for comprehensive immigration reform.  He has said you can't deport eleven to twelve million illegals who have no criminal activity.  Most Americans would agree with that.  I believe he favors much stronger border security; again Americans go along with that.  Immigration reform has been a big issue since 2005 and a minority of Republicans have tried to negotiate with Democrats and other Republicans over comprehensive reform.  With the economy, world terrorism and long term energy issues facing the next president, it would be a prime issue to put before Congress sooner rather than later and move on to the big problem areas.

Mac, again, no one (here at least) is talking about deportation.  Removing the reasons that they stay here is what many do recommend.

You say "illegals who have no criminal activity" - something about that doesn't quite make sense.  Maybe it's that "illegal" word. 

For instance, making it not possible for illegals to collect welfare.  Oh, but they're not eligible for welfare, right?

Report: Majority of Illegal Immigrant Households On Welfare
In 2012, 62 percent got benefits, while 49 percent of legal households also on public assistance
http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-majority-of-illegal-immigrant-households-on-welfare/

A few other points;  the old "eleven to twelve million illegals" number has been repeatedly debunked and even the feds admit the number is much higher.

There are a number of fair, legal and humane ways to do it, in spite of what the pro-amnesty crowd says.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Far as I know and have heard, his plan is not different from those Republicans who have been pushing for comprehensive immigration reform.  He has said you can't deport eleven to twelve million illegals who have no criminal activity.  Most Americans would agree with that.  I believe he favors much stronger border security; again Americans go along with that.  Immigration reform has been a big issue since 2005 and a minority of Republicans have tried to negotiate with Democrats and other Republicans over comprehensive reform.  With the economy, world terrorism and long term energy issues facing the next president, it would be a prime issue to put before Congress sooner rather than later and move on to the big problem areas.

The problem of immigration has great political value as a platform item for politicians.

Trying to find a practical and sensible solution to the problem will cost any politicians their career in politics.

See: Rubio.

[libertybele]

The encounter with the Iowa farmer made a big impression on me and provided assurance to me that Cruz was a wonderful messenger for thoughtful, well-reasoned and intentioned GOP conservatism.

 

[AnybodyButaDem]

Far as I know and have heard, his plan is not different from those Republicans who have been pushing for comprehensive immigration reform. 

You mean the unpopular plan that didn't pass last time?

Um, yeah, that's kind of my point, and a big reason Mr. Conservative is languishing in last place and only in the race because GOPe donors are propping up his already dead campaign.  The Big Money GOPe isn't going to give up their amnesty dreams without wasting millions more of dollars.

[musiclady]

Mac, again, no one (here at least) is talking about deportation.  Removing the reasons that they stay here is what many do recommend.

You say "illegals who have no criminal activity" - something about that doesn't quite make sense.  Maybe it's that "illegal" word. 

For instance, making it not possible for illegals to collect welfare.  Oh, but they're not eligible for welfare, right?

A few other points;  the old "eleven to twelve million illegals" number has been repeatedly debunked and even the feds admit the number is much higher.

There are a number of fair, legal and humane ways to do it, in spite of what the pro-amnesty crowd says.

 

[AnybodyButaDem]

People get so hung up on words without examining the context. Amnesty gets a lot of people very upset. The reality is, a lot of people were lured here by the promise of jobs and government benefits. You shouldn't punish people you entice. The answer to this is not difficult to formulate. The political will to enact the reforms isn't there. That's another reason people are so angry, (no, it's generally not racist motivations, contrary to what Democrats and the media say).

People who have come here and made a life, they are Americans, it's that simple. Make it official.

Pick an arbitrary dividing line, people here less than say... 1 year? 2 years? Whatever. Those people will get visas, and go into the queue to be Americans. If they do all that's required, then they become Americans.

Punish employers who knowingly hire illegals. Real punishment with a bite.

Tighten up criteria for government benefits. If you aren't legal, or in the process of becoming legal, then you're not entitled.

Build a wall. It's not that hard, and not that expensive. Close the border. Try going the other way, as an illegal into Mexico and demand government benefits, see how that works?

I'd favor a plan along those lines.

That's pretty close to what I posted yesterday.  I think it's a workable plan, especially the part about the path to citizenship can't be expedited for those here illegally.  No cutting in line, and make them guest workers and let them contribute to the tax base as they go through the legal immigration process.

