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.

[OPS4]

The elephant is standing on the democrats heads.
These long winded say nothing pcs, are exactly
what they seem, an opinion not shared by all
Republicans.

I for one believe that many immigrants have lent a lot to this country and with the new ID systems and drone technologies being produced, this will be a none issue.

Many immigrants vote republican, focusing on those who don not allows for this type of negative reporting.

God Bless America and thank God for immigrants like those whe are currently defending our butts, and cleaning up our
country doing jobs the rest of our citizens consider below them.

Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Ops4 God BLess America!

[AndyJackson]

we suddenly get a way to enforce our minimum wage laws...and we remove a wage incentive for hiring an illegal over an American willing to work for Minimum Wage

In most major metropolitan areas I suspect that this is a bit of a myth. Illegals working construction, I would guess, are getting paid a lot more than minimum wage. You need a lot more than minimum wage in major metropolitan areas just to put a roof over your head and feed yourself.

[hchutch]

Agreed. Excellent post.

[JustAnotherSavage]

Frum is just one of many conservatives who disagree with the open border lobby. Micheal Reagan, Limbaugh, Malkin, Wm. F. Buckley, several writers at GOPUSA, on and on.

[JustAnotherSavage]

"A nation which cannot control its own borders cannot control its own future."

In a nutshell!! Thanks!

[Squantos]

Bottom line.........our nation cannot support such as the RINOOBL's are trying to impose........IMHO.

Stay safe !

[hchutch]

Because the truth would discredit them even more?

[Fatalis]

You know, it would be a good idea if somebody found a link to the bullet point details of the Bush proposal, so that we can refer to it.

What we've got, so far.

There is no requirement to return home for a renewal of a permit that was issued without a similar requirement.

[Mudboy Slim]

No argument here...immigration reform and enforcement is a HUGH issue that Dubyuh and the GOP have gotta address, and not via an amnesty Program!!

FReegards...MUD

[Sam the Sham]

A lot of Republicans have forgotten that the Religious Right were all New Deal Democrats a generation ago. A lot of them will listen to an appeal to economic populism. Gay marriage and abortion matter but they don't pay the rent.

The problem with the "New Democrats" is that they did not give a damn about the economic interests of non-college educated, blue collar Americans (the Democratic base). After all, couldn't they just go to community college and learn HTML ? NAFTA was a decision to expend their well being to those of knowledge worker professionals. Blue collar Americans responded by voting their cultural conservatism and abandoning the Democratic Party.

Hillary is smart enough to realize that NAFTA was a worthless "victory". A "victory" over your own base does not make you stronger. It cost the Democratic Party the voters who might have given Gephardt (who could have beaten Bush) a fighting chance in the primaries. Without economic populism (anti illegals, anti outsourcing, anti "free trade at all costs) the Democratic Party has only latte liberals, not the blue collar voters it needs to become the majority party.

[jpsb]

"There is no requirement to return home for a renewal of a permit"

Fatal flaw, I sugggest Southack reread the end of his post paying special attention to the mischaracterize opponets position part of it.

[JustAnotherSavage]

There are about 100 republican congresspeople who would call Bush's plan "Amnesty", like this one:

It appears that Rep. Wally Herger, Ca (R) sure thinks it’s an AMNESTY.
______________________________________________________
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0502

Dec. 14, 2004

Dear [Constituent];
Thank you for contacting me regarding efforts to grant amnesty to aliens illegally living in the United States. I value your point of view, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

Legislation has been proposed to allow a blanket amnesty to those persons who have chosen to unlawfully enter the United States and who have stayed despite laws, which prohibit this behaviour.

This proposal causes me great concern. Most of us were immigrants to this country at some time in our family’s past. This does not, however, justify rewarding the illegal activity of contemporary migrants with instant citizenship. While many thousands of legal aliens wait extremely long periods of time (often up to nine years)
for their immigration status to be processed lawfully, it would be unfair and unwise of us to grant amnesty to those who have betrayed our trust and have broken our laws.

I have successfully fought in the past to pass legislation that fundamentally reformed our immigration system, and I will continue to fight toward this end. Illegal immigration costs California taxpayers alone over $3 billion each year. While our reforms have made a critical first step toward reducing this burden, our job is far from complete. As Congress considers any Administration amnesty request, we will need to make some though decisions about the effectiveness of such a program on reducing illegal immigration into the United States..............

Sincerely,
Wally Herger
Member of Congress
____________________________________
Congressional Switchboard: 1-877-762-8762
Find your reps at www.house.gov

[Sam the Sham]

Have to register ? Or else what ? If we can't track them now what reason is there to believe we will then ?

Put a tracking system into place first. You don't build a corral after you've bought the horses.

[AndyJackson]

I am sure of one thing; all the King's horses and all the King's "YES" men won't be able to hold things together if the more than 80% of the real people in America revolt. To ignore this voting block of frustrated, pressured over burdened Taxpayers is tantamount to playing Russian Roulette with a bullet in every chamber.

I suspect that 80% of the real people in America are not so frustrated as you, which is why little progress has been made on this issue in the last 20 years. In fact, if you look at the issue carefully there seems to be a clear break-point at eliminating or restricting social services (which is a burden on taxpayers) and going further to round up and export those who are "unlawfully" exchanging their labor for wages.

