The devil’s bargain

November 9, 2012
By

Rush Limbaugh opposes amnesty. But he suggests a plan anyway:

How about the EIB El Rushbo amnesty plan. We give every illegal alien currently living in the country amnesty, and they can’t vote for 25 years. And we’ll see who is really interested in this. He-he-he-he-he.

It’s not funny, because that’s exactly what an amnesty bargain would look like. It’ll have goodies for everyone:

  • For hopelessly deluded yahoos like me, mandatory E-Verify.
  • For big business, cheap “guest” workers.
  • For conservatives, probably a 15-year delay before a single illegal is able to vote.

    It won’t be called a 15-year delay, but there’ll be something like a 10-year “temporary” work permit, followed by the ability to apply for permanent residency, AKA a Green Card. Green Card holders can usually apply for citizenship in 5 years.

  • For liberals, the prospect of a permanent liberal majority after 15 years.

I’d be tempted to let this happen. Let the 18-29-year-olds who voted for Obama live with the consequences of their decision.

But I’d mourn the eventual loss of America, freedom’s last, best hope.

So a question for you:

Should Republicans vote for amnesty if it's delayed by 15 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

29 Responses to The devil’s bargain

  1. Dismantle ObamaCare on November 9, 2012 at 11:24 am

    The Dow was flying until King O started talking fair share!! I think we should support amnesty for illegals – right after we SHATTER the debt ceiling! The worst that could happen would be the GOP is voted out in 2014, but the Dems won’t have a credit card to hand out goodies. Obama will have no choice but to hold off on the implementation of ObamaCare and the Dems will be forced to run a campaign solely on raising taxes in ’14. Republicans could run on the “haven’t you had enough yet” mantra and at least keep even. Red state Dems would get massacred as America falls deeper into depression. At that point, Americans would have no choice but to face the reality of the future Obama is promising.

    Right now, Obama’s policy is a death of thousand cuts. If voters get their throats slashed, they may think twice before they vote on their vagina. To quote a famous Democrat, never let a good crisis go to waste!

  2. The Return of the Giant CrapWeasel on November 9, 2012 at 11:29 am

    No deals, but if they shove it through, at least it’ll give me time to get my family out of the country and to ‘wise up’ more friends and relative to do the same.

    Looks like many are already thinking about this already.
    http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/renounce-citizenship-is-now-one-of-the-fastest-growing-search-terms-in-google-9536/

    wouldn’t be surprised if the G-damm F’in elites who run this country, along with international elite influence, impose capital controls to restrict people leaving so there is more ‘sheep’ to be ‘sheared’.

    • Tim on November 11, 2012 at 12:38 pm

      Where you going? You think you will like Canada or England any better? And the rest of the world does not take everybody in. They control their boarders.

  3. Dan on November 9, 2012 at 11:34 am

    I read that 18-29 year old whites voted 51-44% for Romney. Maybe their is some hope.

  4. NEPA Neocon on November 9, 2012 at 11:42 am

    Here’s a dumb question: If Amnesty passes, and the Republicans win in 2016, couldn’t they just repeal it? Along with Obamacare?

    • PoliPundit on November 9, 2012 at 11:51 am

      No more than they could repeal Medicare or Social Security. Or Obamacare, a few years from now, when it’s entrenched.

    • ip727 on November 10, 2012 at 8:18 pm

      Not without growing a large pair of collective balls. Right now all the GOP has are bb’s.

  5. The Return of the Giant CrapWeasel on November 9, 2012 at 11:48 am

    speaking of Devil’s, here’s a non-political post. A sonic blast from the past:

    Devil’s Triangle by King Crimson — crank it and enjoy!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FneEa7F1UA

  6. archtop on November 9, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    Sorry for this rant, but…

    Maybe someone’s already talked about this, but I am getting the feeling that the REAL reason that Romney lost is not that centrists-conservatives are a minority but that they were/are TOO *#$(ING LAZY TO VOTE!! It makes NO sense to have a 2010 victory followed by this kind of defeat unless there was no enthusiasm to for conservatives to vote. I was looking at the total number of votes cast in my town and it was pathetically low!

