Why John McCain Will Never Win

I almost wrote the polar opposite of this article: John McCain, Surgin’ Back? He has a lot of bipartisan support, plenty of endorsements, was right about the surge, and is a solid conservative. The only thing missing is his unpopular immigration position and funds. But that’s the thing: McCain will never succeed because of his immigration position.

His poll numbers have been rising, sure, but as I’ve argued before, Republicans have no dream candidate. They are going through “fads”, almost.

But there’s an even broader issue here: immigration is showing up to be the most decisive primary election issue, more decisive than the Iraq war and terrorism even. One reason for this is that all candidates have expressed their positions on the war, and it’s turned out to be a matter of Republican or Democrat; Republicans want to stay (excluding Ron Paul), and Democrats want to leave.

There’s more than that: illegal immigration, many Americans feel, is actually affecting them on almost a day to day basis, unlike the Iraq war.

The other case that brings me to believe this is Clinton and driver's licenses. Her downturn in the polls started after her gaffe responding to the question of illegal immigrant's rights to driver licenses. She was really hit hard on her answer to that.

I think it’s fair to say that illegal immigration (along with the economy, which go hand in hand) will turn out to be the deciding factor during the primaries. It won’t necessarily be the most important, but it will be the deciding factor.

The general election?
Just as the Democrats have popular support for their plan to get out of Iraq, the Republicans will have popular support for their appearance of taking a “tough line” on illegal immigration.

So, a lot of it comes down to: are concerns over immigration more important than concerns over terrorism and foreign policy?

Rudy Giuliani: Every Foreigner in U.S. Must Carry New Card

I know this is kinda old, but it didn’t get the attention it deserves: Rudy Giuliani wants every foreigner in America to carry around a ‘SAFE’ card, along with their passport.

Yes, it has been proposed before; but by a presidential candidate?

Rudy G is trying to cement his immigration position as hard line after Mitt Romney came out of the Ames Poll swinging hard.

And the worst news?

“If you don’t have that card, you get thrown out of the country,” Giuliani said.

Under what circumstance would a foreigner be asked to show their card? Would they be issued immediately? Is this even legal?

Those are the questions that have to be answered.


"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Open Discussion: Immigration

Once again, sorry about the low volume of posting.

So, what do you think about immigration, legal and illegal? Do you think amnesty won't work? Will the current bill not work?

Please respond in the comments section or by email.

For more on illegal immigration: http://thethoughtsontheworld.blogspot.com/search/label/Illegal%20Immigration

CNN New Hampshire 2008 Democratic Debate Notes

There was many differences between the candidates on dealing with Iraq, but besides that, they had very similar ideas.

John Edwards was very interesting in this debate, he was very aggressive. He was also sucking up to Obama.

Political Realm sums it up even better: Frontrunners Excel In Second Democratic Debate

Politics:
Edwards went on the offensive, specifically against Hillary
Edwards complimenting Obama a lot; vice president?
Clinton says differences between Democrats are small

Immigration:
Gravel only one who thinks English should be the official language

Iraq:
(Basically what the candidates have said before)
Gravel blames Democrats for war
Gravel says anyone who voted for war shouldn't be president

Health Care:
Most agree that health care is needed; details different (all or just children, etc.)

Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
Biden says Peter Pace is "flat wrong."

Energy:
Gravel/Dodd support carbon tax

Iran:
Edwards mentions how Iran used to support US, says use carrots (economic incentives) and sticks (economic sanctions if not accept incentives)

War on Terror:
Kucinich wouldn't launch airstrike against Bin Laden if might kill civilians; instead, wants to capture and try

Darfur:
Joe Biden wants to set up no fly zone over Sudan and to use force in Darfur but doesn't want to boycott
Richardson: "Maybe we won't go to the Olympics" if China doesn't stop supporting Sudan

Deficit/Earmarks:
Bill Richardson-Spend Iraq war money on domestics and line item veto and pay as you go constitutional amendment
Kucinich says get out of WTO

Top Priorities First 100 Days:
Edwards-fix what America looks like abroad
Clinton-Bring troops home (applause)
Obama-Bring troops home; healthcare (quickly)
Richardson-education: full day kindergaten, minimum wage for teachers (40,000), preschool for all
Biden-End War in Iraq, fix Korea, fix Iran
Kucinich-"reshape the world for peace", get rid of nukes, cancel NAFTA, cancel WTO, get healthcare
Gravel-? Didn't really say anything
Dodd-Fix constitutional rights (Guantanamo)

Why does the U.S. Plan to Tax Its Poorest?

