Jeb Bush has lately been defending his brother George — the former president — against Donald Trump’s criticism, and George is raising funds for Jeb’s presidential campaign. What all this fraternal support obscures is the extent of the policy differences between the two. Despite his reputation for moderation, on issue after issue Jeb has taken positions that are significantly to the right of his brother’s — and of every other president in recent memory.
Start with taxes. Like his brother in 2000, Jeb Bush is running at a time when the top statutory income-tax rate is 39.6 percent. George W. Bush proposed reducing that to 33 percent. Jeb wants to cut it to 28 percent. George left taxes on businesses largely alone. Jeb wants to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, and let businesses write off the costs of their investments immediately. George kept the alternative minimum tax in place, too, where Jeb wants to eliminate it. All in all, Jeb’s plan is far more oriented toward supply-side economics than George’s was.
On spending, too, Jeb has tried to stake out a position to the right of his brother, without directly criticizing him. He said in May that “during my brother’s time, Republicans spent too much money.” One of George’s major promises in 2000 was to create a new subsidy for prescription-drug purchases by the elderly, which eventually became Medicare Part D. Jeb has no comparable initiative. He says his brother’s plan should have been paid for, and has spoken positivelyabout Representative Paul Ryan’s proposal to restrain Medicare spending.
In important respects, Jeb’s health-care positions are also more conservative than his brother’s. For years, conservative think-tankers pushed Republicans to change the tax treatment of health insurance so that people who buy coverage for themselves can get an equivalent tax break to those who get it through their employers — and without having to obey highly prescriptive federal regulations on what kind they can buy. George Bush’s administration made only a half-hearted effort to do so, too late in his term to make a difference. Jeb hasadvanced a plan to create a much more competitive individual market.
Even on education — where he has sustained criticism from conservatives for his support of Common Core standards — Jeb is running to the right of his brother. George ran on “No Child Left Behind,” an ambitious plan to leverage federal dollars to reform schools in every state. Jeb says that Washington’s role in educationshould be limited, that it shouldn’t interfere in state standard-setting, and that it should offer more flexibility in using federal funds. Jebalso thinks families should be able to use their share of federal aid for poor students to pay for private school. George never called for boosting school choice that way.
The brothers have similar views on immigration. But Jeb goes further than George in siding with the critics, mostly conservative, who think reuniting extended families should not be a priority. He’d prefer more skills-based immigration.
This is not exactly a revelation if one has taken time to read the biographies. GWB is more conservative than dad, Jeb is more conservative than dad and brother. Some of their policy prescriptions are similar, but similar is not identical. The policy differences between Jeb and GWB are largely a function of the times, but the goal is the same in letting us keep more of our own money and making sure our kids are more than functional illiterates.
As I have stated before, nominating another Bush writes the DNC campaign ad for them:
(Ominous spooky music plays)
NARRATOR: The first Bush got us into a war in the middle east….
(Show pictures from the Gulf War, sinister in theme)
NARRATOR: The second Bush got us into TWO wars in the middle east…
(Show more sinister pictures of the aftermath of IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan)
(Fade in unflattering photo of Jeb…)
NARRATOR: Wanna try for three? (Fade up ominous music….)
The push for Jeb is coming from the same people who gave us Romney, McCain and Dole. Time for the concept of familial political dynasties to be buried.
@Pete: I strongly supported GHWB war in Iraq, I strongly supported GWB war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think more effort should have been put into the Afghanistan war, but he did what he could do with the Dims strongly objecting to everything they do. I am not in favor of Jeb’s open borders to illegals. I would not support Jeb because of his illegals activities. I would not support anyone that is not in favor of building an impenetrable border. Illegal aliens are the largest threat to this country. Almost evenly tied with liberal dimocrats in the plan to destroy the country.
Don’t get me wrong, Red, I supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, deploying to both of those hellholes during my time in the Army. I genuinely like W, even though I disagreed with some of his policies.
