« About Right | Main | Chemical Ali Will Hang »

June 24, 2007


The narrative I see emerging is that the Republican party was taken over by Aussies who perverted the party in order to serve their own insidious goals, but now that we've gotten rid of them, we can sigh a big sigh and get life back to the way it used to be.

Whenever the GOP does something that doesn't seem to make any sense, you can be sure that someone somewhere is making a dishonest buck out of it. Mark my words.

I thought I saw this story discussed here a while ago. Déjà lu?

I think that the revelations of deportation and lawsuits are new, rf.

lj, right you are.

Pester said Kamburowski arrived in Punta Cana in the summer of 2006 and "was so successful that he couldn't sell anything the whole time he was here -- and we provided him with clients. He didn't rent anything and he didn't sell anything. ... I have no idea what he was doing.''

Hmmm. Sounds like a perfect person to head the Republican party. I mean, he has so much in common with the current President as far as job experience and all...


Kamburowsky seems to fit the profile of a shifty con man-and if that's the case, the California Republican Party was gulled along with a lot of other people (if the two women married him for love and not for green-card remuneration, they were conned too). Bottom line, if this guy was allowed to disperse money somebody in the chain of command at Republican headquarters better have a quick audit, to see what went where, and how much ended up in off-shore bank accounts.

Still, none of that flim-flam mitigates this heading: "Immigrants Of Questionable Legality: The California GOP Welcomes You!" First, only one immigrant of "questionable legality" was discussed in the article: Kamburowsky. The other immigrant mentioned (Matthews) may have had questionable experience, but nothing in the post or links provided indicated his immigration status was shady.

I know you were aiming for an ironic touch with the header, but it fell kind of flat because you're missing the forest for the trees. Stopping the flow of illegal immigrants through Mexico is not a Republican preoccupation -- the issue transcends party lines.

A week and half ago when Bush was pitching his immigration case to the public the Rasmussen Reports conducted a telephone survey in which only 20% of American voters said they wanted the immigration reform bill to pass. 69% said they would favor an approach focusing "exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration." Of those who supported the enforcement-only approach 84% were Republicans, 55% were Democrats, and 69% were not affiliated with either major party.

So let's put those numbers in perspective: a whopping majority of Republican voters, a substantial number of unaffiliated voters, and a solid percentage of Democratic voters are in favor of an enforcement-only approach. Nevertheless, even though it's obvious illegal immigration transcends conventional party lines you and others continue to pigeon-hole it as a Republican 'base" issue. Well, if it is, that means the conservative base has metastasized and absorbed huge numbers of moderate and liberal Republicans, and moderate and conservative Democrats, and majorities of Independents too. Either that, or Lou Dobbs isn't a newscaster, he's a hypnotist genius who somehow has managed to inculcate his views across the nation just by staring at the screen and skrunching his forehead.

Either that, or Lou Dobbs isn't a newscaster, he's a hypnotist genius

I'm not really sure that for Lou "the Leper" Dobbs, these are the only two applicable choices...

He might have been thrown into removal proceedings in 2004 but that doesn't mean he's not a permanent resident now. He may have had a way to adjust his status in proceedings or after them.

So let's put those numbers in perspective

A lot of the response depends on how the questions are asked. So
poll shows a very different outlook (ie 56% favor a guest worker program, 67% favor some sort of amnesty, etc).
Neither one of these is probably telling the whole story- but it's a mistake to take the poll with the numbers you like the most and treat it as definitive.

Yes, Carleton, I agree, you get different responses depending on how questions are phrased; but my point in writing the post was that immigration (legal and illegal) is not a partisan Republican-Democratic issue for American voters – it crosses all party lines. But the misguided impression you get from bloggers here (well-intentioned people, who I’m sure pay their taxes on time and send greeting cards to their loved ones on the holidays) is that if you’re against the amnesty provisions in the bill, think illegal immigrants are a net economic minus and overall not good for the country, and you want the government to do something about the porous southern border NOW, you must be a buffoon Republican like Tancredo, or a neer-do-well hypocrite racist like Lou Dobbs (so cynical and egregious a lout he married a Latina to deflect his truthful bigoted nature).

But low and behold: those exact views are held by significant numbers of Americans—in the very poll you linked to above. Here’s some of the quotes from it:

-61 percent said that illegal immigration was a very serious problem.
-A large majority, 70 percent of respondents, said they believed that illegal immigrants weaken the American economy because they use public services but do not pay corresponding taxes.
-75 percent of those who responded favored tougher penalties for employers of illegal workers.
-82 percent said the federal government should do more to reinforce the border.

According to the wide-brush tar-and-feather view typically expressed here, all those people who responded as they did above must be Conservative Republican evil-doers. And I must be an elitist racist pig for holding those same views.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad