Comparing and endorsing

A new ad out from Shane Osborn this morning entitled, “From the Start“.
See it here:

This is the second consecutive “comparative”/”negative” ad from Shane Osborn. (And we would also note how rare it is for a candidate to make an on-screen, direct attack on another candidate.) Couple that with Ben Sasse’s attack on Osborn last week, and we can only conclude that the race is neck and neck going into the final weeks.

We would add that the Sasse peeps put out a release immediately after Osborn released the ad, noting,

Ben wasn’t saying that ObamaCare was an “important first step.” Rather, he was making the point that healthcare before ObamaCare was broken and having a national debate about how to fix healthcare in America was an “important first step.”

Here’s the direct quote from the speech that is referenced by Osborn and Sasse:

“Ultimately, what we passed in March is an important first step on thinking about the coverage problem in the American health care system.”

The Sasse camp asks to note the context that he was talking to a room full of Democrats, and that Ben otherwise criticized ObamaCare throughout the sppech.

Which all may be true.

But…that quote above IS a tough one to get around, if you’re just talking about the verbiage.
He doesn’t say the “national debate” was important.
He says “what we passed ...is an important first step”.

We understand the Sasse camp has to push back, but that one is pretty tough. Better to just forge ahead with the rest.

**Update**

The Sasse camp is itching that you need to see the whoooole quote to understand the context.
We don’t have a problem with that, so here you go:

“The problem is you look at the U.S. Treasury’s books, the U.S. Government has $60 trillion of unfunded obligations. We owe $60 trillion more over the next 75 years – that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to have to repay, that we don’t have, and that we just expect that China, every bond auction that happens in the U.S. Government, that China will loan us the money and buy more of our bonds – that’s not a given that keeps happening.

“$34 of $38 trillion dollars of unfunded obligations in the U.S. Government are promises that we have made to pay for all the health care expenses of grandma when she retires that we don’t have the money for, we don’t have any plan to tax for, and we don’t know how we’re going to get. $60 trillion dollars of unfunded obligations, and $22 trillion are the only parts Washington talks about. That broader $38 trillion, $34 of which is Medicare, is not something that has some simple fix we’re ducking, it’s that neither Republicans nor Democrats have any solution to this problem.

“Ultimately, what we passed in March is an important first step on thinking about the coverage problem in the American health care system. But, the underlying problems that drive the growth of uninsurance are not being addressed by ducking the larger entitlement problems. And a coverage-only bill [ObamaCare] that just says, “We could pay for more things out of taxes,” that doesn’t have any underlying connection to the reality of why the uninsured are growing in America is not a solution, even to the Democrats who advocate it.”

By the way, in no way do we suggest that Sasse was “in favor” of ObamaCare, per this speech. We simply mean that one can draw their own conclusion about the “important first step” part by reading what was stated.

***

A recent ad out from Sid Dinsdale on ObamaCare.
See it here:

(The campaign did not have it up on their YouTube site, so we offered to upload it to our site, so that YOU could see it now.)

And if you were watching the Twitter over the weekend, the OWH endorsed Dinsdale for U.S. Senate, noting:

In a race that’s been heavily impacted by outsiders, Dinsdale is beholden to none. He has rejected negative campaigning. The bulk of his support, nearly 85 percent of his individual contributions, comes from Nebraskans.

We will be watching to see if this endorsement, the Sasse-Osborn spat, and Dinsdale’s own ad bombardment will be enough to put him over the top.

The biggest signal will be if/when Sasse and Osborn start taking pot-shots at Dinsdale. It is happening on the comment boards here, but we will see if the campaign officials do it as well.

***

Other endorsements over the last few days…

The LJS put their arms around Shane Osborn, saying:

There is not much difference between the GOP candidates on the issues.
If Nebraska voters elect Osborn, they can expect him to represent them effectively and honorably.

The LJS also endorsed Jon Bruning in the Governor’s race, typing:

Bruning’s experience and demonstrated ability as a leader and manager in the public sector set him apart.