But our nation doesn’t need another ostensible compassionate conservative. It is not compassionate to tell one’s children they can eat all the candy they want and have every materialistic thing they want while the family budget goes bankrupt. Jeb uses conservative terminology with all the smooth naturalness of an electrocuted porcupine, while defending common core and illegal alien amnesty. All the tepid positive spin on Jeb from the MSM will go out the window if he gets the nomination and is running against whatever marxist pathological liar the dems nominate. Romney’s submissiveness towards Obama did not serve him – or our nation – well at all, given the carnage Obama has given us.
Given the horrendously poor support Jeb has thus far garnered in the primary, only a fool.would believe he could stoke any passion in the general election.
@Pete: Sounds as if we are in about the same position relative to Jeb.
I don’t agree. Neither his dad or brother were for open borders, Jeb is. I think he wants all of his wives relatives and all their relatives to come on over. There is no foreign policy or fiscal policy that he could promote that would outweigh his WIDE OPEN BORDERS policy. His border policy is like Rubio’s Katy bar the door.
I’m honestly beginning to wonder why we keep seeing so many glowingly pro-establishment Republican articles here. I thought Flopping Aces was supposed to be a pro-conservative blogging site.
I guess Jeb is mad now that he can’t get any traction no matter how much money he spends. He’s pissed that Trump can act like a jerk and still climb in the polls. He doesn’t get it.
People are sick and tired of the same old thing. Trump not only speaks unlike any other politician but he has no record of acting like all the other politicians. Trump might not be legitimate or the best, but he sure looks and sounds like exactly what most people want. It would serve them well for all the other politicians to take note and, not just make sounds like Trump, but dedicate themselves to serving the people and the nation as Trump indicates he will.
@Bill: You’ll notice “the jerk” has stopped climbing in the polls–2 latest Iowa polls have Carson with double digit leads.
Trump’s problem—% of electorate that can be identified as jerks not sufficient to push Trump any higher—he’s got the overwhelming majority on board already.
@Rich Wheeler: You must be looking at the liberal polls, they never get anything right. One poll had Carson ahead by 5, the latest, today has them tied again, so I guess it just depends on which poll you look at and if it’s the libs attempting to mislead the regular people. Latest poll I saw said that 74% expect that Trump will win the election.
Shrillary is dead
The Socialist is dead
Webb is dead
Jeb is dead
Rubio is dead
list is narrowing down.
Official October Electoral Map: gloom for Dems, joy for TRUMP
Meanwhile, Prince Jeb has a butt-hurt hissy-fit: Jeb Bush Throws A Fit And Tells America He Has Better Things To Do Than Be President
Bwaaahaahaaa!!! In a petulant “take-my-ball-and-go-home” moment::
Except, Bush doesn’t mind insulting his main establishment competition: Bush also calls Rubio the GOP Obama
In case you missed it: Donald Trump’s TODAY town hall: Guns, ISIS — and the last time he ate McDonald’s
One thing that came up that I found particularly interesting:
Rich likes to talk about this “not niceness” of Trump, yet ignores how arrogantly “not nice” emperor Obama is to anyone who does not agree with him and his socialist-fascist agenda. Hypocrite much Rich?
@Ditto: You know as well as I that the one that RW demonizes the most is the one he fears most. Bush and Rubio do not want fences built, in fact they would take down what we presently have.
@Ditto: You’re pimping Dimitri Voltova?/–don’t miss his hit job on Carson.
Make sure RT sees Dimitri’s lol take. He thinks libs are skewering polls.
At least you stand up and admit you’re a proud Trumpist. RT is afraid of his own shadow when it comes to backing anything or anyone
I think the question will be to whom will the GOPe throw their support once Jeb drops out. I fully expect the elitists who demanded conservative support of their previous milquetoast candidates to stay home or throw in with Hillary, rather than support Trump, Carson or Cruz.
