Posted on 11/09/2004 9:19:58 AM PST by xsysmgr
Slate recently featured an article on the "unteachable ignorance" of the Bush red states, in light of the dismaying (from its perspective) election results. On immigration, we should talk about the "unteachable ignorance" of America's political and media elites. Nothing will convince them to take the issue seriously.
The latest sign that the public wants the kind of immigration enforcement that politicians simply won't give them comes out of Arizona. Proposition 200, a measure to tighten up enforcement of existing laws relating to illegal immigration, passed with 56 percent of the vote. It requires that someone provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and valid ID when voting or applying for public benefits. Since it is already against the law for illegals to register and vote, and illegal for them to receive welfare, it is astonishing that Proposition 200 became — as the media always puts it — "controversial."
What Proposition 200 exposed is this: Our elites have very little intention of enforcing immigration-related laws, and they are outraged at the notion that they should. All the great and good in Arizona lined up against the proposition. Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, Republican Sen. John McCain, the Service Employees International Union, the Catholic bishops and the Chamber of Commerce all opposed it.
They were universally outraged at an initiative aimed at getting the public officials among them to do their jobs. "We haven't changed any law," says state Rep. Russell Pearce, a supporter of Proposition 200. "We're changing the verification process to make sure that the current laws are enforced."
Opponents took to complaining that the proposition would unfairly burden state and local workers with verifying the citizenship of the people they deal with. But is asking for an ID really such a burden? The clerks at Blockbuster somehow manage to do it. Proposition 200 backer Rusty Childress recalls that within an hour of publicly announcing the initiative, opponents held a rival press conference denouncing it as — what else? — racist. "All they can do is name-call on this issue," says Childress, "because we are on the right side of the law." And the racist argument didn't wash. Childress explains: "Most people said: 'Showing ID? That's not racist. I show ID all the time.'" According to exit polls, 47 percent of Hispanics voted for the initiative.
Thanks to tightened enforcement elsewhere along the border, most illegal immigrants now come across the Arizona-Mexico border. Proposition 200 won't have much effect on that flow, but might have a mild deterrent effect if illegals were to realize that the laws on the books won't be ignored, according to Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies. Proposition 200 gets at an enormous part of the illegal-immigrant problem, which is the welcoming environment created for illegal immigrants by lax enforcement. So long as illegals know they can live as quasi-citizens here, they have every incentive to keep coming.
Special interests want to keep it that way. "There are two groups who benefit from illegal immigration," says Pearce. "Those groups who benefit politically because new immigrants vote Democratic. And those business groups that benefit from the cheap labor." The public in general is the loser. Estimates of the costs to Arizona of illegal immigration go as high as $1.3 billion a year. "People say to me, 'Immigration is a federal responsibility,'" says Pearce. "But I say, 'It's our health-care system, it's our schools, it's our neighborhoods.'"
That populist sentiment is very real, and elites ignore it at their peril. President Bush recently said that he wants to spend political capital in his second term. If he tries to spend much of it on his misbegotten proposal for a quasi-amnesty for illegal aliens, he will risk political calamity. The message from Arizona — and elsewhere on Election Day, when immigration-skeptics picked up strength — is to try increased enforcement first. Who knows? Once we begin to enforce the law, we might even learn to like it.
— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
Legal vs illegal. They are hispanics and treading
lightly on a spin of racism is what I am getting at.
I am not in disagreement w/ you. I simply am saying
the issue has to be broached carefully.
MV
bttt
Dems import voters. Republican interests get cheap labor. Cheap labor is a very powerful interest. We had a war a century or so ago about cheap labor. Like slavery, illegal immigration is a "peculiar interest".
No, they want to flood the country with cheap labor, so they can increase their profit margin.
"Hello?? Who the hell has been in power the last four years??"
Who was in power for the previous eight years?
The 12 before that?
The four before that?
The eight before that?
Both parties have behaved exactly the same. No big deal. Zero interior enforcement.
Several big studies conclude the majority of cotizens want something done, and both parties refuse.
"Service Employees International Union"
Why does the union favor illegal immigration? Seems like they would be one of the groups strongly opposed to it.
Do the illegals join the union and pay dues?
We don't need the Dems pushing a General Amnesty, we have Bush doing it.
I'm convinced that the only thing that will force some BLA's (Bush Lovers & Apologists) to fully understand this march to national suicide is to have one of their loved ones'attacked, raped or murdered by some cretin who shouldn't even be in this country.
In California it has become increasingly necessary to use propositions to do what the elected politicians won't do.
Prop. 187 a few years ago was mostly the same as Arizona's Prop 200. But corrupt Gov. Davis let it go in the courts...quit fighting to keep it, as his job.
Enough of this will get the attention of federal elected politicians.
Perhaps the two parties can be made to have a bidding war over who will do MORE, to enforce immigration laws.
As a nuisance? No.
Perhaps we should kill everything that moves and
plant radioactive isotopes in a wide path along
the Rio Grande?
MV
You can play your good cop, bad cop thing with these two beltway parties all you want. That's old BS. The fact is, many of us are wise to the pandering of this coast to coast lawlessness by both parties. Only an certified idiot can't see this, and only a liar wouldn't admit it.
I see that anger managemnt class is not the only
thing you failed.
MV
You can dance around this all you care, and attempt to make me the issue. Your BS is weak.
Your IQ is weak.
MV
LOL! Care to address where I'm incorrect?
You are a persistent SOB, I will hand you that.
MV
Race ya to 2006! First party to cross the illegal immigration border wins!
Feel free to answer #57. Take your time Fred.
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.