« RPV Chairman Debate Video (Question 6-10) | Main | Jim Gilmore On The Budget, Setting The Record Straight »

May 27, 2008


D.J. McGuire

Please, Chris. John Podhoretz opposed Bush's immigration bill, and he's as pro-amnesty as they come.

The fact is, Gilmore supported (and has never disavowed) temporary work visas for "some" illegals. That's legalization without consequence - the definition of amnesty.


This is what I'm talking about . . . the zero-sum conservatism of the Marshall supporters. Gilmore couldn't put it more clearly in every single one of those examples I found, even on video where he says we have to close the borders.

Yet one position he takes, find some way to get some of the workers visas, erases everything else and makes him "pro-amnesty" when he has very clearly stated that he is not.

Citizen Tom

Chris, when Democrats say that the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer under the Bush administration, why don't Republicans point to illegal immigration? The answer is that the Republican establishment supports bringing in the cheap labor. The Republican establishment also supports taxing the rest of us to pay for all the benefits illegal immigrants receive.

Gilmore is part of the Republican establishment. Instead of doing something about illegal immigration, Gilmore's issue is finding people to do the work Americans won't do. Got to find inexpensive workers for those corporations, don't we?

When we have an outstanding alternative like Marshall, we are foolish to consider voting for Gilmore. Marshall will work for us, not a bunch of greedy people who cannot see beyond their bank accounts.

D.J. McGuire

Interesting to note that you couldn't bring yourself to calling the "workers" illegal.

Again, lawbreakers suffer no consequence for their illegal action. That, by definition, is amnesty.

The comments to this entry are closed.