    What one needs to do is this. Start planning now for the next election in 2014. Analyze the election map and determine the counties where the vote was close in swing states (and other key areas). Then plan to send thousands of people out to get the vote out in those specific areas. Until then, every tactic should be employed to slow down the Obama agenda…

    Another thought – is someone going to go back and analyze all of those “polls” that showed Romney ahead? We’ve been burned by polls too many time now. I say – forget about polls! We get burned by them every single election!!! Assume you are always behind, and work your butt off (in key areas) – well before the election mind you – to get the vote out.

    Final thought – when is our side going to start running the negative ads in May? I do believe now that the negative ads must have worked (subconsciously) to define Romney to the broad population well before the conventions…it sad but true.

    • NEPA Neocon on November 9, 2012 at 1:09 pm

      Definitely agree that we need to start running negative ads in May. There is no question that Obama defined Romney early and in many respects, the image Obama created stuck. We have got to go more negative. If we are to win future elections, we can’t expect anyone to like us, we have to get them to hate the other guy more. Scorched earth tactics are the only path to victory.

    • bc3b on November 9, 2012 at 1:30 pm

      Our side will start campaigning to win when the GOP or candidates like Mitt Romney stop hiring hacks like Kevin Madden and Mike Murphy, who have been losing campaigns for 20 years and want to be loved by liberals and the media when the campaign is over and startb hiring people who understand 21st century campaign dynamics and are willing to go for the jugular.

  7. Gerry Owen on November 9, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Why is controlling the border tied to immigration reform?
    I think we should decouple them. Secure the border, make sure we have no one coming in illegally, and THEN we talk about what to do with the illegals already here.

    • The Return of the Giant CrapWeasel on November 9, 2012 at 1:50 pm

      good idea.

  8. bc3b on November 9, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    Like the 1986 amnesty, any aamnesty will serve as a magnet for future illegal aliens.

    Here’s a sobering thought: according to astudy by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 70% of Texans were Anglos in 1980; in 2020 Hispanics will overtake Anglos in Texas and by 2040 70% of Texans will be Hispanic.

    That’s our future with amnesty and an unsecured border.

    • Rational on November 9, 2012 at 2:47 pm

      Maybe we should call America Amexico then. Looks like Mexico has a final laugh.

      • ip727 on November 10, 2012 at 8:20 pm

        Call it neuvo Tijuana

  9. Gerry Owen on November 9, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    Unrelated, except to suggest this is NOT one of the issues to be sacrificed on the altar of coalition politics-

    I think it is time we start treating the Social CConservatives like the Democrats treat the Blacks.

    Screw ‘em. Toss them a bone every now and then, because they really have no where else to go. Smaller Government is more appealing to the Religious Right than the Godless Government subverting Church. Smaller Government and a return to Constitutional values would mean allowing more religious freedom.

    They didn’t show up, they handed this country over.

    • Arizona CJ on November 10, 2012 at 10:06 am

      How about compromises where possible, but done in a way that’s largely a win-win?

      For example, gay marriage is probably a bigger problem for the GOP with young voters than any other issue. But, SoCons find it abhorable that the government could put it’s official stamp of approval on gay marriage.

      Instead of picking one side or the other, why not be actual conservatives on the issue? Small government conservatives: get the government out of the marriage business completely. End marriage licenses on the grounds that it’s not the government’s place to decide who marries whom (this applies to strait people too: if a man and a woman want to get married, why should the government have a say-so in the matter?). Marriage ceremonies would still be done in churches, and as now, the churches would be free to refuse to perform them. (some would, some wouldn’t… it’s that pesky freedom thing again).

      This way, the SoCons would not be forced to endure having the government place an official stamp of approval on gay marriage, nor would religions be forced to accept it. Marriage would become more what SoCons seem to think it should be: a religious and social matter, not a government one.

      The legal side of marriage would be what it largely has always been; a partnership contract.

      Is there really a conservative counter argument? After all, isn’t getting government out of something the best way to strengthen it?

