Straw-Manning: An Amnesty Shill’s Best Friend

Oh look: Pew got Republican voters to look more liberal than they really are with intentionally-vague terminology — “certain requirements” — that induces respondents to project wildly different notions of what those requirements should be into a single category.

The poll does not say a majority of Republicans are content with the real bone of contention: sham bills that provide amnesty with citizenship but lie about security and enforcement. (It also shows that majorities of Republicans want to end birthright citizenship and build a border wall, and that only 37% favor citizenship for illegals.)

Contrary to the lying cheap-labor toadies who slander conservatives as “xenophobes” for not agreeing with them, very few of us opposed to the GOP’s amnesty-mania insist that every single illegal has to be gone no matter what.

Again, for the unprincipled simpletons who parrot whatever Republican leadership and the Wall Street Journal tell them to, it’s really not that complicated:

  1. Complete a manned and monitored border wall.
  2. Crack down on visa overstays.
  3. Fully implement e-Verify.
  4. Take legal action against sanctuary cities.
  5. Reverse President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty.
  6. Crack down on illegals’ use of public aid.
  7. After Congress has actually done it, rather than given us the umpteenth insincere promise to do it in the indeterminate future, and after the people have seen for themselves that we really have stopped the mass influx of new illegals and meaningfully reduced the number of current illegals, then we can look at how many are left and decide on some sort of regularization (provided it does not allow any possibility of citizenship without first leaving and re-entering legally).

Abysmal Kasich-Rubio ’16 Case Illustrates Why GOP Keeps Losing Elections

The following article was originally written in August. Given the lack of responses at the time and that the subject of conservative publications giving platforms to disastrously unconservative political advice remains newsworthy, I am publishing it here.

In most fields, past failures to produce results tend to diminish one’s standing as an authority on future successes. So while it’s natural that alumni of John McCain’s presidential campaign would favor a 2016 nominee as centrist as John Kasich and a running mate as amnesty-minded as Marco Rubio, it’s also alarming to see their prescriptions disseminated in a leading conservative publication.

None of Myra Adams’s five points for Kasich-Rubio ’16 are persuasive. In fact, her August 14 National Review column making the case reads more like a catalogue of the Beltway myths, shallow assumptions, and unconservative priorities that have created countless Republican defeats. Continue reading