CNN: Bill would give 12 million a path to citizenship

Applicants would also have to pay a $5,000 penalty.

Illegal immigrants usually come to this country for better work and to earn enough money to support themselves or their family. Where are they going to get enough money to pay 5 THOUSAND dollars? That is approximately 12.5% of the average American’s (or illegal immigrant’s, for that matter) salary. Not only this, but illegals “would have to return to their home country”. Where are they going to get the money to do that?

And if somehow those problems are solved, who’s going oversee all the new citizens? The cost of ‘legalizing’ all the immigrants is going to have a huge cost and be a huge headache for the government.

This plan is illogical and implausible. If the immigrants cannot pay the price of amnesty, very few will take the offer. It appears it will pass the House, the Senate, and will not be vetoed. Hopefully someone will realize this will be a failing plan. Illegal immigration should be dealt with on the other side of the border, economically.

Does a State Have the Power to Deal with Immigration?

The Cafferty File, part of The Situation Room on CNN, poses a question every hour The Situation Room is on. This is today's 5:00 question, and Thoughts on the World's response.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of enforcement of the nation's immigration laws by the federal government, is Oklahoma right to crack down on its own?

Of course Oklahoma has the power to crack down on illegal immigration. Why wouldn’t they? State’s rights and federalism allows each state to have their own powers: education, health care, etc. If they can deal with education, why’s it such a big deal that Oklahoma is dealing with immigration?

4 Plans That WON'T Fix Illegal Immigration

While Congress debates the best way to solve illegal immigration, blogs around the Internet are trying to find ways that will work. Illegal immigration is wrong. It has to be stopped, but there are some ideas that will not work.

1. End ALL immigration for five years
Ending immigration for even five years would be disastrous for the country. They say there is a brain drain in Iraq because of the violence, but imagine how bad it would be here. Not allowing any new minds to enter the U.S. is one of worst things you could do to the economy, especially with China and India on the rise.

2. Send the military to the border to stop the immigrants
“Let's put soldiers on the border to stop the illegals.” Sounds like a good idea, right? It's not. The army is stretched thin. We can barely get enough soldiers to Iraq. Even sending the National Guard wouldn't be right.

3. English only policies, ballots, and schools
English only policies would only alienate illegal immigrants and not encourage them to assimilate and become citizens. America is the melting pot. The fact that it is a combination of so many cultures is what makes it beautiful.

4. Build the fence!
Will the fence really be effective? Maybe it would be, but maybe it would just waste money and valuable congressional time. A fence is just a fence. It can be broken, climbed over, dug under, or be walked around. The proposed fence would supposedly have no holes. That's not even plausible.


For the best way to fix illegal immigration, see this post.

Illegal Immigration starts with Economics

Once upon a time, in a not-so-far off land called North America, there were two neighboring cities. Usa and Mex were their names, and the river Immigration ran strong through them. The native citizens of Usa did not like this river running through their town; they even have an ordinance against rivers running through the city, but because of many different complicated reasons, this ordinance wasn’t enforced. Mex was happy just to have all of that water out of their town because it wasn’t doing any good there. The council of Usa decided something had to be done. They came up with a plan. They convinced Mex to build a dam in the river to block most of Immigration River. In exchange, Mex would get a wheel from the town of Usa that would provide hydroelectric power. To finish the job, Usa would build another dam on the edge of Usa to stop the trickle of Immigration River that could get through Mex’s dam. Everyone lived happily ever after.

Sound familiar? It should. This represents the illegal immigration problem the United States is currently facing. It also represents what could be happening to end the dilemma. If the United States (Usa) could provide support (hydroelectric wheel) to the Mexican poor (Mex represented Mexico) and demolish the crime and drug lords, everyone’s happy (first dam built). With jobs and a better life, fewer immigrants (Immigrant River) would sneak into the country. Then Washington could worry about the problem back in their territory (the second dam). Ending immigration starts with the first step of aiding the poor and needy in Mexico.