And in the Attorney General’s race, the OWH endorsed Brian Buescher, posting:

Buescher, of Omaha, heads the agri-business litigation division at Kutak Rock, the state’s largest private law firm. He is no stranger to leading teams of lawyers and has expertise in Nebraska’s largest and most important industry, agriculture.

And they nodded at Charlie Janssen for Auditor, kibitzing:

Janssen built a successful Fremont business that links up nurses for temporary service with health care clients. He notes that as a state lawmaker, he understands the need for agencies to spend funds as the Legislature directed. As a businessman, he says, he knows where to look for efficiencies.

We think these candidates would do a good job…in spite of these endorsements.
(Snork!)

***

Ben Sasse had a big rally in North Platte on Friday with Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, and made it a really impressive event.

Say what you want about any of it, it is tough to get that many people (somewhere from 400 to 1,000, depending on who you ask) out to a campaign event, on a weekday no-less.

Will it translate into votes? We don’t know. But it couldnt’ hurt. And for campaigns, that sort of thing really pumps up your workers, and gives a sense of movement.

A nice achievement for Sasse and his staff.

***

Less noteworthy for the local fishwrap…

We were following along on their coverage, and noticed they included Senator Deb Fischer in their original list of who joined in at Sasse’s event.

We were surprised, as she wasn’t in any of the photos, and it was our understanding she is not endorsing in this race at all.

Sure enough, eventually Fischer’s name was taken off, and a correction was added to the bottom of the article.

We suppose these things happen, but in the context of this campaign, that was a bit of a doozy.

***

Speaking of Sarah Palin, Pete Ricketts has a new ad out featuring her.
See it here:

He also had another one out called “Not Your Typical Politician”.
See it here:

Ricketts is still banging the “positive campaign” drum, and fighting back against the Bruning ads.
More below.

***

And speaking of Ricketts, Beau McCoy made a web-video using McCoy’s Q and A of Ricketts during the last debate.

See it here:

And here is what we are hearing:

Currently Bruning and Ricketts are neck and neck.
Polling is all over the place, and it is difficult to tell who may be at the top.
McCoy has made a significant jump into the mix with them.
Foley, thought to be a front runner, has barely left a mark, and may be left behind.

We are also hoping to get some solid polling info soon, though it will likely be from a campaign, so you never know where it may lead you.

Both of these races are hot, and with all the different dynamics going on, the national peeps will be increasingly watching these races to see what happens and what it means.

Exciting stuff.
If you are working on one of these races, appreciate what you are in right now.
It is not every day that there is this much competition in a primary, and that what you are doing can make a difference for your candidate.

***

More when we have it.

43 comments

  1. Chuck says:

    “It is happening on the comment boards here, but we will see if the campaign officials do it as well.”

    Are they not usually one in the same? Maybe you meant to write “campaigns officially do it as well.”

    Keep up the great work.

  2. Drew says:

    The real question on the Osborn ad is how does it play to Republicans in general? or does it just come off as more anti-Sasse paranoia?

    As much as Republicans hate Obamacare as a whole, many like small parts of it. This is where rhetoric meets reality. Any can give a great stump speech but….

  3. Ricky says:

    The Lincoln paper endorsed Mr Bruning, a linconite for gov, so I am guess that the Omaha paper will endorse an Omaha, Mr Ricketts.
    I read I’m the paper today about six candidates for my legislative seat in the Unicam. LD 6
    Joni Craighead gets the endorsement from Governor Heineman and the current t representative John Nelson. (In nelsons two terms I never met the guy and I can’t believe how s conservative like Nelson can be my representative in Lincoln.)
    So this Stanaker guy is endorsed by Dick Holland and Jeremy nordquist.
    Interesting to see who gets that seat, nobody running has held office before.

  4. FAC says:

    I don’t think endorsements mean much in terms of influencing voters. But I agree with the World Herald on Dinsdale. Osborn and Sasse are coming off like frat boys having a pissing contest egged on by some party crashers. Disndale seems like the adult in the room.

