Journal pudge's Journal: McCain and McGavick 8
I went to the fundraiser last night for U.S. Senate candidate Mike McGavick (R-WA), at which Seator John McCain spoke.
It was quite good, as far as these things go.
I sat next to an Alec Sr. and Alex Jr., both Washington natives, who also spent a bunch of years living in Alaska. The younger of the Alecs noted that this was similar to Alaskan events they had attended, minus the bolo ties.
U.S. House candidate Doug Roulstone was also there, at the next table over. He's got his own big fundraiser next month: Vice Preswident Dick Cheney will be his guest. It's hard to top Senator McCain, but that'll do it. Cheney and McCain are the two most powerful Republicans in the District of Columbia, after the President. So these two candidates are big-time.
The luminaries made their rounds, shaking hands at each table: former and likely future gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi, McGavick, and recently elected state party chair Diane Tebelius. The latter asked me if we'd met before, and I wasn't sure; I know I'd seen her before at various events, but I couldn't recall if we'd actually met. She assured me we had, as she remembered my eyes.
McGavick spoke first, and worked hard to position himself as a moderate, independent Republican, saying that McCain was the perfect example of what he hoped to be as a Senator. He railed against fiscal irresponsibility and pork, and against partisan bickering. He said that such division is not the Northwest Way, that in the Northwest we work together to reach common goals. I wondered, to myself, why then the state legislature is so bitterly partisan.
He took only one real jab at his opponent, incumbent Maria Cantwell, when he said that if he were in the Senate, the Gang of 14 would have been a Gang of 15, and pointed out that Cantwell was in the trenches lobbing partisan bombs.
McCain had a similar message about cutting pork and working with the Democrats, instead of being a partisan jerk all the time, and he certainly has the record to back up both. He criticized the "hysterical" response to the Dubai ports deal, and said we made a bad mistake by rejecting it. He went on to talk about illegal immigration, and I went home and looked up the details of his plan, and I like it more now than I did when I read about it before.
Basically, if I understand it correctly, his plan would be border enforcement first and foremost, he says. Everyone says that. I have yet to see a real proposal for doing it. But after that is where there's a lot of disagreement. Under his plan, illegals can get a work visa for up to six years. There would be heavy penalties for working without one, or hiring someone who didn't have one. If you decide you want to stay after the visa expires, you have to learn English and pay a $2000 fine to apply for permanent resident status, getting a Green Card. Else, you have to go home.
He noted that many Republicans want to deport all illegals, but a. there's no way to do it, and b. that's a terrible political move.
That's going to be a huge issue in the 2008 election (I have little hope it will be resolved before then).
Now Playing: Sting - The Secret Marriage
Hmmm... (Score:1)
QUIT LYING! WE ARE NOT STUPID!
Paying a $2000 fine after living in the US for 6 years is chump change. I could probably have turned that kind of cash in college if I had to, and still not been overly taxed in doing so. That is $30 a month over six years. It is rewarding those who break the law, it is bad precedent.
Basically the process is rewarding those folks for breaking our laws. And personally I don't care
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Well, what's the alternative? You can't make them pay it up front, because they don't have it. You can't deport them, because it is not possible.
The big problem with amnesty in general is that it a. encourages more lawbreakin
Immigration (Score:2)
Unfortunately for that plank of the conservative agenda, I've recently come to the conclusion that my religion forbids me from supporting efforts to deny someone work on the basis of nationality.
Now, excluding someone from being present due to security concerns ... that's an entirely different matter.
But this has become one of the few areas in which I would be willing to break the law.
Re:Immigration (Score:2)
Now, excluding someone from being present due to security concerns
But this has become one of the few areas in which I would be willing to break the law.
Shouldn't you then report someone who is here illegally, instead of offering them a job, since they should not be here due t
Re:Immigration (Score:2)
Well, as of yet, it hasn't been an issue for me personally, even though I live in Texas.
And I'd be likely to not make it an issue, by simply not asking.
Re:Immigration (Score:2)
So your desire to make sure someone is not rejected for a job is more important than you desire for national security?
Re:Immigration (Score:2)
I tend to believe that the national security is most likely somebody else's problem at the border, not mine. We definitely need something better going on at the border in that regard.
But if someone approaches me for a job or help getting a job, unless I've got reason to suspect they are a security problem, I'm not going to worry about their nationality. If they seem like they are not safe to ME, they definitely won't be getting my help.
Re:Immigration (Score:2)
I tend to believe you're entirely wrong. If you suspect something might be a security threat, it's your obligation to report it. And someone here illegally is someone we don't know about, and is therefore a security threat.