Take action now: Take the Stop Amnesty Challenge.

It's up to you to block Obama's amnesty.
 

Possible Democratic Party immigration "reform" charade: "offer legalization" to become "require"

A new "confidential" study called "Winning The Immigration Debate" has been released by two groups linked to the Democratic Party: the Center for American Progress (linked to Hillary Clinton and indirectly linked to the Mexican government) and the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (member groups also have indirect links to the Mexican government) [1].

I haven't seen the study, but while some might be fooled, it's clear that it's just a new attempt to get the same old amnesty. And, their recommendations boil down to simply a rhetorical change, from "offering" a "path to citizenship" to "requiring" illegal aliens to become legalized. That more stern language will, the authors hope, immediately cause millions of U.S. citizens to be more amenable to amnesty. I'm sure they'll be able to fool many people that way, but in the end it's not going to work.

And, wrap your mind around this from the study:

This message places the focus where voters want it, on what's best for the United States, not what we can/should do for illegal immigrants.

Who knew? Of course, this is yet another rhetorical device. Why else include the bit about what voters want? Shouldn't those pushing amnesty want what's best for the U.S. as well? Obviously they don't: their actions have repeatedly shown that they're not thinking of what's best for the U.S. but simply what's best for them and their companies, or their ethnic groups, or their political party.

[1] CCIR is headed by Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza. They've suggesting going easy on illegal aliens suspected of identity theft, they gave an award to a virulent racist, they fund extremists, and more. At least two members of the CCIR have indirect links to the Mexican government (ICIRR and MALDEF) and one has allegedly collaborated with that government (CHIRLA). And, one of their member groups (ILIR) has received funding from the Irish government.

In other words, no matter what you hear, it's the same old same old.A new "confidential" study called "Winning The Immigration Debate" has been released by two groups linked to the Democratic Party: the Center for American Progress (linked to Hillary Clinton and indirectly linked to the Mexican government) and the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (member groups also have indirect links to the Mexican government) [1].

I haven't seen the study, but while some might be fooled, it's clear that it's just a new attempt to get the same old amnesty. And, their recommendations boil down to simply a rhetorical change, from "offering" a "path to citizenship" to "requiring" illegal aliens to become legalized. That more stern language will, the authors hope, immediately cause millions of U.S. citizens to be more amenable to amnesty. I'm sure they'll be able to fool many people that way, but in the end it's not going to work.

And, wrap your mind around this from the study:

This message places the focus where voters want it, on what's best for the United States, not what we can/should do for illegal immigrants.

Who knew? Of course, this is yet another rhetorical device. Why else include the bit about what voters want? Shouldn't those pushing amnesty want what's best for the U.S. as well? Obviously they don't: their actions have repeatedly shown that they're not thinking of what's best for the U.S. but simply what's best for them and their companies, or their ethnic groups, or their political party.

[1] CCIR is headed by Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza. They've suggesting going easy on illegal aliens suspected of identity theft, they gave an award to a virulent racist, they fund extremists, and more. At least two members of the CCIR have indirect links to the Mexican government (ICIRR and MALDEF) and one has allegedly collaborated with that government (CHIRLA). And, one of their member groups (ILIR) has received funding from the Irish government.

In other words, no matter what you hear, it's the same old same old.

Immigration2008a · Fri, 02/29/2008 - 11:46 · Importance: 4

Fri, 02/29/2008 - 22:39
faudel

same pig, new lipstick. condescending word game proposals (gimmicks & tricks, basically) which insult the intelligence of the electorate as exemplified by: "you can convince them to do the right thing if you call it a requirement as opposed to an effort." Right thing for whom, Cecilia?

Fri, 02/29/2008 - 22:58
rhymefest

'on what's best for the United States, not what we can/should do for illegal immigrants.' Wow, what a concept! It's obviously completely alien to them (no pun intended). First they have to change their 'frame' that the U.S. should not exist as a sovereign nation, then they can move on to this 'common interest' idea which is antithetical to the special/ethnic interest game.

Sat, 03/01/2008 - 02:46
Fred Dawes
www.myspace.com/freddawes1776

the pigs want us to become good little third world people, what the rats want is the NAU ASP, This would make it law without a fight, amnesty means the NAU at once, the system wants the Americans and the ideals of 1776 to become totally extinct like the dinosaurs. The political reptiles hate our freedoms and want total enslavement for the mass population and the only way to do that is to open the border take down the laws and move the enslaved here by the millions. face facts HELL OF ALOT OF MONEY IN SLAVE, Its a living for the few who hate our Freedoms and want us Gone if you know what I mean? By Gone?

Sat, 03/01/2008 - 08:44
llamajockey

Does this mean that Ethno-Centric groups will oppose Mexico's attempt to influence US politics by pushing for dual citizenship for its legal residents and illegal aliens in the US? Beyond that, La Raza, the US Chambers of Commerce and the rest of the Open Borders lot are straining to adjust to the new realities. Truth is by this time next year at least 10-12 states will have passed tough employer sanction laws for hiring illegal aliens following Arizona and Oklahoma's lead. Indiana's bill has today passed both houses of legislature and a joint bill should be headed to the Governor soon. It would be suicide for loyal Bushie Gov. Mitch Daniels not to sign the bill given that next year a veto proof majority supporting it would almost be assured next year. A lesser number of states will pass restrictions on other welfare benefits or English only bills as well. You can bet the farm that in almost every state, one of the major issues this fall deciding legislator elections will be support for a crack down on illegal alien employment. Assuming that severely limiting illegal alien employment has the benefit of raising low income wages while at the same time decreasing the burden on the taxpayers in those states that have taken upon themselves to act, I can not see how any national politician or party can promote any supposed "toughened" version of "CIR". It would be political suicide. Who is insane enough to support a bill promising mass amnesty to law breakers, lower employment for citizens, more crowded schools and higher taxes. I know I know there are some politicians out there who still would claim "CIR" is a good idea. But the amount of lipstick you have to put on the "CIR" pig is beginning to be prohibitive.

Sat, 03/01/2008 - 12:29
D Flinchum

One more example of how out of touch our legislators are with the average citizen.

Sun, 03/02/2008 - 07:08
Fred Dawes
www.myspace.com/freddawes1776

D Flinchum not out of touch but in touch with Mexico city. we really need to start to understand who the enemy is and buy guns.