  5. Endorsements says:

    To me the most interesting thing about the endorsements from the two papers was that they both swiped at Sasse. The OWH said that Nebraskans had reason to doubt that they’d have his ear if he got elected. The LJS didn’t name anyone but Osborn, but bashed the bashing on Osborn’s service record, which has been a constant refrain.

    I don’t get Sasse’s “room full of Democrats argument.” First of all, it was on the Midland campus when he was President, so if was a room full of Democrats it was his own fault. But more to the point, was it so scary to say things that might hurt their feelings? How’s that going to translate into being a Senator? To play on the Sasse camp’s favorite phrase: “This is what wimpiness looks like.”

    The Sasse camp doesn’t even bother to try to address Osborn’s point that Sasse gave up. You saw it on Sheila Heick’s video and it’s there again in the Fremont Tribune article.

    Of course he was correct that just controlling the House didn’t mean that they could repeal Obamacare. But anyone who knows anything about how Congress works should know that controlling one House does give you a chance to squeeze the agencies and perhaps get some concessions on the regulatory implementation, but he was completely dismissive of it.

  6. Dear SS (Sweet Sam (Fischer)) says:

    Way to go quoting the most flattering parts of the OWH endorsement of Sid while including a poorly written tidbit from LJS’s endorsement of Shane.

  7. To Drew at 10:41 says:

    Drew, you ask, ” the real question on the Osborn ad is how does it play to Republicans in general”?

    As a voting Republican, I can answer that question for you: It plays damn well, thank you. In that ad, Osborn, whether he knew it or not, captured the essence of what many of us have been thinking…..and that is that Sasse will say anything and do anything to get elected. Once elected, he will magically turn into Ben Nelson or Scott Kleeb. We can see it coming, and Osborn’s ad nailed it!

    I hope that answers your question. Will there be anything else then?

  8. Kids,

    Just for the record, which it seems we are obliged to state every once in a while:
    Leavenworth St. does not, and no one associated with Leavenworth St. (including Street Sweeper) does:
    Work on a campaign.
    Work for a campaign.
    Work for an elected official.
    Currently run for an office.
    Did run for an office.

    Got it?
    Thanks
    Street Sweeper

  9. The Shane says:

    You people that say Sasse will turn are idiots and don’t know what you are talking about. McConnel came to him first and he turned him down….the only Senate candidate that will vote with McConnell/Boehner and the boys in DC is Osborne. He offers nothing else. He is desperate and using the Obama strategy of saying anything whether true or not. If this is what you want in a candidate, then vote for Osborn. But he is the only one that has lied, shown false documentation and gone negative first. Please get a clue, anyone but the Shane. BTW…..the newspaper made the mistake about Fischer…..not Sasse…do your homework.

  10. To the idiod above says:

    I like Shane’s ads. He says how he is different and doesn’t hide behind his rich uncle or his DC buddies. As far as False documentation, the Fremont Tribune was the sorce, IDIOT

  11. @@@@@@ to 13 says:

    The article from the Tribune was during the time Democrats controlled House, Senate and White House. 40 symbolic efforts to repeal Obamacare. Sasse was right. Need a conservative solution

  12. Drew to 7 says:

    Really?
    The 60 Plus Association, the nation’s largest conservative seniors organization with over 7.2 million senior supporters, today announced its endorsement of Nebraska U.S. Senate candidate Ben Sasse.

    Sasse has been called “ObamaCare’s Nebraska Nemesis” by National Review and has been a strong voice on behalf of Nebraska seniors for repealing the disastrous healthcare law.

    “Nebraska seniors need a conservative representing them in Washington, and the most conservative and principled choice in this race is Ben Sasse,” said Jim Martin, Chairman of the non-partisan 60 Plus Association.

