GOP, You Are Warned

AEI ^ | 29 dec 04 | David Frum

[white trash redneck]

No issue, not one, threatens to do more damage to the Republican coalition than immigration. There's no issue where the beliefs and interests of the party rank-and-file diverge more radically from the beliefs and interests of the party's leaders. Immigration for Republicans in 2005 is what crime was for Democrats in 1965 or abortion in 1975: a vulnerable point at which a strong-minded opponent could drive a wedge that would shatter the GOP.

President Bush won reelection because he won 10 million more votes in 2004 than he did in 2000. Who were these people? According to Ruy Teixeira--a shrewd Democratic analyst of voting trends--Bush scored his largest proportional gains among white voters who didn't complete college, especially women. These voters rallied to the president for two principal reasons: because they respected him as a man who lived by their treasured values of work, family, honesty, and faith; and because they trusted him to keep the country safe.

Yet Bush is already signaling that he intends to revive the amnesty/guestworker immigration plan he introduced a year ago--and hastily dropped after it ignited a firestorm of opposition. This plan dangerously divides the Republican party and affronts crucial segments of the Republican vote.

The plan is not usually described as an "amnesty" because it does not immediately legalize illegal workers in this country. Instead, it offers illegals a three-year temporary work permit. But this temporary permit would be indefinitely renewable and would allow illegals a route to permanent residency, so it is reasonably predictable that almost all of those illegals who obtain the permit will end up settling permanently in the United States. The plan also recreates the guestworker program of the 1950s--allowing employers who cannot find labor at the wages they wish to pay to advertise for workers outside the country. Those workers would likewise begin with a theoretically temporary status; but they too would probably end up settling permanently.

This is a remarkably relaxed approach to a serious border-security and labor-market problem. Employers who use illegal labor have systematically distorted the American labor market by reducing wages and evading taxes in violation of the rules that others follow. The president's plans ratify this gaming of the system and encourage more of it. It invites entry by an ever-expanding number of low-skilled workers, threatening the livelihoods of low-skilled Americans--the very same ones who turned out for the president in November.

National Review has historically favored greater restrictions on legal as well as illegal immigration. But you don't have to travel all the way down the NR highway to be troubled by the prospect of huge increases in immigration, with the greatest increases likely to occur among the least skilled.

The president's permissive approach has emboldened senators and mayors (such as New York's Michael Bloomberg) to oppose almost all enforcement actions against illegals. In September 2003, for example, Bloomberg signed an executive order forbidding New York police to share information on immigration offenses with the Immigration Service, except when the illegal broke some other law or was suspected of terrorist activity. And only last month, a House-Senate conference stripped from the intelligence-overhaul bill almost all the border-security measures recommended by the 9/11 commission.

The president's coalition is already fracturing from the tension between his approach to immigration and that favored by voters across the country. Sixty-seven House Republicans--almost one-third of the caucus--voted against the final version of the intelligence overhaul. And I can testify firsthand to the unpopularity of the amnesty/guestworker idea: I was on the conservative talk-radio circuit promoting a book when the president's plan was first proposed last January. Everywhere I went, the phones lit up with calls from outraged listeners who wanted to talk about little else. Every host I asked agreed: They had not seen such a sudden, spontaneous, and unanimous explosion of wrath from their callers in years.

Five years ago, Candidate George W. Bush founded his approach to immigration issues on a powerful and important insight: The illegal-immigration problem cannot be solved by the United States alone. Two-thirds of the estimated 9 million illegals in the U.S. are from Mexico. Mexico is also the largest source of legal immigration to the United States. What caused this vast migration? Between 1940 and 1970, the population of Mexico more than doubled, from 20 million to 54 million. In those years, there was almost no migration to the United States from Mexico at all. Since 1970, however, some 65 million more Mexicans have been born--and about 20 million of them have migrated northward, with most of that migration occurring after 1980.

Obviously, the 30 years from 1940 to 1970 are different in many ways from the 30 years after 1970s. But here's one factor that surely contributed to the Mexican exodus: In the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, the Mexican economy grew at an average rate of almost 7 percent a year. Thanks to the oil boom, the Mexican economy continued to grow rapidly through the troubled 1970s. But since 1980, Mexico has averaged barely 2 percent growth. The average Mexican was actually poorer in 1998 than he had been in 1981. You'd move too if that happened to you.

Recognizing the connection between Mexican prosperity and American border security, the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations all worked hard to promote Mexican growth. The Reagan and Clinton administrations bailed out Mexican banks in 1982 and 1995; the first Bush administration negotiated, and Clinton passed, NAFTA. George W. Bush came to office in 2001 envisioning another round of market opening with the newly elected government of his friend Vicente Fox, this time focusing on Mexico's protected, obsolete, economically wasteful, and environmentally backward energy industry.