Fiorina or Rubio are looking more as if they are going into the potential VP pool. Jindal may still join that group as well. Rand will never be more than a senator from Kentucky. Huckabee will sell a few more books and go back to TV. Christie will prolly get named as AG or some other cabinet position. Kasich will flounder around as a “conservative” mouthpiece after his governor stint is up. Graham will continue running his little fiefdom, and Pataki will fade away, popping up intermittently like Kasich and Perry as a political commentator.
If either the crook or the socialist win next year, I give the republic at most 20 to 30 years before collapse.
@Pete: That was fun though I didn’t see you pick a winner.
I know you support Cruz–do you see a path? I think he can blow up Trump in Tex particularly if Rubio is able to wound DT in Fla.
I realize you Conservatives don’t agree, but I believe a Rubio/Kasich ticket has best chance of getting an E.C WIN over HRC,which would be fine with me and other non HRC Dems.
But of course. Rich, like most far-lefties, is all about tossing conservatives into the briar patch. Unfortunately for them, Trump is as resilient as Br’er Rabbit.
Certainly, I admit to playing trumpet for the Lackland & Lowry Air Force Base Drum and Bugle Corps. As for which candidate I am voting for (a year from now), I haven’t said yet. I am not against Trump, nor Cruz. I have some hesitations about Huckabee, and definite reservations against Carly and Carson. The rest of them are GOPe which I will not consider voting for.
At least I’ve said I support Trump’s politics whether I vote for him or not. You haven’t had the cajone’s to say who you support. Until you grow a pair, don’t complain about others not having one.
I would give that pair zero odds of getting a nomination. Rubio is a liberal in Rino gear. (in addition to not being a natural born citizen) I wouldn’t vote for him under any conditions.
Rich is all for pushing the Repubs that he thinks would be the easiest for Shrillary to beat in an election. Despite his denials, he has had no intention of supporting anyone other than her. When any Repub seems to be stronger than her, he is against that Repub.. That’s why he’s foaming at the mouth about Trump.
I plan to support the Republican nominee against any Dimocrat. I wouldn’t vote for a Dim if hell was going to freeze over if I didn’t. I will not support any of the Repubs that are not eligible, that includes Rubio, Cruz and Jindal (we’ve experimented with one illegal president, we don’t need to do that again.) I won’t vote for Graham or Christie.
Though I support Cruz and believe his national strategy and grassroots funding are very solid, I have seen enough presidential campaigns to know it is far too early to make anything close to an accurate prediction at this point. Short of Hillary being convicted, she will most likely be the demomarxist candidate. If I was forced to guess today on likely republican developments, I see Jeb dropping out, Rubio becoming the standard bearer for the GOPe, Pataki, Rand, Huckabee, Christie, Jindal, Graham, and Kasich dropping out in no particular order before or after South Carolina, with Trump, Carson and Cruz being the last 3 standing. Rubio and Fiorina are wildcards, though I see one of them being selected as the VP – Rubio to try to gain back the GOPe, with Fiorina an attempt to neutralize Hillary’s “it’s time for a woman” campaign theme.
Carson seems to be overtaking Trump’s poll numbers. Trump has his own money to run, and Cruz seems to have the most solid ground game. Beyond that bit of prestidigitation, my crystal ball has no further insight.
@Pete:Thoughtful reply. Thanks
National poll released today shows Carson 26 Trump 22.
Trump, who loves polls, response on TV this morn– “I don’t get it”
Well Donald, it may have to do with class vs. classless.
Gotta love people who support Obama referring to “class” as a measuring point of a candidate or even a person. Barack Obama is possibly the most classless person to measure by; he attacks the innocent and defends the guilty, promotes violence and defiles those who try and defend themselves. He has no care whatsoever as to the harm his agenda causes the individual; all he wants to do is be remembered for “transforming”.
At least Trump has created jobs and wealth for himself and others rather than taking in from others and using it to buy votes.
@Bill: @Bill: Your ODS is showing—Last I looked BHO had no horse in this race—Trump can blow up this race without any help–just by being himself.