    Regarding the new attack ad launched today by rival campaign Shane Osborn, Martin said, “This is a deceitful ad from a campaign in search of ideas. Other candidates may talk the talk, but Ben Sasse will walk the walk. Sasse is the candidate Nebraska seniors need in Washington fighting to repeal Obamacare for Nebraska families.

    “On behalf of the more than 89,000 senior supporters 60 Plus represents in the great state of Nebraska, I’m proud to offer our endorsement to Ben Sasse.”

    Founded in 1992, the 60 Plus Association is a non-partisan seniors advocacy group with a free enterprise, less government, less taxes approach to seniors issues.

  13. To Drew 16 says:

    and they are based in Washington DC. Which proves the point that the WH made about Sasse and his ties to Washington DC.

  14. Ricky says:

    OMG is that all you have GOP Obamacare Obamacare Obamacare! There are other issues!
    It’s not even the most important one to anybody!
    It’s health insurance for those that need it! It’s not like slavery! It’s not the devil!
    So very sad that all the Repubs candidates can say is they are more anti-Obamacare than the other guy.
    People are smarter than that Lee Terry Ben Sasse Osborn Hilgers and all the other losers.
    If you treat the voters than nimrods then that is all you get from them you dumb GOP tweerts.

    ricky

  15. Anonymous consultant wanna-be says:

    One question: When Herbster pulled out of the Gov’s race there was a $250K contract/payment to Carlos Castillo as his manager who only had barely gotten started on the job. I recall something in the media about the Herbster $800K to McCoy’s campaign including in-kind consulting services he had already procured to the tune of $200K something. So did/has Carlos ended up providing some in-kind consulting to McCoy or is he just off on an island somewhere with $250K and a drink in his hand? This kind of stuff boggles the mind. How do you get paid $250,000 for doing nothing and how can I get a gig like that?

  16. To Drew 16 says:

    Senior citizens hate Obamacare because they fear it will impact their Medicare — whether they get a new hip or knee. Like every other group, it’s all about them.

  17. Watchdog says:

    Gotta give Joe Jordan credit on this one. Did you all see the latest watchdog article. Absolutely devastating video has surfaced with dinsdale not being nearly as pro
    Life and anti-amnesty as he claims?? Wow, pretty in your face as well.

  18. To Watchdog says:

    I saw the video, Sid Dinsdale clearly advocates “Amnesty” for all illegals. Glad to see he will fight on pro-life issues on a “part-time” basis (snark). His race is over!

  19. To Watchdogs says:

    You have to understand what is possible in today’s political field…
    It has become commonplace among liberal commentators to say that Ronald Reagan could not be nominated by today’s G.O.P. To have Jeb Bush say much the same thing resonates much more. Bush was both a successful and popular governor who left with strong conservative credentials, and not one easy to label as a moderate or a RINO (Republican in Name Only, an epithet applied often by conservatives to party apostates).

    The party that idolizes Reagan has missed a crucial lesson from his eight years: slogans might get you elected, but pragmatism builds a legacy.
    What Bush reflected in his comments to Bloomberg reporters and editors is the reality of the contemporary Republican Party, one where conservatism is being redefined in ways that leave problem-solvers at the margins. The fact is that Ronald Reagan was a very strong conservative with very strong principles — and a pragmatist who was not going to jump off the cliff with all flags flying to stand on principle, and land on the rocks below, or shun opportunities to find appropriate compromises with Democrats in Congress. Reagan was also a master negotiator, going back to his union days, able to maintain a credible pose as someone who would not budge, allowing his adversaries to move closer to him, then closer again, and finally he could cut a deal by moving very little himself. But he cut the deal willingly.

    What Reagan did along the way was to raise taxes multiple times after his initial wave of tax cuts, to keep deficits from looming out of control and to keep government from disruption, and to cut deals with the likes of Henry Waxman and Ted Kennedy on Medicare, Medicaid and other areas of high priority to Democrats. It is, I believe, indisputable that if someone named Ronald Smith with the same qualities as Reagan ran for the Republican nomination on the Reagan record, he would never make it past Iowa or New Hampshire, much less South Carolina. Instead, he would be consigned to Grover Norquist Hell.

