Posted on 01/29/2009 11:57:02 AM PST by Steelfish
Thursday, January 29, 2009 Stand Firm, Kirsten [Heather Mac Donald]
What are the chances that New York’s new senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, will maintain her support for immigration enforcement after being rushed by a massive line of illegal-alien advocates and other members of the liberal elite?
Gillibrand is said to harbor ambitions for much higher office. If she holds onto her immigration principles despite the intended sacking, she will have distinguished herself early on as a unique politician worthy of further attention.
Gillibrand seems to have backed just about every measure to strengthen the immigration rule of law during her single term in Congress representing an Albany-area district. She opposed amnesty and driver’s licenses for illegal aliens; she supported using local police to enforce immigration laws. She co-sponsored the SAVE Act, which would have required employers to verify the legal status of their employees, expedited deportation of illegals, and boosted border technology. She wanted to protect employers who require their workers to speak English from being sued as civil rights violators.
Needless to say, these positions are anathema to the open-borders lobby, so earlier this week, the New York Times published what was virtually a set of serial press releases from that lobby denouncing her.
“Borders on xenophobia,” “extremist,” a “slap to immigrant New Yorkers,” and a “disappointing choice” were among the predictable jabs from New York City politicians, Spanish-language newspapers, and advocates.
Particularly amusing was the charge from the executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition that Gillibrand’s “past positions are pretty much out of line with the rest of New York State.” Tell that to Eliot Spitzer, whose plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, which Gillibrand opposed, went up in flames just a little bit before he did himself.
The New York Times, however, buttresses the conceit that Gillibrand represents just a small and irrelevant portion of New Yorkers, noting that she comes from an “overwhelmingly white district along New York’s eastern fringe,” as if only white New Yorkers support the rule of law.
The advocates know just what is needed: reeducation. “I think she needs to be educated, frankly,” says the past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, who is optimistic that she will “modify” her immigration positions now that she is in the Senate.
“Frankly,” her views are even more valid today than they were two years ago, when she entered Congress.
Amnesty will achieve just what it has achieved every other time it has been tried: encourage more migrants to cross the border and wait for their illegal status to be erased, thus putting further downward pressure on the labor market.
The administrative costs of regularizing millions of illegals would be enormous, as they were during the 1986 amnesty, and even more burdensome at a time when government should be eliminating unnecessary expenses. Since society’s bonds face greater strain during an economic crisis, it is all the more important to buttress respect for the law. The perception that government is unable to enforce the law and maintain order has far-reaching consequences for how people conduct themselves in the public and economic realms. And low-skilled, low-educated Hispanics, who make up the vast majority of illegal aliens, consume a large share of services for the needy, including government health care and remedial education.
As a political appointee, Gillibrand will undoubtedly feel beholden to her patrons. But if she wants to be returned to the Senate in 2010, New York’s powerful patronage machine will not be enough; she will actually have to appeal to voters. Standing firm on the rule of law would give her enormous credibility, not just as she tries to hold onto her Senate seat but thereafter as well. A New York City councilman is holding a rally at City Hall today to demand that Gillibrand change her immigration positions. The public should let her know that she is not, in fact, “out of line with the rest of New York State,” despite what she will be hearing from the illegal-alien lobby.
— Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor at City Journal and the co-author of The Immigration Solution.
It will be interesting to seed if this blue dog Democrat rolls over and turns commie red.
so all i’ve heard about this lady is she’s pro-gun, and anti- illegal immigration.
what stances does she have that’s democrat?
ping
Maybe contact her office (http://congress.org/congressorg/bio/id/51447)
& point out some of the economic benefits from an immigration moratorium also:
“Memo to President Obama: Add Immigration Moratorium to the Economic Stimulus Package
...
All of which raises an obvious question: Why not impose a moratorium on immigration? By cutting labor force growth in half, this would allow our weakened economy to absorb a greater fraction of new—native-born American—entrants.
The unemployment rate would fall. And, equally important, average incomes would rise as jobs currently going to low wage immigrants would be filled by U.S.-born workers.
What would an immediate moratorium do? I have run the numbers for 2008.
You will recall that the unemployment rate was 7.2 percent in December 2008, up from 4.9 percent in December of 2007. Over that period unemployment rose by 3.6 million, swelled by job losers as well as new labor force entrants.
The civilian labor force grew by 611,000 last year, from 153.836 million in December 2007 to 154.447 million December 2008. Had a moratorium been in effect, about 305,000 fewer people would be looking for jobs.
That may not sound like a lot at a time when jobs are disappearing by more than 500,000 per month. But 305,000 fewer job seekers is equal to about 9 percent of last year’s stunning unemployment increase, the biggest for 22 years.
Implication: a one-year moratorium would reduce by at least 9 percent the stimulus spending required to restore the economy to its pre-meltdown state. That translates to $90 billion of federal savings.”
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/090127_nd.htm
I’m just amazed that Paterson selected her. She essentially constitutes what would pass as a right-wing demagogue by comparison for NY.
Notice that the “stimulus” doesn’t include any funding for a border fence.
Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
More than enough Republicans have turned RINO lately. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt as she has a great rating right now as a true conservative.
Maybe she will change parties if the GOP ever locates its backbone, intestines and testacles.
The special election, to replace Rahm Emanuel, has one conservative candidate, Rosanna Pulido, the founder and director of the Illinois Minuteman Project, and I’m her volunteer coordinator. She’s pro-life and pro-gun rights. Please read her site, www.rosannapulido2009.com. If you know anyone who wants to help her, please ask them to email me at philacollins@yahoo.com.
“What are the chances that New York’s new senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, will maintain her support for immigration enforcement after being rushed by a massive line of illegal-alien advocates and other members of the liberal elite?”
Slim and none. She’s been making noise already about going to the dark side. She’ll do as she’s told.
Rosanna Pulido is the shiznitz. Any Illinois resident reading this should know that this lady has gone through hell placing her love for America above her Hispanic heritage. Reviled and insulted during a funeral service for “turning her back on her people”, she soldiers on knowing that the illegal alien influx brings more of this purposely diversive attitude while promoting corruption.
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.