@Rich Wheeler: @Rich Wheeler: So you completely change your rules of judgement depending on whether or not Obama is on the ticket?
I think that’s called “hypocrisy” and that WAS my point.
@Bill: I’m simply comparing Trump–classless to Carson–exuding class. I believe this is the reason Carson now leads the race. Do you have a better reason?
Obama’s not relevant.
@Pete: and Bill It appears that Evangelical’s overwhelming support have fueled Carson’s push past Trump.
Caveat– Keep in mind Evangelicals Huckabee-2008 and Santorum 2012 won in Iowa–didn’t get them close to nomination
Note Carson is a 7th Day Adventist–doesn’t smoke or drink and is a vegetarian.
@Rich Wheeler: I don’t really care about their religion as long as they leave mine alone. What I want is someone that will fearlessly address our economic quagmire and the loss of respect around the world.
@Bill: You may not care but Evangelicals are a substantial part of the Republican Party base. They’ll play a big role in South Carolina Primary as they did in 2000.
@Rich Wheeler: And will most likely support Trump.
@Redteam: Evangelicals have given Carson the National lead and will give him a double digit win in Iowa and a very close win in South Carolina.
We are months away from the first primary. That is an eon in political time. Candidates who are peaking now face the possibility that they will peak far too soon.
“Evangelicals have given Carson the National lead and will give him a double digit win in Iowa and a very close win in South Carolina.”
Some seem to possess a crystal ball and think they can predict how certain segments of the Republican base will vote. Of course, they have to go back 15 years to solidify that prediction.
You keep saying that the illegal immigration problem can be solved by building an impassible wall. Wouldn’t such a wall not only have to completely encircle the entire nation (not just blocking our border with Mexico) so that boat-loads of “refugees” couldn’t land on our shores, but also have to extend deep enough to preclude tunneling under it and high enough that NOTHING could fly over it? Who is Trump going to make pay for THIS wall?
I gave you the solution to illegal immigration a long time ago. This nation must make illegal immigration sufficiently unattractive to completely discourage any more of it and to compel illegals already hear to leave in haste. Short of the resolve to do that, we can’t afford YOUR solution, and we will inevitably be stuck with exactly the same situation we now have: Illegals will come and go as they please, according to our market interest in the labor they have to offer and their interest in the social benefits we are too compassionate to withhold from them.
You should spend more time finding a candidate that has an immigration plan that would actually work and less time thinking up magical solutions that sound like they came out of a Dr. Seuss book.
Thanks for the question George, and the correct answer is ‘no’. We only need a wall where there is a problem. We don’t have millions coming in by sea or by air or from Canada. If they dig a tunnel deep enough that it can’t be detected by ground penetrating radar, then it would be a massive enterprise and would have to have an end on the US side. Do you think a massive construction project for a huge tunnel (equivalent to tunnel under English Channel, for example) could go undetected for the years of construction? And who would spend the tens of billions of dollars to fund it? I’ve never seen a mass migration by air, but they would have to have huge landing areas for millions and could be easily detected. No, the only wall needs to be between the US and Mexico, that’ll take care of it. Any other questions?
@George Wells: While you’re at it George, would you answer this question for me?
How would you do that, and what candidate or political party do you see with a plan to do what you suggest?
There are currently over 2 million “Cuban-Americans” here in the USA. The overwhelming majority of them arrived by sea. Once you build a “land-wall” between the USA and Mexico, that would still leave thousands of miles of sea-coast wide open, and once simply walking into Uncle Sam’s back yard was no longer an option, the sea route would become the next-best entry option. No matter where you terminate a wall, there will be millions of people willing to travel to the however far beyond that terminus it takes to get here. Anyone who doesn’t understand this is an idiot. There are currently millions of Middle-Eastern refugees flooding into Europe by every means they can avail. No wall can stop them. They are MOTIVATED. The only solution to that problem is for the European countries to become sufficiently MOTIVATED to effectively DETER that mass immigration, which is the SAME solution that we have to OUR illegal immigration problem.