    The larger point Jeb Bush made is the key one: this is not just about ideology, but about tactics. A Republican Party that has “an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground” is one that is not destined for long-term majority status. Bush says that he does not define the Republican Party this way. But in its disdain for compromise and its positions on issues like immigration and taxes, it is well down the road to defining itself.

  20. Anonymous says:

    If Dinsdale is anything like what the OWH endorsement says, his race should be over.

    Buffett wants to be the local Jackass who tells Elephants how to vote. But how can a Democrat owned OWH, or any Liberal media, know what is or isn’t good Conservative Republican character? Sure an endorsement is nice. But newsy Liberals hate Republicans. That kind of support can backfire.

    Case in point. The OWH said Dinsdale would NOT have joined Republicans to shut down government to stop Obamacare and it said Dinsdale WOULD work across the aisle with Harry Reid. That probably makes Buffett happy but I bet Sid cringed when he read that. The OWH might as well said Sid Dinsdale would be a good fit for President Hillary’s Democratic cabinet.

  21. For Dinsdale, this is the point where you realize says:

    You’re seriously in contention. The attackers and haters are quickly coming to the surface! Nothing but a good sign for Sid.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Sid’s showing common sense. Something most voters want. Seriously, how are all you anti-amnesty at all costs proposing to send millions of illegals back home? At what cost? And pro-life issues are important, but that can’t rule over every piece of business coming before the U.S. Senate. That’s just silly. Your type of candidate talks a good game to get you to support them, but that’s all it is – talk. Say that Osborn or Sasse is elected, you really think they’re going to send millions of illegals home? Or overturn Roe v. Wade? Get real.

  23. Sign Removal says:

    The Sid Dinsdale sign that was in my yard is now hidden in my garage, and my vote for him goes to someone else….to someone who’s claims of being pro-life are real and who’s dedication to the rule of law in the area of immigration is real. Anyone want a slightly used Dinsdale yard sign?

  24. Thanks for playing Sid says:

    He’s done. As a Senator, you don’t “set pro-life issues to one side.” You’d be voting on confirming Supreme Court Justices and Congress has passed some of the most important abortion legislation. As for immigration he advocates basically giving up. Sure, you took the trouble to break the law and get here, but it’s all good. This isn’t an attack. This isn’t putting words in his mouth. This what he intended to say. I’m pretty confident that this is him addressing the Douglas County Republican Party in the fall of 2013. I was there and I remember the line “buses or trains” and him saying something that made him sound as if he didn’t really care about abortion, but this was worse than I remembered. I know he also has written big checks to pro-abortion, pro-amnesty Democrats. I recall for sure that he was a major donor to Tom White’s effort to unseat Lee Terry. He just isn’t anything like the conservative he now claims to be.

  25. Anonymous says:

    How does a video that has been around since December “surface”, as Watchdog says?
    People on this blog were talking about it months ago.
    All this proves is that Dinsdale is scaring the Sasse and Osborn supporters (and they have Joe Jordan’s ear).
    They should be scared. Dinsdale is the only adult in the race.

  26. To 30 says:

    haha, exactly. Let the hate pour out of the Sasse/Osborn camps.
    Dinsdale is CLEARLY very much in this race.

    #feelsgoodman

  27. Anonymous says:

    Every evil tyrant in history was an adult. We can do a bit better than just “adult”.

    But speaking of adults, are you whining about the timing of others releasing silly self-defeating crap said by your own candidate? That’s childish of you.

    Maybe you should climb into your time machine and go back to sew Dinsdale’s mouth shut so he doesn’t waste your donation.

  28. So a video that has been on youtube says:

    since December “surfaces” and now Dinsdale race is over? Give me a break. Sasse polling must show him surging.

