Saturday, September 08, 2007

Immigration News

The city of Hamtramck may soon become a 'sanctuary city' that forbids police to question illegal aliens about their immigration status. Newark, New Jersey recently suffered a horrific murder that could have been prevented if it were not a sanctuary city. A few years back, Hamtramck allowed the Muslim call to prayer to be broadcast over loudspeakers starting at 6AM.

Michigan democrats have protected in-state college tuition for illegal aliens. Jack Hoogendyk has details.

Giuliani: Illegal Immigration is not a crime. Does that mean it's not illegal?

McCain on immigration:

Border Security & Immigration Reform
John McCain is running for President to do the hard but necessary things and address problems that cannot be left to future generations to solve. That is why he announced his support for a legislative framework that addresses our nation's failed immigration policies.
That's one way to put it. The truth about McCain's immigration record is here:

McCain has advocated higher immigration levels, amnesty, and a "guest worker" program. He said that "Everyone in the world should have the opportunity through an orderly process to come to this country." He believes that immigrants do "jobs that Americans won't do." He opposes ballot initiatives to restrict immigration and advocates more government spending for legal immigrants. He voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive Social Security benefits.

He sponsored the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill with Senator Ted Kennedy. McCain supports creating a "guest worker program" and "path to citizenship" for illegal immigrants already in America. This amounts to amnesty and a reward (citizenship) for lawbreakers. In the Senate, he voted for a bill that would allow in more than 100 million immigrants in the next 20 years. It would also cost $500 billion in welfare payments within 20 years.

His record has been profiled by Numbers USA and Americans for Better Immigration.


Matthew said...

Allan: why do you find it necessary to consistently criticize and undermine the members of your own party by name, while consistently leaving specific Democrats alone?

I would imagine that, despite disagreements you may have with some candidates, there are many more agreements than otherwise, even with the McCain and Giuliani that you so regularly pull through the mud in your posts. Is this correct?

One would imagine that, instead of articulating the differences between conservative candidates that some like Giuliani and McCain may have with other conservative candidates, your efforts would be better spent distinguishing the Democrats from the Republicans and exactly why we need to support the eventual Republican candidate.

Despite the fact that you may see this criticism as attacking you personally, do know that it is not. You are very wise and are spot on in your analysis of the deadly drawbacks of government and the prevailing policies of our time.

Others, even self-identified Republicans and conservatives are not as articulate and may not fully understand the root evils of socialist, authoritarian, and other freedom-stealing modes of government. I challenge you to use your knowledge to attack the Democrats and liberals who enact these policies instead of souring the members of our party to candidates which regularly oppose the above-named policies.

It seems that if your goal is to enact conservative ideals into government the most effective method is not to create apathy or disdain toward our own party which is done by your nitpicking of conservative candidates, but to empower the base by better articulating what it is we're fighting for. By better illustrating the differences we have with the left, and why those differences are vitally important to the spread of freedom in our lives.

By dragging Republicans through the mud that, while not meeting exactly all of the criteria you set forth for them may weaken their chances of election and promote someone you see as being more conservative, I feel it weakens the movement as a whole. It creates in-fighting, destroys unity and is a blow to morale.

Help conservatives to have specific criticisms of Democrats. Show them exactly why every Democrat running for president is wrong (it won't be difficult), instead of your perceived shortcomings of every Republican.

Your 2008 Presidential Candidate Profiles do not speak for the group, nor do they do the group any particular service. I say strike them down and put up new profiles, exposing the Democrats and giving intellectual firepower to every conservative reading this blog to know exactly why they should resist the left.

In our college setting, conservatives are going to hear plenty of rhetoric from the left as to why one shouldn't support any of the Republicans you have listed; the College Republicans shouldn't be adding more fuel to the fire. We should be fighting the left, not ourselves. I call you to do this, Allan: will you answer?

Conservative First said...

The purpose of the candidate profiles is simply to provide information for voters to make an informed decision. How else are people supposed to know which candidate to pick? The profiles examine the records of candidates, which of course do not always exactly match their current rhetoric. Whether voters see the information therein as positive or negative will depend on their own views.

I have attempted to represent their records fairly and accurately. If anything in any profile is inaccurate, please provide a reliable source and I will be happy to correct it. I don't believe that I have dragged any candidate through the mud, just reported their records.

The reason to do this now is that this is the primary season. Better air candidates' records now than regret it for four or eight years. I haven't done profiles of the Democrats because I have no desire to help them pick the best nominee. There will be plenty of time to attack the Democrats during the general election.

The question of political strategy, specifically the relationship between the Republican Party and the conservative movement, is complicated and best left to another time. Suffice to say that I believe that holding people accountable is essential to getting results.

We agree that a firm philosophical foundation is essential to the conservative movement. That is the point of the economics and government series. Applying this knowledge to specific actions of the Democrats should be comparatively easy.

Lastly, I'm only one person. There's nothing stopping any other contributers to this blog from doing what you suggest.