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.