Thursday, May 24, 2007

Breaking News-Highest level of RPI officials in immigration discussions ……..

…………… in anticipation of releasing a public policy position. Needless to say, every one of us in Republican leadership here in Iowa is very aware of the firestorm that has exploded in the wake of the immigration semi-agreement.

I won’t speak for anyone else, or disclose anyone’s position; suffice it to say that we have heard the public complaints, complaints that are shared by many of us. The level of complaint gives this issue the ability to divide our party. While our state leadership can’t do much about the larger conflict, we can preserve and protect our state party’s unity.

One thing we can do is make the positions held by the Iowa Congressional delegation clear to our voters. It is my understanding that Senator Grassley, Congressman Latham and, of course, Congressman King are all opposed to the immigration compromise in anything like its current form. I’m sure they will let me know if I have inadvertently misrepresented their position.

Not surprisingly I am involved in these discussions. This is one issue where I will probably “vote my conscience” but I do want to hear from you, our Republican voters, particularly our local leaders, like county officers, Federation leadership and elected officials.

So, tune in, turn on and speak your mind.


My mother's first language wasn't English said...

It doesn't matter where the immigrant comes from, we love immigrants in America. We are a nation of immigrants.

But the individuals who come here do matter. We need to know who they are, what they're up to and where they are living and working.

We obviously need more labor than we have, or we wouldn't have the levels of illegal migration that exist today. We have to dramatically increase legal immigration and make the system more efficient and fair.

We need people here illegally to understand that the mere fact that they are here illegally means that they have to go home to reapply for entry, anything else would simply reward the illegal conduct with the accomplishment of its objective.

We need temporary migrants to understand that we aren't going to change our society to accomodate them.

We need people who plan to stay here to understand that we absorb them, "they" become "us" through the citizenship process. Learn our English language, respect our laws and culture and you will be welcome. But don't expect us to become the nation you left.

Do you disagree with any of that Teddy.

Anonymous said...

5:53, the only real problem is your last paragraph, they dont want to "beccome us", they want us to become them and learn Spanish, fly their flag, suck us dry by delivering their babies for free...etc. on that note, a friend is a Medical Resident, and is forced to spend time at La a few months, he has charged a few hundred thousand dollars to the US Government.

I am a Repub, and am more socially liberal than most, but on this issue i am 100% a King supporter.

Sptotlight said...

Thay want us to become them??????

Are you crazy?

BTW, learning new languages is a GOOD thing: good for them and for us English-only types.

Anonymous said...

Bottom line: the Republican base disolves and the Pelosi/Reid Democrat Congress gets the votes of millions of new citizens.

Ted, who will lead the third party that forms after the GOP abandons the base on amnesty?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps we should send Teddy the Swimmer to Mexico to help them pilot Oldsmobile 88 submarines across the Rio Grand.

Seriously though...the price of gas, meat, eggs, and milk, basic commodities, are going up. John Petain, chief collaborator, wants to bring in a bunch of low skilled workers to drive down wages. With the basic necessities in life having an inelastic demand and with declining wages, how does John Petain's amnesty program NOT completely screw the middle class?

Greg Alan said...

Frankly, it doesn't matter if they become legal or not. Illegals have already impacted the country in ways many people don't consider.

Officially, the US Census counts the number of "persons" living in the country...not just "citizens"...

The census determines a lot more than just simple numbers. Reapportionment, federal spending outlays, and electoral college votes just to name a few. The more illegals and non-citizens you have - the more your state is likely to get. Some estimates suggest California would have 5 fewer members of congress had we just stopped including illegals in the census.

And Iowa might be able to save the 5 we have by the next census. Instead, we're expected to lose a seat because we're not growing as fast as other "southern" states like Texas, California, Nevada, and even Florida.

For a more detailed picture of the reason why both Dems and Repubs like amnesty, see: The End of The Republican Party! and: Senseless Census

Yoda said...

Hmmmmm... McCain-Kennedy.... The worst idea since Greedo shooting first it is....

RF said...

The immigration issue would give us the perfect opportunity to actually try to tackle some real problems and maybe hit a couple of extra flies at the same time.