  29. Macdaddy says:

    #27, they don’t all have to be deported tomorrow, but using e-verify, enforcing US visas, cutting off things like tuition breaks, beefing up the porous Southern border, with-holding federal funds from sanctuary cities, stop giving people hope they might one day be citizens, get rid of birthright citizenship, and finally, deport the ones who show up in custody. Or, we can just reward identity theft, breaking immigration laws, and the myriad others laws that we American citizens don’t get a pass on. Maybe you’d like to give out your SSN. I’m sure a kind and caring illegal immigrant could use it while committing acts of love. Don’t be so stingy.

  30. Interested Observer says:

    Now that Osborn and Sasse have beat each other to a pulp and Sid Doomsdale has but his silver foot in his mouth, fortunately, we still have the best candidate left, Bart McLeay!

    When you talk about someone who is solidly Conservative, Pro-Life and who not only follows the rule of law, but practices the rule of law all day, every day, then you are talking about Bart.

  31. Bob Loblaw says:

    The thing that worries me about Dinsdale is sending a banker to DC. Did Sid support TARP? Does he believe that there should be Wall Street executives in jail over the Sub Prime crisis and market manipulation? Does he believe in “too big to fail” banks and institutions or would he have let some of the big wall street firms go under?

    I like Sid, but I think that crony capitalism is just as bad as government overreach in Washington.

    Could any of the Dinsdale supporters fill me in on his answers to these questions. TIA.

  32. A Friend of Sid's says:

    I’m a friend and neighbor of Sid’s, and remember being at a neighborhood event with him back in 2008 or maybe ’09. I asked him about the Barney Frank / Chris Dodd / Fannie Mae / sub-prime mortgage / TARP stuff that was going on. He really winced, and said it was painful to see, and hurtful not only to our country but also to the reputation of the smaller, community-based banks with which he is involved. He said the financial irresponsibility of the sub-prime mess was going to put us in a world of hurt for a long time to come. There’s a big difference between the big, global banks that got into that stuff, and the community banks, such as Pinnacle, that stayed the hay away. No wonder our Nebraska economy is better off than a lot of the rest of the country. It’s because we had smart, Nebraska-focused bankers, like Sid, who do business in a prudent and effective way.

  33. @ Bob Loblaw says:

    Sid was very much against TARP. In fact, none of his banks took it. Sid is very much against the big banks and Wall Street. He feels very strongly they need to be held accountable and the “too big to fail” mentality is partly what’s wrong with our country. Crony capitalism, like you say, is just as bad as government overreach. Good questions, Bob.

  34. Joshua W. Weir says:

    Macdaddy-

    Thank you for proposing solutions to the current immigration system.

    E-Verify. I personally am troubled by the fact that the NSA has access to my email, the IRS has access to my income and health information. By expanding e-verify, the federal government now has information regarding each and every employer-employee relationship. We’ve seen IRS targeting of conservative groups and the release of confidential information about conservative groups. We’ve seen targeting of supporters of Prop 8 in California. We’ve currently got the Senate Majority Leader waging a personal war against private citizens. What’s to prevent groups from targeting employees of Koch Industries, gun manufacturers, or pro-life organizations based on information leaked by the federal government to progressive groups? In any other circumstance, conservatives would be fighting e-verify as an intrusion into the employer-employee relationship and terrified of how the federal government could misuse that information.

    “Enforcing visas.” A visa is essentially a ticket to enter the country. I don’t know how one “enforces” a visa, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant pursuing visa overstays. Currently, there is not mechanism in our current immigration to track entries and exits on visas. Most comprehensive immigration reform plans, including the Senate version, have a provision for an entry-exit tracking system. In other words, when an individual is granted a tourist visa and allowed to stay for 90 days, currently, nothing shows up in a system if the person does not depart as scheduled. We need immigration reform in order to have such a system in place. People in favor of our current system, would be opposed to such a commonsense change that conservatives want in order to make the immigration system more workable and accountable.