Bush's hopes have been bitterly disappointed. The Fox government has actually done less to restore Mexican growth than the PRI governments of the 1990s. And so Bush has been pushed away from his grand vision and has instead accepted Fox's demand that the two countries concentrate on one issue: raising the status of Mexican illegals in the United States. But this won't work. Just as the U.S. cannot solve the problem by unilateral policing, so it also cannot solve it through unilateral concession. Bush had it right the first time.

Some of the president's approach to immigration remains right and wise. He is right to show a welcoming face to Hispanics legally resident in the United States. He is right to try to smooth the way to citizenship for legal permanent residents. He is right--more controversially--to give all who have contributed to Social Security, whatever their legal status, access to benefits from the Social Security account.

But he is wrong, terribly wrong, to subordinate border security to his desire for an amnesty deal--and still more wrong to make amnesty the centerpiece of his immigration strategy.

Right now, of course, the president does not have to worry much about political competition on the immigration issue. But Republicans shouldn't count on their opponents' ignoring such an opportunity election after election. "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants," Hillary Clinton told a New York radio station in November. And later: "People have to stop employing illegal immigrants. I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work." Okay, so maybe Hillary will never pick up many votes in Red State America. But there are Democratic politicians who could.

Republicans need a new and better approach--one that holds their constituency together and puts security first.

First, Republicans should develop and practice a new way of speaking about immigration, one that makes clear that enforcement of the immigration laws is not anti-immigrant or anti-Mexican: It is anti-bad employer. Illegal immigration is like any other illegal business practice: a way for unscrupulous people to exploit others to gain an advantage over their law-abiding competitors.

Second, Republicans can no longer deny the truth underscored by the 9/11 commission: Immigration policy is part of homeland-security policy. Non-enforcement of the immigration laws is non-protection of Americans against those who would do them harm.

Third, Republicans have to begin taking enforcement seriously. It's ridiculous and demoralizing to toss aside cabinet nominees like Linda Chavez over alleged immigration violations while winking at massive law-breaking by private industry--or to regard immigration violations as so trivial that they can be used as a face-saving excuse for the dismissal of a nominee damaged by other allegations.

Fourth, skills shortages in the high-technology and health-care industries are genuine problems that have to be addressed--but they should not be used as an excuse to void immigration enforcement. Republicans can say yes to using immigration law to attract global talent, while saying no to companies that systematically violate immigration law to gain an advantage over their more scrupulous rivals.

Fifth, Mexico should not be allowed to sever the migration issue from trade and investment issues. Mexican political stability is a vital national-security issue of the United States--and just for that reason, Americans should not allow Mexican governments to use migration as a way to shirk the work of economic and social reform.

Finally--and most important--Republicans need to recognize that they have a political vulnerability and must take action to protect themselves. An election victory as big as 2004 can look inevitable in retrospect. But it wasn't, not at all. The Democrats could have won--and could still win in 2006 and 2008--by taking better advantage of Republican mistakes and making fewer of their own. And no mistake offers them a greater opportunity than the one-sidedness of the Bush immigration policy. The GOP is a party dedicated to national security, conservative social values, and free-market economics. The president's policy on immigration risks making it look instead like an employers' lobby group. That's the weak point at which the edge of the wedge could enter--and some smart Democratic politician is sharpening it right now.

[NJ_gent]

"BTW, is an American business owner "evil" [for] trying to find labor wanted criminals so that he/she can pursue their part of the American dream the exploitation of vulnerable people in violation of US law for their own personal economic gain at the expense of American economic equillibrium and the security of the nation in time of war.?"

There ya go, fixed it right up for ya.

[B4Ranch]

>>The ball all starts with the illegals themselves, plain and simple, and the DEMS will NEVER, read my lips, NEVER adopt (or elect) anyone who is anti illegal.<<

When 80% of the US population consider illegal immigration to be the major problem, I would bet on your position.

[NJ_gent]

"Uh you do know the reason why Wal-Mart is the #1 retailer in the world. They provide goods at the cheapest prices possible."

Do you support a company's use of slavery and forced child labor so that it can achieve better prices and get more business? If not, then perhaps you'll agree that companies must follow certain restrictions (such as US and international law) when they're conducting their affairs. Ergo, the use of illegal aliens is not, and should not, be allowed or condoned.

[gogipper]

I agree. And there is a chicken and egg problem here. People pass up jobs because the pay is low. And illegal immigration depresses wages because the labor supply is artificially high.

It aggravates me to work with computer professionals from Pakistan when a little training might qualify one of our fellow citizens to take that job. Our political leaders flooded the market with smart immigrants instead. Similarly, if we had rational immigration, the tough jobs at would pay a little more and attract more interest from americans.

Lets tighten things up for national security as well as for helping out our fellow citizens. Then figure out what kind of immigrants will really help us grow the way we want to.