To really curb and control illegal immigration, we should start on the demand side. No demand for illegal workers, not many illegals. Pretty simple market dynamics at work. Stiff penalties for companies who hire illegals. At the same time, we must make it possible for employers to actually be able to verify who can legally work. This means we must have some form of national id. If we want to know who is here illegally, we must know who is here legally. This may not be easy or cheap, but it surely is possible and would be cheaper than building some wall that won’t work anyway.

If we went this route, we could achieve a couple of other things along the way. First of all, we could – and should – require ID’s at polling places. This should make R’s happy. Also, we could get rid of the wasteful government duplication of maintaining separate voter registration systems. A comprehensive national database should include info about people’s residency status (citizen, visa status), which means we could produce voter lists from the database. And without having the pointless extra step of voter registration, participation rates in our democratic system would likely rise, which should make us all happy. We could probably get many other savings from a comprehensive database of our citizenry.

Anonymous said...

how will tell B. Hussain Obama, Hitlery, the Doddering fool and the Breck Girl to vote on immigration? Moveon (Soros) owns them all.

RF said...

Speaking of Soros, how do you feel about him apparently funding democratic forces in Iran in an attempt to produce a regime change?

Shall we riff on this one? said...

Amnesty Fraud
A political solution destined to create bigger problems.

By Thomas Sowell

Nothing is more common than political “solutions” to immediate problems which create much bigger problems down the road. The current immigration bill in the Senate is a classic example.

The big talking point of those who want to legalize the illegal immigrants currently in the United States is to say that it is “unrealistic” to round up and deport 12 million people.

Back in 1986 it was “unrealistic” to round up and deport the three million illegal immigrants in the United States then. So they were given amnesty — honestly labeled, back then — which is precisely why there are now 12 million illegal immigrants.

As a result of the current amnesty bill — not honestly labeled this time — will it be “unrealistic” to round up and deport 40 million or 50 million illegal immigrants in the future?

If the current immigration bill is as “realistic” as its advocates claim, why is it being rushed through the Senate faster than a local zoning ordinance could be passed?

We are, after all, talking about a major and irreversible change in the American population, the American culture, and the American political balance. Why is there no time to talk about it?

Are its advocates afraid that the voting public might discover what a fraud it is? The biggest fraud is denying that this is an amnesty bill.

Its advocates’ argument is that illegal immigrants will have to meet certain requirements to become citizens. But amnesty is not about how you become a citizen.

The word is from the same root as “amnesia.” It means you forget or overlook some crime, as if it never happened. All this elaborate talk about the steps illegal immigrants must go through to become citizens is a distraction from the crime they committed when they crossed the border illegally.

Instead, all attention is focused on what to do to accommodate those who committed this crime. It is a question that would be recognized as an insult to our intelligence on any other issue. …

…Imprisoning known and apprehended lawbreakers for the crime of illegally entering this country (in addition to whatever other punishment they receive for other laws that they have broken) and then sending them back where they came from after their sentences have been served would be something that would not be lost on others who are here illegally or who are thinking of coming here illegally.

Just as people can do many things better for themselves than the government can do those things for them, illegal aliens could begin deporting themselves if they found that their crime of coming here illegally was being punished as a serious crime, and that they themselves were no longer being treated as guests of the taxpayers when it comes to their medical care, the education of their children, and other welfare-state benefits.

Incidentally, remember that 700-mile fence that Congress authorized last year? Only two miles have been built.


Anonymous said...

rf -I'm not aware of soros trying to change the regime in iran. he wants to rule the world, so it doesn't surprise me too much, but I thought he was trying to control the US first.

RF said...

I heard about the Soros-Iran issue as a side note in an NPR piece about an American-Iranian prisoner in Iran. The person was accused of having been contact with Soros-funded reformists.

I don’t know what Soros’ intentions are. But compared to our neocons, who want to control the world with pure force, it seems to me that Soros is using a much more effective long-term strategy. More about winning the hearts and minds of people rather than brute force. Assuming he does want to control the world, Soros’ tactic may take much longer, but I suspect his long-term chances are much better than the neocons’.

who's lefter? Obama or Edwards? said...

