Pat Caddell: GOP Isn't Permitted To Run Against Amnesty

[AuH20]

Pat knows the game. Wall Street, the CoC and insanely wealthy globalists like Rupert Murdoch give the GOP it's marching orders.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...OP-Establishment-from-Running-Against-Amnesty

But Caddell said Republican establishment advisers "have other masters," and that is why GOP candidates are not running against illegal immigration. Caddell acknowledged that the "immigration issue is the single biggest switch I have seen on an issue." Americans, Caddell said, have been "changed on immigration" and are against President Barack Obama's executive amnesty after "what's happened the last three months ever since the children showed up and Breitbart [News]" published leaked photos of illegal immigrant children being warehoused.

"And only Scott Brown has made it an issue," Caddell said, referring to the Republican New Hampshire Senate candidate who turned his race into a dead heat after running on illegal immigration.

Regarding amnesty and illegal immigration, Caddell noted that establishment Republicans even in the South are generally "not allowed to speak of it" because they have "higher orders" to obey from their "other masters."

"The political class of the Republican party is interested in two things: preserving positions and getting money," Caddell said, mentioning that "even moderates and Democrats are upset about executive amnesty."

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If amnesty means legalization of people already here (contra deportation or harassment designed to motivate self-deportation), then the GOP shouldn't run against amnesty - it's morally wrong, economically counterproductive, and politically suicidal. Give it up people. If you want the Democrats to legalize all these people, and leave the border open, and give them all welfare, and give them all the vote, then by all means keep doing what you're doing. But what you ought to do is cut your losses, agree to legalization, and work on the other issues - border security, welfare, and the vote. The hardline position will never become law, or even the majority position within the GOP.

 

[AuH20]

If amnesty means legalization of people already here (contra deportation or harassment designed to motivate self-deportation), then the GOP shouldn't run against amnesty - it's morally wrong, economically counterproductive, and politically suicidal. Give it up people. If you want the Democrats to legalize all these people, and leave the border open, and give them all welfare, and give them all the vote, then by all means keep doing what you're doing. But what you ought to do is cut your losses, agree to legalization, and work on the other issues - border security, welfare, and the vote. The hardline position will never become law, or even the majority position within the GOP.

Any comprehensive immigration plan conjured up by our elite political class will be a redux of the Reagan amnesty in 1986. A 'deal' will be made and the same situation will metastasize 10 to 15 years later with little to no security or welfare restrictions. Just look at Rand Paul's recent comprehensive bill to also curb welfare benefits available to newly amnestied citizens. It died instantaneously in the Congress. So no amnesty is certainly better than another trojan horse bill.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Any comprehensive immigration plan conjured up by our elite political class will be a redux of the Reagan amnesty in 1986. A 'deal' will be made and the same situation will metastasize 10 to 15 years later with little to no security or welfare restrictions. Just look at Rand Paul's recent comprehensive bill to also curb welfare benefits available to newly amnestied citizens. It died instantaneously in the Congress. So no amnesty is certainly better than another trojan horse bill.

Your plan can't be indefinite continuation of the current gridlock, because soon enough there will be enough support for comprehensive reform without your votes.

If you want any influence on the outcome, you need to use your leverage while you still have it.

That means bite the bullet and accept legalization in exchange for concessions on other issues.

 

[AuH20]

Your plan can't be indefinite continuation of the current gridlock, because soon enough there will be enough support for comprehensive reform without your votes.

If you want any influence on the outcome, you need to use your leverage while you still have it.

That means bite the bullet and accept legalization in exchange for concessions on other issues.

I think that's largely the issue that frightens me. Those are empty concessions that can easily be reneged on, which is why they are being offered. There is no need to even dignify these one sided deals. I say let them ramrod it through and suffer the repercussions since illegal immigration is largely an unpopular issue due to the ongoing economic crisis. It's almost as unpopular as TARP was. More dependents for an ever shrinking pie is not popular in the U.S. That may be the one bright spot about the public's addiction to government largesse.

 

[AuH20]

History repeats itself over and over again. How can anyone realistically make a deal with a party that is not trustworthy?:

http://humanevents.com/2006/12/13/reagan-would-not-repeat-amnesty-mistake/

I was attorney general two decades ago during the debate over what became the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. President Reagan, acting on the recommendation of a bipartisan task force, supported a comprehensive approach to the problem of illegal immigration, including adjusting the status of what was then a relatively small population. Since the Immigration and Naturalization Service was then in the Department of Justice, I had the responsibility for directing the implementation of that plan.

President Reagan set out to correct the loss of control at our borders. Border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened—in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.