No, the Democrats won’t stop the illegal immigration, because they have positioned the Republican Party to take the political fall for being the party that OPPOSES legalizing this immigration, effectively insuring that the vast majority of Latinos won’t ever forget and will consequently remain loyal Democrats forever. Effective deterrence will have to come from the Republican Party, and so far, the prospective candidates are too timid to suggest anything that would actually work. Trump suggested a wall that can’t work for a multitude of reasons – I gave you only one because only one is needed to prove the point. He doesn’t have anything else. The GOP candidates who have acknowledged that the illegal immigration problem cannot be fixed by constructing a Dr. Seuss wall around Who-ville have been rejected by their obviously irrational party’s base, virtually guaranteeing that the illegal immigration problem will not be solved in any way, shape or form by the Republican Party. Paul Ryan has even promised to NOT EVEN TALK about the problem. Wonderful!
And just so you aren’t unpleasantly surprised when this problem goes from bad to worse, it WILL get progressively worse the longer we suck up to Politically Correct “compassionate ineffectualism.” There is no end to the distressed masses accumulating in the World as a result of mankind’s unrestrained reproductive urges. Millions and millions of them will come here, unless we figure out how to DISCOURAGE that behavior, and soon. If we DON’T stop it, it will be the end of the GOP.
Oh my. I thought you knew. We never tried to keep them out. In fact we ‘encouraged’ them to flee Cuba and come to the US. Keeping them out would be extremely easy.
Ditto, no one ‘tried’ to stop them. In fact they went out of their way to encourage them to come there. You can’t tell me a few 50 cal machine guns set up at the right spots wouldn’t stop them.
Soooo,, you don’t know how to do that? The only person to suggest ‘ANYTHING’ is Trump. So tell us how you know a wall won’t work when it hasn’t been tried. Have you ever noticed that most prisons have a wall around them? Is it your position that those walls are a complete waste of money?
Make hiring aliens less attractive, prosecute and fine the owner or CEO then make them purchase a first class tickets for their employees back to country of origin. Change the law that gives citizenship to all babies born here, at least 1 parent must be here legal tourists not eligible . Chain gang those convicted of a serious crime to build the wall. No benefits including unemployment insurance until here 14 years legally. For those already here and been here for a long time they must apply for citizenship, have a clean criminal record. All must speak english no exceptions. All must give up citizenship from former country. Children dumped across our border should be placed for adoption. Perhaps the legal hispanics would have some good ideas, Building a wall would be easy compared to gathering several million people and giving them the ol boot. I know there are better ideas don’t be afraid to toss some out there. I guess you can tell from a northern state where this problem is mostly seasonal.
The Great Wall of China was very effective and it didn’t circle the whole of China. In the US, the diligent enforcement of the laws on the books worked quite well until Washington DC politicians of both parties became corrupted.
The border between Mexico and the United States is 1,989 miles long. No wall that is practical to build can keep people out who are determined to enter. If the wall is 50 feet high, 52-foot ladders will become all the rage south of the border. Any such wall would have to be manned with enough border patrols that they could not just see but CATCH people climbing over it. One patrol every 100 feet would mean over 105000 border patrol officers. Laughable. Fewer would simply give us the ability to file reports noting that: “Yep, there goes another one.” And the experience in Europe has been that when frustrated at un-receptive check-points or immigration “bottlenecks,” refugees tend to mass and press in an effort to overwhelm the forces attempting to exclude them.
Even more to the point, every single solution so far proposed has been nothing more than a band-aid, a reactionary knee-jerk in response to wishful thinking. Nobody has offered any constructive solution to the immigration problem. And without one, nothing new will happen.
I gave you the solution, and you rejected it. Not my problem. Like the politicians before you, make pretend that you can afford to build a 2000-mile-wall. Make pretend that you can afford to make ANY wall that’s 2000-miles-long AND able to actually keep out people who would enter.