After seeing the man in person, Andrew Sullivan announced the end of his Barack Obama crush, but suggests his talents may make him "The Reagan Of The Left."

From Sullivan: "But one thing stays in my head. This guy is a liberal. Make no mistake about that. He may, in fact, be the most effective liberal advocate I've heard in my lifetime.

As a conservative, I think he could be absolutely lethal to what's left of the tradition of individualism, self-reliance, and small government that I find myself quixotically attached to. ... From the content and structure of Obama's pitch to the base, it's also clear to me that whatever illusions I had about his small-c conservatism, he's a big government liberal with - for a liberal - the most attractive persona and best-developed arguments since JFK."

Anonymous said...

what does soros want to accomplish? neocons want individual freedom for opposed to the anti-freedom al-qaeda types.

Before you compare Soros to neocons, you need to know what he wants to do. he isn't a personal freedom guy. check out his criminal record for instance.

You might want to do some reading on neocons too. Your comment betrays your lack of knowledge on what defines a neocon.

britannica's definition of neoconservatism said...


U.S. political movement. It originated in the 1960s among conservatives and some liberals who were repelled by or disillusioned with what they viewed as the political and cultural trends of the time, including leftist political radicalism, lack of respect for authority and tradition, and hedonistic and immoral lifestyles. Neoconservatives generally advocate a free-market economy with minimum taxation and government economic regulation; strict limits on government-provided social-welfare programs; and a strong military supported by large defense budgets. Neoconservatives also believe that government policy should respect the importance of traditional institutions such as religion and the family. Unlike most conservatives of earlier generations, neoconservatives maintain that the United States should take an active role in world affairs, though they are generally suspicious of international institutions, such as the United Nations and the World Court, whose authority could intrude upon American sovereignty or limit the country's freedom to act in its own interests.

britannicas definition of conservatism said...


Political attitude or ideology denoting a preference for institutions and practices that have evolved historically and are thus manifestations of continuity and stability. It was first expressed in the modern era through the works of Edmund Burke in reaction to the French Revolution, which Burke believed tarnished its ideals through its excesses. Conservatives believe that the implementation of change should be minimal and gradual; they appreciate history and are more realistic than idealistic. Well-known conservative parties include the British Conservative Party, the German Christian Democratic Union, the U.S. Republican Party, and the Japanese Liberal-Democratic Party. See also Christian Democracy; liberalism.

RF said...

From Merriam-Webster:

Liberalism: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

So if Obama is a good advocate for this, what is the problem? Bad values?

RF said...

Regarding the neocons and Soros. I really don’t care that much about Soros, what he does and why. With neocons, I was referring to the course taken by the neocons of the W administration, how they have implemented their neocon ideals.

only in america were we born equal. only here. not in europe. said...

The Reagan presidency has been hailed as the high point of twentieth-century American conservatism.

But writing while Ronald Reagan was at the peak of his popularity, George Will shocked his fellow American conservatives by arguing that in America "there are almost no conservatives, properly understood," and he continued, "The conservatism for which I argue is a European conservatism."

Will's polemic led conservative Charles Kessler to ask in a famous article, "Is Conservatism Un-American?" What place can there be for a homegrown conservatism, Kessler wondered, in an America that was founded "not only as a democratic country given to the love of the new, but a modern country conceived in the spirit of progress?"

This conservative soul-searching bears a striking resemblance to the long-standing debate over "why there is no socialism in America." Both are a response to "American exceptionalism." Unlike European liberals and radicals who had to fight feudalism to obtain political liberty, Americans were, politically speaking, "born equal." In America the individual was neither held down by a powerful state nor restrained by encrusted social institutions like a national church or a nobility.

RF said...

Thanks for sharing the definitions. The funny thing is, when you look at all these definitions, they all look good. That’s why I think going for ideological purity in anything is usually a disaster. For example, I would like my D party to take the best things from both conservative and liberal thinking. There are many good things in both ideologies.

Anonymous said...

that sounds a little religious for you rf. are you comfortable with that?

RF said...

Really, religious? – I would think more like realistic or practical. But knowing that even my liberal ideals stem from religious thinking, I’m ok with religious. You would be surprised if you knew about my religious background… I almost ended up majoring in religious studies.