    “Cutting off things like tuition breaks.” I can’t find recent statistics, but the last I read, the number of people receiving in-state tuition as a result of Nebraska’s law was in the tens. Estimates are that approximately 45,000 aliens lacking status currently reside in Nebraska. Cutting off tuition breaks will reduce that number by how many?

    “Beef up the southern border.” You’d be amazed at the immigration resources here in Nebraska. If we had reform to deal with the people that are already here, those resources could be diverted to the border to make it more secure. With a rational visa system that allowed people to enter lawfully, more resources could be devoted to policing our border and stopping the dangerous criminals who could only enter in the wilderness. Right now our resources are spread thin because we are trying to enforce an unworkable system.

    “Cutting off federal funds for sanctuary cities.” How exactly does one go about doing this? Do we really want to set the precedent for the federal government settling political scores such as this? Isn’t this exactly why we have a problem with the Obama administration targeting states like Arizona and Texas over their immigration laws and voter ID bills? Are we any better than Democrats if we use the reigns of power to target our political opposition when we wield the reigns of power?

    “Stop giving people hope.” We are a divided country. One half of the country will continue to advocate a position they support. As long as those people are advocating, won’t people have hope? President Obama keeps saying the debate on health care is settled. I continue to “hope” and work toward the ACA being repealed. As long as I hold that position, I will always have “hope.” How exactly do you propose to get people to stop having “hope” that they will one day become citizens?

    “Get rid of birthright citizenship.” Our unalienable rights are endowed by our Creator. If we as a nation get to decide to whom those inalienable rights apply, don’t we undermine the entire premise of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution? You want the federal government deciding which rights belong to whom. If you believe in a Creator and that our rights are endowed by that Creator, then on what basis do you purport to deny citizenship to people born in this country?

    “Deport those in custody.” I can assure you that those that show up in custody in Nebraska and Iowa and placed into removal proceedings. The backlog of cases means that those individuals won’t get a hearing before an immigration judge for several years. Either you do something to reduce the backlog or eliminate due process.

    “Reward identity theft.” Nearly all immigration proposals provide that certain criminals are not eligible. Identity theft is treated as fraud, also known as a “crime involving moral turpitude,” under our current immigration system. People with convictions involving guns, drugs, theft, domestic violence, child abuse, fraud, etc. are specifically excluded when an immigration proposal provides that certain criminals are ineligible.

    I don’t believe in open borders or mass amnesty. I do believe in market-based, rational solutions that work within the current framework of our immigration laws.

  35. Macdaddy says:

    I don’t know if you’ll check this again, but Josh, you realize the federal gov’t already is collecting data on every employer/employee. It’s called the IRS. They’ve been doing this for decades. It isn’t a secret. E-verify merely lets an employer know if the person has a right to work in the US. I filled out an I-9 form years ago even though I was born here to parents who were also born here.

    The way you enforce visas is you track people down who overstay them and then stick them on the next plane home once you find them. That’s all the due process needed.

    Withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities is not settling scores, it’s getting elected officials to uphold the law. The feds did it with the drinking age, BAL limits, school testing, etc. It is reminding everyone that immigration is a federal jurisdiction and people just can’t subvert the law. If you want to argue about federalism, fine, but penny-ante elected officials need to know that there are real consequences to their naive romanticism.

    As far as relieving backlogs, etc, the way the Obama administration is doing that is just releasing criminals back into the wilds of the US. Have they asked for more funds to clear the backlog? Have they lifted a finger to do anything other than expand the list of people who can automatically stay?

    Birthright citizenship should only apply to those whose parents are here legally. And anyway, how is it an inalienable right to have citizenship where you are born? You realize that of the First World countries, only the US and Canada still offer birthright citizenship? Birthright citizenship is a huge magnet to sneak into the country.

    “I don’t believe in open borders or mass amnesty. I do believe in market-based, rational solutions that work within the current framework of our immigration laws.” I’m sure that sounded good when you typed it but it means nothing. The current framework is being hacked to pieces by Obama with the acquiescence of the GOP. Good luck in avoiding mass amnesty or open borders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.