Posted on 11/26/2006 8:27:15 PM PST by neverdem
Little did voters know it, but last Tuesday they were delivering a mandate for amnesty for illegal immigrants. Most of them probably thought they were voting on the Iraq War or on corruption, but elite opinion-makers have decided that they also were panting for a laxer immigration policy.
There's no doubt that electing a Democratic Congress furthers the cause of an amnesty and guest-worker program by removing the main obstacle to both: the Republican majority in the House. But there is no good evidence that championing strict immigration enforcement was a loser for Republicans, or that voters elected Democrats explicitly to permit illegals already in this country to stay and to invite more of their brethren to come. Any suggestion otherwise comes from advocates of amnesty who interpret anything voters do - now up to and including expressing their discontent with an unpopular war - as a call for more immigration.
The epicenter of their case is in Arizona. Two immigration-restrictionist Republicans lost House races in a state that experiences more illegal border crossings than all the other states bordering Mexico combined. If strict-enforcement conservatives can't make it there, the argument goes, they can't make it anywhere. But Arizona wasn't really a restrictionist rout.
Republican Randy Graf, a Minuteman, lost a race for a Republican seat, but he was never given a chance by anyone because of his fringy obsession with the issue. Meanwhile, Republican incumbent J.D. Hayworth, who wrote a book on border enforcement, also lost. Notably, Hayworth was called a "bully" by the editorial board of The Arizona Republic, which had endorsed him in his prior six elections. The lesson from these House races is that a monomaniacal focus on immigration, or too much heavy-breathing rhetoric, turns off voters.
Arizona's Senate race was a truer test of the political merits of the issue, which is one of the reasons that it is less talked about. Republican Sen. Jon Kyl is an opponent of the "comprehensive bill" - effectively an amnesty - passed by the Senate last year. But he is also a thoughtful policymaker who will never be mistaken for a bomb-thrower. His Democratic opponent forthrightly supported the Senate bill and a guest-worker program. Kyl won.
It's disingenuous to argue that Arizona rejected enforcement when, as Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies points out, it approved ballot measures to deny bail to illegals, bar them from collecting punitive damages, keep them from receiving certain state subsidies and make English the state's official language. If Arizona had recoiled from a get-tough approach to immigration, it would have rejected these measures along with Graf and Hayworth, rather than approving them by 3-1 margins.
The fact is that the slaughter of Republican candidates this year was indiscriminate. It hit restrictionists and advocates of amnesty alike. For every high-profile, tough-on-immigration Republican who lost, like Indiana Rep. John Hostettler, there was also a supporter of amnesty like Rhode Island's Sen. Lincoln Chafee. The immigration issue wasn't killing off Republicans; it was discontent with the war and a general disgust with the GOP brand.
The true acid test on the issue is how Democrats handled it. They ran what everyone acknowledges was a brilliant campaign. Yet, they tried to minimize differences with Republicans on immigration and mentioned it nowhere in their post-election agenda.
Finally, there is the matter of the Hispanic vote. The Republicans' share of it declined to 30 percent this year from 38 percent in the last congressional midterms in 2002. This datum - often characterized as disastrous - has to be put in the context of a decline in the GOP share of the white vote, from 58 percent to 51 percent. Republicans were equal-opportunity losers this year, alienating everyone from new immigrants to descendants from the Mayflower.
For all of this, it seems that President Bush and House Majority Leader-elect Nancy Pelosi might still accept the "immigration enforcement lost" interpretation of election. They both do so at their political peril.
Rich Lowry is editor of The National Review and can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com
Please read the entire article.
I did.
And I hope I'm wrong.
But the recent elections have sealed the deal.
Reversing it will be well-nigh impossible.
And who can we thank for all that? How about so-called "conservatives" like Michael Savage who decided to let their emotions overpower reason. They punished Bush by not voting for Congressional Republicans. Brilliant move there, eh.
"For all of this, it seems that President Bush and House Majority Leader-elect Nancy Pelosi might still accept the "immigration enforcement lost" interpretation of election. They both do so at their political peril."
What political peril? Bush is on his way out. He's not up for reelection.
And what, Pelosi will lose the republican vote? Geez, she'll gain millions of votes for her party if she can get illegals eligible to vote before '08.
Voters saw through the smoke-screen of Republicans trying to be tough on illegal immigration only after the Minute Men focused attention to the issue and the protests from illegals on our soil this spring.
yeah, and then bush calls the min. men vigilantes.
---Geez, she'll gain millions of votes for her party if she can get illegals eligible to vote before '08. ---
There is no way to do that by '08, and therein is the rub. I think the Dims will try to consolidate their power before making any major amnesty move. They'll kill the wall, though and let the problem grow worse.
Republicans should take note, however. If they go along with an amnesty the backlash against Republicans would be far greater than that against Dims.
Why can't she get them eligible quickly? If you pass the right legislation, you can always say that they should have the right to vote because they are in the process of becoming citizens.
Unlikely, yes, but possible. Don't ever underestimate the party that constantly can get dead people to vote for them.
well said.
Thank you. I assume you were talking about the "dead people" part. *smile*
right. we have had the "dead people vote" here in wash. state recently. pathetic.
And they always vote Democrat. Amazing, isn't it?
As long as the President pushes the amnesty program he gives the Democrats cover. If/when amnesty gets approved and the public will see the damage it causes once in effect, it will be the Bush Republicans who will get the blame for the 2008 elections and the Democrats will win even larger majorities.
The smartest legacy that Bush can leave now for 2008 is to come out and say he was wrong on amnesty and will veto any bill the Democrats pass. Then it will be the Democrats alone who will be responsible for thwarting the will of 70%+ of the American people.
But he won't and he will take the Republicans down a suicidal path with his "comprehensive immigration reform" and the Democrats will sit on the sidelines smirking as they get their way yet pay no political price.
Yep. When people go ballistic against this, the Dems can just say it was the Republicans' fault. When others cheer, the Dems can say "Look what we've done for you, now vote for us.".
Face it, Democrats are more politically astute than Republicans.
It was all well and good to preach 'Vote GOP' during the run-up to the election.
However NOW is the time to make wholesale changes to the country club elite SOB's who dared take us, and Conservative values, for granted.
Okay, but how do we make those changes? Just as important, how do we make those changes without committing political suicide (as we may have done by letting the Dems win)?
you got that right.
---But he won't and he will take the Republicans down a suicidal path with his "comprehensive immigration reform" and the Democrats will sit on the sidelines smirking as they get their way yet pay no political price.---
That's a distinct possibility. If the Republicans are that stupid the party may go the way of the Whigs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.