[B4Ranch]

Correction

I wouldn't bet on your position.

The Democrats are seeing the same problem the Repubicans are with having too many illegal immigrants.

[Sunshine Sister]

You got that right! Getting old is the fun part. For me life just keeps getting better and better! I thank the Lord for that and wish you a Happy New Year and success in 2005!

[JustAnotherSavage]

Morganelli also has started a pac to elect anti - illegal immigration.

It appears VISA and other banking institutions have now joined the " I can make some money off illegals" group. The interesting thing about his article is that we've heard the figure of $30 billion being sent back to Mexico by these "workers".(Mexico's second largest "industry"_ Visa has it as $38 billion, and I would trust their figures.
That means a lot more illegals than we thought and more money NOT being spent in the USA. Someone will come along and tell us again how much these illegals contribute to our society.





******
Lou Dobbs Show/CNN/Aired 12/28/04
And Visa targets immigrant workers in a new ad campaign. But some say the program pose poses a security risk to this country.

PILGRIM: Visa International is launching an aggressive campaign to convince Latin American migrant workers to use plastic to send money back home. Now, Visa hopes to take over some of the money transfer business from companies like Western Union and Moneygram. Critics say using debit cards to transfer money raises new security concerns. Lisa Sylvester has the story.


LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT : Visa, it's everywhere you want to be, and in some places, you may not expect it to be. Visa International is targeting migrant and other workers from Latin America as its new favorite customer. The company is marketing its smart card that works as a prepaid debit card. Workers in the United States can easily transfer money to relatives abroad at a low cost. The banking industry hopes to tap into the remittance payment market that has been growing at an astronomical pace.

MANUEL OROZCO, INTER-AMERICAN DIALOGUE: In 2001, it is total volume of remittances to Latin American was $18 billion, and it grew to $38 billion three years later.

SYLVESTER: Wire services, including Western Union and Moneygram so far have dominated the $38 billion money-transfer market. A recent study found that 86 percent of remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean were cash transfers, 4 percent home delivery, 4 percent bank or credit union deposit, and 1 percent debit or smart card. Not everyone agrees that banking institutions make it easier to send money out of the country. Critics say nearly $40 billion a year exiting the United States is not small change, and leaves less money for some of the poorest U.S. communities. And there's also a potential security risk.

MARK KRIKORIAN, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: Immigrant remittances are one of the ways bad guys can transfer money across borders because even though most of that money is completely innocent, people working jobs and sending money home, it can serve as cover for terrorists, other kinds of criminals to move money.

SYLVESTER: But Visa and other credit card companies are charging forward, reaching into one of the few untapped markets.


SYLVESTER: The banking industry is convinced it can capture more of the market because its costs tend to be lower than traditional wire transfers. The bank costs as little as $8 a transfer, using the smart cards, and on the other hand, wire services can cost up to $25 a transfer. Kitty?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/28/ldt.01.html

*****

Let me know if you want off this illegal immigration ping list. Thanks.

[JustAnotherSavage]

Don't forget that WalMart also contributes to MALDEF, the illegal alien lobby/lawyer advocacy group that shot down prop 187 and is trying to do away with AZ prop 200.

[NJ_gent]

"They should be set to work on a border security fence too. The one Israel has is a good model"

I agree, and I'd gladly pay for it as an American taxpayer. Of all the garbage those pinheads in Washington come up with to spend our money on, this is one of the few things that would have me jumping for joy.

"We should have had this years ago. Employee verification is on the books but employers are allowed to accept phony, fake work documents without punishment."

Na, we don't need anything mandatory. All we need is incredible incentive (in terms of massive fines) for each instance where an employer hires someone they know, or should know, is not allowed to work in the US legally. After the first few multi-million dollar, headlines-making fines, you'd start seeing a whole bunch of employers get their act together real quick. Essentially, just step up enforcement and punish the hell out of those caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

"One than can be accessed over the internet or by phone."

You definitely don't want anything that can be done over the internet. Probably your best bet would be something accessible via modem, using a secure, encrypted client and server architecture. I'd put up a fight over using the government for this, however. Existing credit agencies could provide a primer for private businesses to handle this. With massive fines in place and a huge number of employers looking for a reliable way to make sure they're not going to get slammed for hiring illegals, a whole new market for employee work rights verification could be created overnight. It's certainly not something any privacy advocates are going to want the government to have a hand in, and it's better to have private businesses doing it anyway, as they can be held accountable for mistakes or problems.

[Fatalis]

My plan is make an easy to verify SS number database and compel all workers to be vetted by employers. Employers who mess around will be fined.

Workplace verification is now available with just an 800 call in all 50 States. House Rules Chair David Dreier has introduced HR 5111 which will make the program mandatory.

