Share This Page

Amnesty & GOP suicide

| Wednesday, April 24, 2013, 9:01 p.m.

With 23 million Americans jobless or underemployed, the Senate prepares to legalize 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens, saddling taxpayers with trillions of dollars in new entitlement costs post-amnesty.

With 70 percent of Hispanics voting Democrat, Texas and Arizona turning blue is assured. The GOP will mathematically be unable to electorally win the presidency. The Democrats' machinations are perfectly clear. Why the Republicans would join them while committing electoral and political suicide bears closer scrutiny.

A southern border invasion has changed demographics — not birthrates — altering the country's cultural and racial heritage through illegality. Ellis Island and border-jumping are not morally equivalent, and equating illegal aliens with our legal ancestors insults and diminishes them and the rule of law. Our ancestors did not demand we “press 2 for Gaelic or Italian.”

The GOP will reap no more electoral benefit from Hispanics this time than when President Reagan granted amnesty in 1986.

Pandering to racial politics, the GOP has abandoned conservative principles. This will lead to permanent marginalization when conservatives abandon the GOP.

Republican rationale for amnesty is so fallacious and destructive to itself and the nation as to be intentional.

Steven Donnelly

Cowansville

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.