Your “wall” is a joke. Until you can figure out that the answer to illegal immigration isn’t a wall, but instead a compelling program of discouragement, you’re lost.
You are ALL looking exclusively at the past to inform you of your future, and that’s a fatal mistake. The “Great Wall of China” did little more than the average combination lock – it was a mild aid that encouraged people who were already honest to stay that way. People who were really motivated to go through the wall did so at will, and it was breached many times.
“Diligent enforcement of the laws” had little effect when it WASN’T attractive for Mexican workers to come here, and the laws had no effect what-so-ever when the economics of illegal immigration became attractive.
Kitt is on the right track, but only goes far enough to modestly control the Mexican problem, which has NOTHING to do with the flood of refugees coming our way.
And Redteam completely misses the point that Cubans got here by boat. Yes, they were largely welcome, but had they not been, they would still have been able to get here by boat. The Oceans are huge, and our coastline dwarfs our 2000-mile-long border with Mexico. Build a wall along the Rio Grande and at the same time keep illegal immigration attractive to Mexicans, and they will come by sea just as certainly as they have been coming by land.
Consider this: When you travel abroad and return to this country, you have your passport in hand, and you are confident that as you wait patiently in line at “customs and immigration,” there won’t be any problem when it becomes your turn to be checked in. There is no panic, no tsunami of humanity surging ahead to overwhelm the agents who are otherwise fighting off boredom as they mindlessly stamp your passport and direct you to push a button to determine if someone is going to have to rifle through your dirty clothes looking for undeclared contraband.
Not so with Mexican illegals. They wander here at will, currently having a choice of attractive paths along a two-thousand-mile porous border, taking in each case what is for them the path of least resistance. There is no means of wall construction that eliminates all entry options, and so long as successful illegal entry is rewarded with employment and free health care – and the implied promise of eventual US citizenship – there will always be more than enough people who are cleaver enough to find their way around whatever barriers we put in their way.
Barriers are not the answer. Putting a price on the heads of illegal immigrants is. Our very way of life is threatened by uncontrolled and excessive illegal immigration, and we should view it as a threat to our national security.
I am very sorry that large sections of the World are grossly over-populated, starving, and ruled by tyrants who make a practice of committing crimes against humanity, but opening our hearts to the predicament of all people who are thus oppressed by welcoming them into our country is not the answer. There are too many of them, and they would overwhelm us. Look at what has already happened in Europe, and that is only the first stage of the globalization and destruction of what Europe previously was. I don’t want that to happen here.
We benefit from being further isolated from the sources of this wave of emigrating humanity than Europe is, as this flow clearly behaves like water taking the path of least resistance. But this wave will inevitably find its way here, and if we wait for that to happen BEFORE we aggressively DISCOURAGE illegal immigration, we will have missed a vital opportunity. Mexican workers are by far a more attractive problem than Syrian refugees, what with their appeal to businesses looking for cheap labor and seeking to avoid statutory regulation of benefits and the like. But we might as well bite the bullet and solve the illegal immigration problem that we ALREADY have, and do so in a way that will be applicable to the other mongrel hoards that are spasming across the globe and moving in our direction. Rubio and Bush are correct that some appropriate solution needs to be developed that takes into account the value that Mexican workers represent to our economy, and concurrent with that, immigration control needs to be tightened sufficiently to discourage illegal entry. See above. If we fail to save our country, we’ll have nobody to blame but ourselves.
@George Wells: The left gets situations so screwed up and out of control that they eventually defend their policies that GOT the conditions screwed up with the surrender of, “it’s just too hard to fix!”.
First, the entire border does not have to be walled; there are portions that impassable and some that are easily monitored. It doesn’t need to be 50 feet tall; sensors can detect when someone is climbing over and assets can be directed to the point of contact.
Had the compromise Reagan made with Democrats to grant 3 million illegal immigrants amnesty in 1987, the wall would be built and we wouldn’t be wondering how to solve the problem of 12-14 million illegal immigrants, which now includes terrorists. The one and only problem with stands in the way is the left wing lack of will to address the problem… because the problem benefits THEM.
@kitt: If we made verification of legal residency a requirement to receive taxpayer-funded aid, the supply of illegal immigrants would rapidly dry up. For, at the wages they are paid (the vast majority are exploited due to their status, something the left has no problem with whatsoever), they cannot afford to live here (and send the bulk of their earnings home) without subsidizing. Cut off the billions we taxpayers give to illegal immigrants in the way of the Child Tax Credit and they will not be able to survive here on their earnings.
You are still assuming that a wall is all you need, and it isn’t. You BEGIN to address the real problem in your response to Kitt, but you don’t go far enough, and then you lay the blame on your failure on Democrats, which is nothing more than a cop-out.
I’ll say it again, for the cognitively impaired: If you eliminate the INCENTIVES that attract illegal immigrants here in the first place, YOU DON’T NEED TO BUILD A WALL.
As long as the incentives stay in place, illegals will find a way to get here.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
@George Wells: George, you ever climbed a 52 foot ladder? ever seen one. that’s 5 stories tall. and they would have to have two because most of the wall is 2 fences with a truck path/road between them. Ever heard of surveillance camera’s? drones with camera’s? When someone approaches a fence with a 52 foot ladder it should be very visable on a surveillance camera and give the border patrol adequate time to get there. You can create any kind of scenario in your mind, but fences are effective or they wouldn’t use them for prisons.
You didn’t give a solution. You just said to create a situation where they wouldn’t want to come, you didn’t say how to do that.
let’s face it. Those two would take down what little fence we have and declare the US a sanctuary for all foreigners. Those two would be the absolute worst pair we could have.
Oh, so just pass a law. Don’t we already have ‘laws’? You think illegals come, just for our subsidies? If you took away all subsidies, it might eliminate a few. After all, when a person commits a crime, you give them a sentence, but you still build a wall around the prison you put them in. So I’m not so sure that ‘just pass some laws’ will do it.
@George Wells: @George Wells:
No, WRONG. READ.
The wall is needed. Stop subsidizing illegal immigration. OK, reform immigration, but only to make the legal channels more efficient.
Several states have passed laws to severely punish businesses that use illegal immigrants, but guess who has been blocking that? Yeah, you guessed it on the first try… Obama’s DOJ and the last time I looked, they were ALL Democrats.
Remember immigration reform in 2006? Guess who holed that below the water line? You guessed it again! Democrats: Obama and Schumer inserted a poison pill to allow work visas to expire and amnesty replace them.
Democrats prefer the contentious, racially charged issue to a solution.
I already explained why Democrats would not help solve the illegal immigration problem, other than to make illegal immigrants legal. You are not making any sense beating that dead horse. You cant push that puddle up hill. The solution has to come from the GOP. That’s my point. And so far, the GOP seems to think that Trump’s wall is the fix that will work, and I’m telling you that it won’t.
I don’t care. Build a wall. I’ll laugh. It won’t stop illegal immigration. Mexicans will still come, and they’ll have lots of babies here who will be born U.S citizens, and you’ll have more Democrats voting against you. I’ll laugh some more.
It’s up to Republicans to stop illegal immigration… IF THEY CAN. If they can’t, they’re screwed. YOU’RE screwed.
I’ve climbed plenty of tall ladders, some way taller than 52 feet. I was a tank inspector for a few years after I retired from the Chemical Industry. Climbing a 52-foot ladder is a piece of cake if you’re in shape, OR if you pace yourself, OR if you believe that doing so will get you where you want to be. If you can’t climb a 52-foot ladder, maybe you need some exercise…
“You didn’t give a solution. You just said to create a situation where they wouldn’t want to come, you didn’t say how to do that.”
Yes I did. I’ve explained repeatedly that all that would be needed would be for the Federal Government to declare that illegal immigrants were a serious threat to our national security, and that our entire country was declaring war on them. If we allow our gun-toting “militia” to actually defend our freedom by shooting to death illegals in our midst, by the time the second or third Mexican got shot, the rest of them would “self-deport” so fast it would make your head spin. This solution is incredible inexpensive, incredibly efficient, and – except for the handful of illegals who actually get killed – incredibly humane.
That’s one form of the “discouragement” I’m talking about. I suspect that less extreme measures would also work almost as well – like the ones Kitt suggested – but anything that will work will have to come from the GOP. And as of right now, Paul Ryan isn’t even willing to TALK about the problem. And none of the GOP presidential candidates have broached the topic of DISCOURAGING illegal immigration. They’ve only talked about BLOCKING it (with a silly wall) while still keeping in place the incentives for illegals to get here any way they can.
Until the GOP comes up with a coherent solution to the illegal immigration problem, illegals will continue to come here, and they’ll continue to make more Democrats, and the Republican Party will continue its slide into irrelevant oblivion. Go ahead. Build a wall. I’ll laugh.
OK, somehow, we see precisely eye to eye about Democrat obstruction of any and all efforts to deal with illegal immigration other than handing the nation over to them. Great.
However, as long as Democrats are around, want a contentious issues like this to beat Republicans over the head with and have their faithful companion, MSM, at their side, the Republicans have no hope unless they have the power to do it all by themselves… which they don’t. Those partners have the ability to make whatever they choose to be about race and accuse whomever they want as racists; against that, any Republican faces the threat of losing their seat and, therefore, diluting the Republican influence over any and all legislation (and we have seen how bad that can get).
A couple million illegal immigrants can be absorbed (but for the infiltrating terrorists) and probably will never be reduced to anything less. But, 14 million (almost 20 million before Obama’s horrible economy made many scurry back home) is overwhelming and only those that want “Hope and Change” (code for reducing the United States to some sort of ATM for the rest of the world with no influence or say) find this acceptable.
A fence is not the total solution but it is part of the solution. Even if Trump were elected and he got a super majority in Congress and everything on the wish list were accomplished, in 8 years we could have MORE “Hope and Change” and the big Welcome mat laid out again. No, the wall is necessary; VITAL.
But along with it should be the requirement that anyone applying for a government subsidy, entering their children in school or applying for a job MUST show valid proof of legal residency. This alone would drive most out and anyone not abiding by these laws should be jailed. JAILED.
I don’t CARE if the Taxco Plate at El Fenix goes up a buck… all this tells me is that they have been exploiting illegal immigrants, aiding and abetting their crime and they are off my dining list. That would go for ANY operation that suddenly raises prices when illegal immigration dries up (keep in mind, a different administration might actually ENFORCE laws).
You sound just a bit surprised. Haven’t I been telling you that I side WITH you on more issues than not? You just can’t believe that a gay person might share your views on anything, and you’re more comfortable lumping all of us into the same label dumpster that you keep communists and sociopaths stored in rather than acknowledge that the World is more complex than one of Retire05’s fairy tales.
Here’s an idea: Go back to what Bush and Rubio have been saying on Illegal immigration. Figure out a way that you can let SOME illegals leak in to satisfy business’s interest in cheap and dependable labor AND to satisfy Democrat’s greedy thirst for more Democrats, while keeping the majority of them more aggressively discouraged. That way you’ll get SOME Democratic support for some otherwise restrictive immigration policy, you’ll get SOME political support from SOME Hispanics who are tired of failed Democratic promises, and you’ll get SOME relief from the otherwise overwhelmingly burdensome load of illegals already here. You admit that Republicans can’t do this alone. RIGHT! So wouldn’t you rather accomplish SOME of your goals in stead of just tighten your lips like Paul Ryan and promise to do nothing until the GOP cow comes home? What if the GOP DOESN’T take the White House next year? Is Ryan going to go on a hunger strike?
Somehow this issue needs to be solved by bipartisan agreement so that the nation doesn’t keep spasming back and forth over it.