Have a lovely, conservative Memorial Day weekend! Luckily, we liberal heathens can really let loose…. ;)

Amensty for the damned said...

Renew America: the grassroots at work.

Amnesty for terrorists and Vanderbilt's ghost: the public be damned

Wes Vernon May 21, 2007

If we learn nothing else today, let's get this straight:

Denial of seating at a lunch counter because of one's skin color is a civil rights issue.

Crashing our gates and waving the Mexican flag demanding to be allowed to stay is not a civil rights issue. It is an invasion. … (the rest of the story, as I understand it, summarized by the subheadings)

The public be damned — 21st Century

Indeed, the public be damned!

That is precisely the plot

Amnesty for terrorists

Bait and switch

No can do. Gee, too bad

Quick! The smelling salts!

The "guest worker" plan:

Aw shucks! Another part of the program "doesn't work."

Another shock of shocks — a program designed to fail?

The Kennedy factor

So here is what is to be done

The guiding principle

I think that’s the gist of things. Of course, implementation of such a controversial & dangerous plan requires courage. Is that possible?

Anonymous said...

rf -

Neocons are distraught over the way this war has been handled. Already they look "fringe" and are looked down upon. So, this sets them back because of the poor way this war was managed. They are leaving this president in droves.

So, do you believe that neoconservatism never, ever works and would instead not fight on foreign lands?

Or, do you believe this is an isolated incident and neoconservatism has merits?

Reason I ask is the welfare and entitlement system could be viewed through the same lens.

I personally do not believe it works, and believe it has hurt far more people than this war. I do not believe there are isolated incidents of fraud and dependency. I believe successes are the exception to the rule.

Do you feel this way about neoconservatives?

Yoda Rocks said...

RF, you are so nuts I think it would be appropriate to make you an honorary Ron Paul supporter.

RF said...

First of all, with my previous post I didn’t realize the religious reference was to the liberalism definition I posted. So, I had not started drinking yet. Just not paying attention to the time stamp on the anon post asking about it.

Anyways…. I’ll take the nut honorary Ron Paul supporter statement as a compliment. Based on the little I know about the man, I like him. If the likes of him and Lincoln Chafee dominated the R party, I might actually join you folks. But, the way things are going, I suspect the likes of Chafee and Paul are actually joining my side.

RF said...

Re: neoconservatism. I do think there are times when we may have to fight on foreign lands. I don’t oppose all wars, just stupid wars - to quote my candidate Obama. From that perspective, one could say that neoconservatism has some merit. Regarding spreading freedom and democracy, my beef with the neocons is not with their goals but with the methods - at least the methods W administration neocons have advocated.

Re: welfare, entitlements. This is an area where I tend to agree more with you R’s than my fellow D’s. D’s knee-jerk reaction to defending any and all programs created 30-40 years ago without any interest in at least evaluating and retooling ineffective programs is simply stupid. But, I do agree with my fellow D’s in that I believe government has a role and some responsibility in defending the least fortunate among us. (I feel like I’m getting some religion today!) But how the government does this is worthy of a real debate. I think we can all agree that what our government is doing today is not working too well.

The Real Sporer said...

Off topic-rf, would you have any interest in serving as a real sporer correspondent for live reports of democrat presidential events?

I would like to add a news-ish aspect to the events, like my Republican war correspondents.

john petain, chief collaborator said...

You oppose amnesty for terrorists? You are all racist!!!!

Anonymous said...

As always, my mistake.

RF said...


Besides debating you folks, I have been using my limited free time to help my candidate, our next president Mr. Obama, rather than going to a lot of campaign events. But if/when I do go to an interesting event and I have time to write something up, I would be happy to file a report. I'll just need an email to submit it to.

Anonymous said...

If you work for B. Hussein Obama, does that mean his muslim pals will kill you last?

Anonymous said...

RF - "NeoCon" questioner here. Thanks for the response - thoughtful dialogue with someone on the other side is never a bad thing. Appreciate your comments.

timoleon said...

Neocons have no problem with big government, so long as they are the ones in charge of it.