[Flux Capacitor]

----Dan, you better understand that the MINUTE Hillary comes out with SERIOUS proposals to enforce immigration, those "248" electoral votes you give her will become 10, or fewer.----

Like I said, she's got 183 by default. Did you SEE this year's electoral map? Kerry only lost by 24 EV's (or 25, thanks to that dumbass elector in Minnesota), and he was an unlikeable nothing who ran a campaign based on nothing. He got as close as he did because a great many of the blue states are solid blue, no matter who runs on the Democrat ticket, and included in that number are the first and third largest states in the country. California's Republican Party is in shambles. New York is lost to Republicans pretty much forever -- NYC easily cancels out the rest of the state (that's how even Dukakis won there), and in any case, they're not going to vote against their own Beloved Senator. If not for Chicago, Bush would have been very competitive in Illinois this year -- but that city easily cancels out the rest of the state. Kerry won Chicago with 70% of the vote, and IL along with it, by ten points.

There are many other examples. All of New England, except for New Hampshire, is solid. New Jersey is solid. Maryland is solid. Washington State is solid (as we've seen from their governor's election, even when Republicans win there, they lose). It all translates into a formidable base of electoral votes. Hillary is VERY popular with the Democrat base, and they will turn out for her in droves. The Republicans don't even have a clear choice for a nominee yet.

The lesson of John F. Kerry is that you cannot beat a something with a nothing, and you cannot count on negative turnout to win a presidential election. Anyone who wishes to be realistic about 2008 will not underestimate Hillary -- we didn't think Bill had a chance, either.

-Dan

[Sam the Sham]

One look at California and your argument disintegrates.

You have completely confused legal immigrants with illegals. Illegals are not these church-going cultural conservatives. They have all the cultural pathologies of the ghetto (rampant illegitimacy, crime, gangs, drugs, etc). They overwhelm the health care, social services, and law enforcement systems wherever they go like locusts. Because of them California is on the brink of bankruptcy, parts of LA are essentially unpoliceable, cities are broke, and fed-up law abiding taxpayers are moving to Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and Arizona. Your "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" will set the GOP up for an electoral catastrophe with Hillary playing Pim Fortyn.

And if you haven't noticed, Hispanic Americans citizens are taxpayers, too. They have no sympathy for illegals. So stop trying to depict the sensible desire to protect one's community as "anti-Mexican ugliness".

60% of the American people have made the decision that they do not and will not despise Hillary Clinton. It is too late to change that. And since the GOP base is so obviously hatred-driven towards her their accusations at this point seem more tinfoil hat conspiracy mongering than anything objective or credible. That is why the impeachment failed, because the 40% could not convince the 60% that they were motivated by the good of the country and moral principle, not partisan politics and personal hatred.

[NJ_gent]

"Republicans will never hear the end of it from msm + liberal elite.Remain soft on illegal immigration, and alienate members of the rep party. I don't think any party is willing to take a tough stand on this issue. Political suicide."

If you keep on a consistent message that this is about America's security, which is the only real issue at hand, then you'll have no long-term problems. Right now is the best time to get this stuff pushed through Congress. The President is in perfect position (4 years without having to worry about an election, and a couple years for Congress) to push this through and secure our borders and ports. Don't engage the idiots crying 'racism', and stay on message that this is about securing this country. You'll be shocked at how many get behind you. It helps even more if we publicly lay out the evidence we have that terrorists are using our pathetic border security to enter this country without having to worry about the troublesome increases in security at the airport. It'll create jobs, give people a real sense of security, and help ease the economic pressue hitting border states due to illegal immigration.

Of course, the President won't do it because he's been convinced by someone that keeping this nation's borders wide open in time of war is a good thing.

[Fatalis]

Illegal aliens need to be stopped from crossing the border, but if they are willing to work and contribute taxes, and add value to our country...let's help them do that 'cause there are some in our country who would rather have the handout.

If you want illegals stopped at the border, you can't keep rewarding them once they cross it.

[NJ_gent]

"If you want illegals stopped at the border, you can't keep rewarding them once they cross it."

Bingo.

[riri]

I may actually vote for Hillary IF she actually does

Stop!

[Sam the Sham]

And that leaves out the battle between Giuliani cultural liberals and cultural conservatives that will cripple the 2008 GOP nomination fight.

[Fatalis]

Do you really see Saul Alinsky becoming a big issue in a national election?

[Fatalis]

BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Again, just try her in a national election. You'll find out how much my "hatred" of Hillary is shared.

It's shared by the 40% who always vote GOP anyway. 40% lover her, and the 20% in the middle will decide the election.

[FreeReign]

JMO, she is going to try a redux of 92. She just has to find her Perot, someone who can suck off votes from the right, while she triangulates with some carefully worded platitudes(middle class tax cut, tough on China, ending welfare as we know it etc.etc).

Tancredo is her boy.