[MACVSOG68]

People get so hung up on words without examining the context. Amnesty gets a lot of people very upset. The reality is, a lot of people were lured here by the promise of jobs and government benefits. You shouldn't punish people you entice. The answer to this is not difficult to formulate. The political will to enact the reforms isn't there. That's another reason people are so angry, (no, it's generally not racist motivations, contrary to what Democrats and the media say).

People who have come here and made a life, they are Americans, it's that simple. Make it official.

Pick an arbitrary dividing line, people here less than say... 1 year? 2 years? Whatever. Those people will get visas, and go into the queue to be Americans. If they do all that's required, then they become Americans.

Punish employers who knowingly hire illegals. Real punishment with a bite.

Tighten up criteria for government benefits. If you aren't legal, or in the process of becoming legal, then you're not entitled.

Build a wall. It's not that hard, and not that expensive. Close the border. Try going the other way, as an illegal into Mexico and demand government benefits, see how that works?

I'd favor a plan along those lines.

Let's see...I disagree with...nothing.

Wise words, and words most Americans can abide.  Of all the major issues today, here is one that both sides can reach a consensus on.  Just look at the 2013 Senate bill that was passed or the even better 2007 bills constructed by both sides and brought to the floor by Reid. 

[MACVSOG68]

Mac, again, no one (here at least) is talking about deportation.  Removing the reasons that they stay here is what many do recommend.

You say "illegals who have no criminal activity" - something about that doesn't quite make sense.  Maybe it's that "illegal" word. 

For instance, making it not possible for illegals to collect welfare.  Oh, but they're not eligible for welfare, right?

A few other points;  the old "eleven to twelve million illegals" number has been repeatedly debunked and even the feds admit the number is much higher.

There are a number of fair, legal and humane ways to do it, in spite of what the pro-amnesty crowd says.

Look at the 2013 legislation as well as the bills in 2007.  Those permitted to stay here cannot have any criminal history (crossing the border is not a felony), must be working, and not take any welfare, as well as pay a series of fines and penalties.  So the "pro-amnesty" crowd doesn't exist on our side of the aisle.

[Bill Cipher]

Bingo. That only makes sense. But the Chamber of Commerce doesn't see it that way.

That's where the other parts come in.  In particular, I think that a combo guest worker visa program (no path to citizenship) that gives illegals with clean records a guest worker visa and a taxpayer ID coupled with a mandatory requirement that all employers submit taxpayer ID/SSN with W4 and supporting documents to IRS for validation.  If the employer does not, or continues to employ someone after notification the person is illegal, then big problemos for the employer unless they can show reasonable cause, and criminal penalties if they're paying known illegals less than minimum wage.  Those are the sorts of employers who should be punished severely.  As far as civil penalties for the rest, all employers currently live with penalties for not paying payroll taxes that will basically personally bankrupt the owners if they get behind by a quarter or two, so I don't see why they can't live with some stiff penalties for continuing to employ illegals after they've been told the person is illegal. 

That way we can try to solve the chicken/egg problem by sanctioning employers without causing them to dump a whole bunch of people all at once and without leaving hard workers in the gutters or on welfare.  My thought for criminal penalties for paying under minimum is that those are the sorts of employers who are not just employing illegals but are taking advantage of them and, because they're paying under minimum, are in fact hurting the employment prospects of low income Americans who might otherwise be competing for those jobs. 

[Sanguine]

Look at the 2013 legislation as well as the bills in 2007.  Those permitted to stay here cannot have any criminal history (crossing the border is not a felony), must be working, and not take any welfare, as well as pay a series of fines and penalties.  So the "pro-amnesty" crowd doesn't exist on our side of the aisle.

Crossing the border may not be a felony, but taking welfare as a person here illegally is. Stealing someone's identity to establish an identity here is.

[MACVSOG68]

Crossing the border may not be a felony, but taking welfare as a person here illegally is. Stealing someone's identity to establish an identity here is.

There are some things that even Cruz or Trump can't do.  They aren't going to suddenly cut off all dollars to any state or local jurisdiction that provides various benefits to illegals sans some overall agreement by Congress to do so, which won't happen without a compromise of some reasonable measure.  Since most Americans have for over ten years preferred comprehensive immigration reform, Congress will not reach an agreement on legitimate security and enforcement measures without a plan to deal with non-serious offenders who have been here, working and especially with families. 