He also agreed with the legislation in adjusting the status of immigrants—even if they had entered illegally—who were law-abiding long-term residents, many of whom had children in the United States. Illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship. It wasn’t automatic. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because these are pretty much the same provisions included in the Comprehensive Reform Act of 2006, which its supporters claim is not amnesty. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and the recent Senate legislation both include an amnesty. The difference is that President Reagan called it for what it was.

Lesson of 1986

The lesson from the 1986 experience is that such an amnesty did not solve the problem. There was extensive document fraud, and the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there was a failure of political will to enforce new laws against employers. After a brief slowdown, illegal immigration returned to high levels and continued unabated, forming the nucleus of today’s large population of illegal aliens.

So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I think that's largely the issue that frightens me. Those are empty concessions that can easily be reneged on, which is why they are being offered. There is no need to even dignify these one sided deals. I say let them ramrod it through and suffer the repercussions since illegal immigration is largely an unpopular issue due to the ongoing economic crisis. It's almost as unpopular as TARP was. More dependents for an ever shrinking pie is not popular in the U.S. That may be the one bright spot about the public's addiction to government largesse.

This is one of the big points I keep pressing home to Tea Partiers.
...
Every promise they made you to get elected, they will break. It is the nature of the beast. The money for reelection is contingent on breaking those promises, therefore people who want to stay in office usually do. Until we can fund our Liberty/Constitutional/Tea Republican coalition candidates like the big shots, we have to work it so money doesn't matter. And in a big campaign that means thousands of volunteers, from early on. We made it happen with Ron and Rand. Amash, Massie, and a few others. We didn't have much manpower, but Moresco did the work of 20.

Brannon did really well despite the Karl Rove smear machine because of an enormous volunteer base. He could have done a lot better but it was not capitalized on very well.

Your word has to mean something for me to vote for you. Vote for the nominee if you want, I won't judge anybody, but my principles mean something to me, and I cannot ignore them. I cannot vote for someone I already know will violate the Constitution. It is an Oath I swore before God, and I should rather die than to break it.

You do as you see fit, strategic or otherwise, and I will not judge. I mean to shove this nation back into it's Constitutional box, and I cannot do that by going back on my word. I have made it a point not to promote or demote candidates, and only rise to the defence of those who feel the same way I do.

Tomorrow will happen, and life will go on. I am confident that the US Senate will be Republican in the morning, thank God. Who knows what Reid and Obama will do in their last 2 years. We as a Party have missed golden opportunity after platinum opportunity time and again over the last six years, and the time will come when embracing that is our only shot at survival. If there will be a Republican party, it must embrace human liberty, or it will die, and something new will arise to take it's place.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I expect many of the newly elected GOP congress-persons to jump right on the amnesty "comprehensive" reform bandwagon. Rubio/Hatch redux.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

@AuH20 and Gunny

If your position is that you can't trust the government to enforce any legislation about immigration, and you're also unhappy with the status quo, what exactly is your goal?

 

[AuH20]

@AuH20 and Gunny

If your position is that you can't trust the government to enforce any legislation about immigration, and you're also unhappy with the status quo, what exactly is your goal?

I can't speak for Gunny. But my position is to make certain that it doesn't get any worse. So the status quo is a win as far as I'm concerned.
I'm a realist and understand that we are fighting incredibly powerful factions backed by billions upon billions of funny money. At this point, it's all about damage prevention.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

@AuH20 and Gunny

If your position is that you can't trust the government to enforce any legislation about immigration, and you're also unhappy with the status quo, what exactly is your goal?

My position on immigration, is to make the environment toxic to do it illegally, and make it easier to do it legally. I also think none of the buffoons up there at the moment have a clue. Even the ones I love.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It's not "no government" it's "Constitutional Government." At this point in American history, any government that is not Constitutional is actively harmful to America. Certainly 'Immigration' has a broad scope under the nationalization section and the definition of the Nation, whereupon the citizens were members of their States. Now after the 14th, citizenship is conferred to DC and this amendment 'tore a hole' making some powers ambiguous. What do you do with powers reserved to the States when the Fed just claims that power with an Amendment? Do the powers just vanish, or do the powers of the States confer with the obligation? There is no right answer, so there needs to be an Amendment to clarify. But I would never offer one in this environment. It would be turned into something awful.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Your plan can't be indefinite continuation of the current gridlock, because soon enough there will be enough support for comprehensive reform without your votes.

If you want any influence on the outcome, you need to use your leverage while you still have it.

That means bite the bullet and accept legalization in exchange for concessions on other issues.

There has always been support for amnesty among the money classes that run the country. But among the people, even Democrats are opposed. That is why the moneyed political class is so keen to replace Americans with Mexicans and other third world types. If the voters don't support your policies, simply replace them with new voters. That is the motto of the corporate and political elite.