[JustAnotherSavage]

"There are an estimated 80,000 criminal illegal aliens in the country, which are people who have committed crimes in the United States and are due for deportation but remain at large. An estimated 4,000 of those criminal illegal aliens are from countries that support terrorism."

Source: Lou Dobbs

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/13/immigration.bill/index.html
_______

Time magazine quote:
“The number of illegal aliens flooding into the US this year will total 3 million - enough to fill 22,000 Boeing 727-700 airliners, or 60 flights every day for a year.”

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html

[Southack]

"In most major metropolitan areas I suspect that this is a bit of a myth. Illegals working construction, I would guess, are getting paid a lot more than minimum wage."

No, not a "myth" so much as simply not fully expounded. By registering illegals and their employers, you remove the sub-legal wage incentive for hiring illegals. In my brief post, I broadly used "minimum wage," but in your more specific post, "union scale" might suffice.

Currently unregistered, anonymous illegals aren't being paid union scale in urban areas, which is why they are being hired in the first place. Register them with the government, register their employers with the government, and suddenly the employer has to choose between hiring a legal American at union scale (for your construction situation) or an illegal at union scale.

But you see, by removing that wage incentive you actually make real progress against the core problem of the incentive to immigrate here illegally...and in my opinion most of those who are the loudest against making such progress are those who really don't want to see our situation be improved, or gasp...solved.

In other words, they oppose President Bush's plan because they know it will work. They know that illegals will register under that plan and that employers will then hire less and less of them due to the wage incentive disappearing.

[Torie]

Thanks. Here is the salient passage:

" Providing Incentives for Return to Home Country: The program will require the return of temporary workers to their home country after their period of work has concluded. The legal status granted by this program would last three years, be renewable, and would have an end."

That little word "end" at the end, so spare, so unadorned, raises a lot of questions and conundrums to say the least. What is the "end" game for those who have been guests here for six years legally?

[Fatalis]

Illegals, under Bush's plan, have to register with the federal government, they have to register their family, and they have to register their employer.

Where is the requirement that they register their families?

Moreover, they aren't eligible for citizenship under Bush's plan (they would have to apply under existing legal programs for that, hardly something to fault Bush for).

Without being legalized the illegals can't apply for green cards and citizenship at all. So, the Bush amnesty would enable legalized illegal aliens to apply for green cards and citizenship.

How else, without being legalized by President Bush, would they be eligible for citizenship?

[BlackElk]

We got America horselaughing at McGovern and he never recovered. By comparison, Hillary is easy since she is such an inflated pompous ass by comparison even to George McGoo. Start with: It Takes a Village to Do Your Hair or to Cut your Lawn or to Do Your Nails and move on (you should pardon the expression) from there.

Yes, California (and every other state) should reduce its level of socialism. We are supposed to be conservatives here, if you remember.

I am not a member of a "cheap labor" lobby. My father and most men in my family belonged to the AFL-CIO and so did I on summer jobs. Today's AFL-CIO should purge its commies who came in with Sweeney, restore the anti-communist clauses of the AFL-CIO constitution (repealed by Sweeney about five years ago), stop worrying about supporting pro-aborts, anti-war types and lavender queens at the expense of wages and working conditions. The economic issue is the ONLY issue you folks have that is worthy of discussion and it can be handled without bringing the National Guard in to machinegun mamacitas and their babies at the border.

Al Qaeda is more than welcome to our enemies to the North as are our whiny leftist emigrees (God Bless Canada for taking our trash). North Dakota also has a spring, summer and fall as do Washington, Idaho, Montana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, Vermont and Maine. Access by foot to the US for our Al Qaeda enemies courtesy of the Canadian airhead neighbors/leaders is a cinch.

BTW, getting rid of public education (actually leftist indoctrination centers funded by the taxes of actual Americans) ought to be a given.

So these "excess" Mexicans are rural and not urban metrosexuals! Another good reason to bring them in.

In summary in this, my last response to you, you favor the idea of excluding Mexicans in order to conserve our socialist program resources and our public indoctrination centers' resources. You would use the military at the Mexican border to resist the Mexican immigration although the military is needed in the Middle East and elsewhere lest gasoline cost $5 per gallon. You are getting the willies over Mexican gangs (like Irish, Jewish, Italian, Vietnamese and Russian gangs before them) but we must not suspect that you have agendas either racist or xenophobic or "nativist." You want to keep population down to a dull roar but we should not suspect a ZPG or Planned Barrenhood agenda.

Maybe a Southwest of Mexican voters living far more comfortable lives in Arizona, New Mexico, Southern California, Texas, Colorado, et al., will be far more reliably GOP and far more socially conservative (opposing abortion and homosexuality and many other things) than the existing birth controller/snowbird/pro-abort and lavenders for whom you want to preserve American socialism and its resources.

Remind me again, why do you post here instead of on Demonrat Underground?

[Southack]

"There is no requirement to return home for a renewal of a permit that was issued without a similar requirement."

From your own link:

"Providing Incentives for Return to Home Country: The program will require the return of temporary workers to their home country after their period of work has concluded. The legal status granted by this program would last three years, be renewable, and would have an end."