For ten years, anti-immigration groups have been saying, "just cut off the benefits and they will leave".  Ain't gonna happen.  Let's deal with it by recognizing that and spending our treasure going after the criminal elements and preventing further incursions.  It's not amnesty any more than the 95% of plea-bargained criminal cases in the US today.  Bring them out of the shadows; fine them; put them in the back of the line; end welfare programs for them; require English proficiency, secure the borders, and get on with the far more important issues facing us.

[MACVSOG68]

The problem of immigration has great political value as a platform item for politicians.

Trying to find a practical and sensible solution to the problem will cost any politicians their career in politics.

See: Rubio.

And yet it's something most Americans want.  Rubio had the will to work with the Gang of Eight, but failed to defend himself well during the debates.  That IMHO hurt him much more than his efforts to reach a compromise on the bill.

[Fishrrman]

Bigun wrote above:
"For me it means working within the system to begin the process of returning the fed. gov to what it was designed to be by our founders!"

OK.

The problem is that within the past 30 years, "the system" has nearly succeeded in corrupting everyone on both sides of the aisle and also within the non-elected halls of government and bureaucracy as well.

It's as if we've had a political "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" down in D.C. that has succeeded in replacing [what was traditionally called] our "republican form of government" with an unchallengeable administrative oligarchy.

We can't reform a totally "snatched" system, by working "within" it.
That system now has erected barriers to prevent exactly such as move.
This is something that will have to be accomplished by "an outside play".

Up until, say, last October, I would reckon that there were two "outside plays" left for traditionally-minded Americans of Euro heritage:
1. A "Convention of the States" to update the Constitution to correct oversights of The Founders. I didn't say "rewrite it", just propose a few amendments that even The Founders might call for today, if they were here to see what we've seen.
or...
2. Some kind of (cough) "non-nonviolent" action to convince Congress and the others in government how disenchanted Euro-Americans have become.

I would prefer option 1.

But since Donald Trump burst onto the scene, I could almost see his presidency as a third way. That is to say, so "disruptive to the system" that the system we now loathe would be stymied, or perhaps even worse, damaged. With a bit of luck, the system will be -so- damaged that it can be restructured, or perhaps a better term.... restored.

Well, I guess I'm not "thinking conservatively".
Nope, not at all.
I -don't- want "conservation" of what the fedGOV has become.

Do you?

[Fishrrman]

Bigun asks a good question:
"Were you around when Ronald Reagan routinely went over the heads of Congress directly to the American people on issues?  Do you not think that can be done again?"

It -might- be done again.

But of one thing I'm certain:
Ted Cruz would never be able to appeal to ordinary Americans as did Reagan.
He has debating skills, but he lacks the common, "connective" touch that Ron Reagan had with the ordinary person.
And he isn't going to be learning the technique, either -- it's not in him.

Regardless of what the detractors say about Mr. Trump, he seems to have the ability to "make the connection" with a lot of folks (as odd as that seems, considering he flies around in a plane with gold seat belt buckles).
Granted, he's self-centered, loud, and can be abusive and obnoxious.
But he's got something few of the other candidates have. He connects.

I guess the same thing could be said about Cassius Clay's fist and Sonny Liston... (sigh)

[musiclady]

Bigun asks a good question:
"Were you around when Ronald Reagan routinely went over the heads of Congress directly to the American people on issues?  Do you not think that can be done again?"

It -might- be done again.

But of one thing I'm certain:
Ted Cruz would never be able to appeal to ordinary Americans as did Reagan.
He has debating skills, but he lacks the common, "connective" touch that Ron Reagan had with the ordinary person.
And he isn't going to be learning the technique, either -- it's not in him.

Regardless of what the detractors say about Mr. Trump, he seems to have the ability to "make the connection" with a lot of folks (as odd as that seems, considering he flies around in a plane with gold seat belt buckles).
Granted, he's self-centered, loud, and can be abusive and obnoxious.
But he's got something few of the other candidates have. He connects.

I guess the same thing could be said about Cassius Clay's fist and Sonny Liston... (sigh)

Trump only "makes the connection" with a third of Republican primary voters (many of which are Democrats trying to cause trouble).  They may be dedicated and love the guy dearly, but they are a minority of a minority.

He also has a 73% disapproval among women.

The idea that he "connects" with the majority of Americans is imaginative, but not at all accurate.......