Are amnesty and open borders in our future?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Are amnesty and open borders in our future? (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjM1YmEwZmNiMDBiOGIwOTQ3NDc3N2Q4MWEwMDViM2Q=)

Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition..

At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment, citing immigration as “vital issue … where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.”

Will the president and the Democrats get their way with the new lineup next year?

Nope.

[Republican_Legion]

McCain/GWB/Kennedy and the democrat senate will get the amnest they want. There isnt even enough to filbuster it I bet.

[Kathy30]

Yes they will. Better take steps now to take care of yourselves and your families.

Unless thousands of Americans get together and start a huge multi city riot of biblical proportions they will get their amnesty.

[HooverWasRight]

Bush's only difference with the Dems is his "stand" on Iraq. Everything else Bush fits in perfect with the Libtards.

[Federal Farmer]

And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
Barnes has his head up his ass. Hey Barnes, whose payroll are you on?

[Republican_Legion]

Bush's only difference with the Dems is his "stand" on Iraq. Everything else Bush fits in perfect with the Libtards.

No.
The Libtards are against the patriot act.
GWB is for the patriot act.
The Libtards are for gay marriage.
GWB is opposed to gay marriage.
The Libtards are for higher taxes.
GWB is opposed to higher taxes.
The Libtards are for banning guns.
GWB supports the 2nd Amendment.
The Libtards are Pro-Choice.
GWB is Pro-Life.

[Republican_Legion]

Barnes has his head up his ass. Hey Barnes, whose payroll are you on?

Probally on Karl Roves payroll since Karl Rove also has his head up his ass in favor of LA-RAZA.

[d'urville]

Fred Barnes, heh.

Of course, amnesty's in the very near future, only the House was stopping it, a new broom sweeps clean. The meeting with Pelosi:

Bush signaled readiness to consider Democratic priorities such as a federal minimum-wage increase and to find compromise on renewing the No Child Left Behind education law, overhauling immigration policy and overhauling budget-busting entitlement programs

Bush will sign every one of those bills, overhauling, read "expanding".

[Naturalized-Texan]

Did any of you actually read the whole article?

[Federal Farmer]

Did any of you actually read the whole article?
Yes, hence my comment about Barnes.

[TSawyer2112]

Barnes has his head up his ass. Hey Barnes, whose payroll are you on?

Perhaps Barnes is looking for a gardener on the cheap. It's obvious he has been one of the "Beltway Boys" for far too long. He needs to step out of the D.C. bubble with all its polls and punditry and rediscover America and Americans.

As for the Republicans in Congress, they best remember that now that they are no longer in the leadership, about the only thing they have to offer the conservative base is to do everything they can to obstruct legislation that would hurt the country. The base is no longer obliged to put up with RINOs to maintain power.

[d'urville]

Did any of you actually read the whole article?

Yes, I did, Mark Krikorian wrote it, he's the director of:

http://www.cis.org/index.cgi

and often writes columns for NR. I did have trouble following this one, though - he was arguing, and arguing well - that the elections this week were not an endorsement of an amnesty plan, that it was unpopular with the voters, here's where he lost me:

What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it?

Isn't the point moot, since they won the election, anyway? And:

Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts.

???? They were just elected, their goal won't be be to retain power but push their agenda through, that's what they think they were voted in to do. He's dreaming again:

Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders lobbyists, Nancy Pelosi knows perfectly well that this would be bad news for those who supported it

That would bring "new voters" for her party,too, wouldn't it? This contradicts Krikorian's own words that he said awhile back:

The problem of course is, the Democrats would much rather lose than call for tough immigration controls and they may end up getting their wish. For them, even electoral victory is less important that embracing multi-culturalism and post-Americanism, so that's not going to happen. But at some point, this is a political opportunity that somebody is going to pick up on.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/krikorian.php

And now the Democrats have the opportunity to do both.