  10. Setnaffa on November 9, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    If they really wanted, a simple majority in both houses and the white house could force a removal of social security, medicare, obamacare, etc. They could eliminate all of the social programs. They could eliminate or privatize the Depts of Education, Energy, HUD, etc. And they could impeach and remove every Federal judge that tried to stand in their way.

    I do not doubt that the Democrats could do this; but the GOP is not monolithic. And most of them like big government.

    Don’t count on America having another free election.

    • ip727 on November 10, 2012 at 8:23 pm

      They would need more than a simple majority because the enemy would filibuster it.

  11. Setnaffa on November 9, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    BTW, Gerry Owen, as a “Social Conservative”, I did show up. You must be mistaken.

    Our problem is that we allowed the Democrats to create a group of looters that still get to vote.

    • Gerry Owen on November 9, 2012 at 3:17 pm

      Setnaffa-
      I also am, but I understand that MOST of the issues will be determined by courts and States, not federal government (outside of picking judges).
      The smae limited government judges will by default issue rulings that will put the issues back ito their proper venue- the states.

      There are lots of supposed fiscal conservative/social liberal and other voters who would support pro growth policies that are turned off by what they see and what is portrayed to them as a bunch of bible thumpers hell bent on imposing some sort of religious view upon them.
      We have failed to curb that image, and idiots like Akin and Mourdock actually PROMOTED IT.

      Put them on the back burner. With the coming loss of the courts for a generation, their issues are pretty much lost, regardless.

  12. Setnaffa on November 9, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    How about we just make our laws match Mexico’s

    • ken_phd on November 10, 2012 at 6:37 am

      Setnaffa:

      “How about we just make our laws match Mexico‚Äôs”

      Excellent idea.

    • Arizona CJ on November 10, 2012 at 9:34 am

      Bravo!

  13. Deckard on November 9, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    And how to verify they won’t be able to vote within the 25 year period? We can’t even get places to have the voters show ID. I even read a piece where some place in Las Vegas was registering their ILLEGAL cooking staff to vote and told them that if they didn’t, then they’d turn them over to ICE. I’ll have to find the article.

    Call me bigoted, but it doesn’t matter how long you make the illegals wait – their American born children are getting older by the year – and it’s not like they’re popping out only 1 or 2 at a time. They’ll be brainwashed from an early age – if not by the parents, then by the indoctrination of the schools. All they know is government dependency – and the more they are given / aka feed at the teat of government, the more they’ll want it.

    I say confront and expose organizations like La Raza, MALDEF and LULAC. Expose them for their RACIST ideologues. This isn’t an immigration issue – this is an invasion/domination issue. They don’t like “whitey” – and they certainly don’t like the blacks. Look at the gang and turf wars in Southern California if you doubt me. They very well could outnumber whites by the later half of this century – and when that happens, bye-bye what was once the USA. Gua-ran-teed.

    Perhaps Rush had a good idea that if he had a Spanish-language version of himself out there on the airwaves to educate the Spanish-speaking masses, things might turn around. That might work (but in the back of my mind, it still reeks of balkanization.).

    • ken_phd on November 10, 2012 at 6:42 am

      Dekeard:

      “but in the back of my mind, it still reeks of balkanization”

      True. However the US is already Balkanized and the Left intends to keep it that way. I don’t see that changing.

      A better way to deal with this issue is to increase the % of the white vote. It’s the path of least resistance.

  14. sane_voter on November 9, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    Speaking of finding a Spanish speaking Rush, I have no idea what Spanish language talk radio is like. Are they more conservative or liberal? What percentage of the Hispanic electorate listens to Spanish language radio? Do they talk politics or soccer? If spanish language talk radio is mainly liberal politics, I think investing in a conservative spanish language radio network would be a great investment, much better than giving money to Super PACs. Even if it isn’t a huge number of listeners, many of them could be future voters and may sway the community somewhat to the conservative message.

  15. sane_voter on November 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    This same thing could be done with black talk radio. It may be a sliver of the population would listen at first, but we have to start somewhere and hopefully it grows over time. Think of it like the way we beamed Voice of America or Radio Free Europe into easter Europe during the COld War, but this would be Conservative American Principles and issues like school choice beamed into inner cities for groups of Americans who may not even know them very well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *