GOP, You Are Warned

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.

Bush I don't think likes the idea of a mass exodus of illegals already here. He needs to be "reassured" that many of them will come right back, and the deck is stacked in their favor to do so, even if the stacking really makes little practical difference.

I don't doubt it for a second. His attachment to illegals is preternatural.

"I said IF. She'll have to walk the talk to earn a vote from me. As they say, talk's cheap. We'll see."

Yes, talk is cheap. If you really would consider voting for Hilary under ANY circumstance, then I do not believe what you say on your profile page here - "a Southern California conservative". No real conservative would even threaten to vote for her.

Now, that said, do I believe she might entice some to vote for her in 2008 because of this issue, who voted for Bush in 2004? Yes, but none who really are conservative. Hilary is not even a liberal, she is a communist. She hates America. She is the epitome of evil, and if you really care about this country, you cannot consider that any circumstance would make you consider voting for her.

I think our southern border should be manned by regular Army and Marines with night vision scopes on automatic weapons, loaded and the safety off, ready to use them on anyone coming across the border at other than a legal immigration entry point. I think sofisticated survelience and detection tools should be used to observe all of the southern border. I think every effort should be made to prevent illegal crossings. We are at war. We are being invaded across our southern border. We must stop it.

"What's the difference?"

Reagan's 1986 amnesty was absolute, didn't get them all registered (and didn't *touch* registering their employers), didn't collect fines from the illegals, but did give them an official leg up on citizenship applications.

In contrast, President Bush's plan doesn't give illegals an official leg up on the citizenship process, does fine illegals, and does provide an incentive for illegals to register themselves and their employers.

Registration is the key. Certainly the gun-banners would try to register all of us gun owners if they got the chance. There is a reason why they want to register us; it makes it easier to ban us and verify compliance with said ban later on.

Well, he can only keep it for awhile, and then it must be returned to its owner, so the owner benefits by getting some use of thc car that would otherwise be gone forever, albeit with some extra miles on it.

Sorry, no double jeopardy. That's not the deal the D.A. cut. The perp pays a fee and keeps your car, while you get a leaf. No fig, no tree, just a leaf.

Dane, give it up. The above is total crap. It would still be crap lite if you had said, the Tancredo types get all hot and bothered about illegal Hispanics getting welfare, but are quiet about Anglos abusing the welfare system.

Huh?

Get back to me when you start a thread with vitriol spewing about white Appalchians on the welfare teet.

"...with millions of Americans looking for illegals and the $100 bounty..."

$100 is not enough. The cost to the taxpayers in this country for each illegal immigrant is 10's of thousands of dollars. Make it a $5,000 bounty and for every illegal caught by a citizen who is allowed to remain, up the ante on the bounty to $100,000. And make sure the politician influencing the decision not to boot is notoriously critized in the media. Fine media owners and editors who do not cooperate on the media expose.

Everyone needs to contact their respective U.S.Senators and Congressman and let them know where you stand on this issue.

You betcha, and as someone who agrees with the president, you can bet that I've made my voice known. Oh, you forgot aobut us, who actually agree with GW didn't you?

You don't understand the Reagan Amnesty either. It wasn't absolute, it also charged a fee, and if registration is your bugaboo, it's the Amnesty for you, because it registered a higher percentage of illegals than the Bush Amnesty would, since it's not employer based.

By the way, the Reagan Amnesty's citizenship mechanics were about the same as Bush's: temporary status, then green cards and five years of residence, and then citizenship. And, like the Reagan Amnesty, the Bush Amnesty would also raise immigration levels to accomodate legalized illegals.

Part of the "problem" is that CLinton signed a welfare reform bill that really did make huge strides in mitigating the problem. Thus the issue ceases to have much salience. I agree however with the notion that Hispanics are not coming here for welfare per se. They are coming here to work, and of course, part of the attraction of the job at far higher wages than available in Mexico, is the attendant social safety net.

"And many of us are descendants of people who were run off their land in this country as well...hell, let's just give the damn country away to any minority group that demands it!"

Why do you hate the native American? They may be our most valuable asset against the Muslim fanatic. The real point is that the United States government committed "crimes against humanity" against some of their ancestors. We can't just ignore that.

Uh let's get history correct, shall we, hillary clinton stated in 92 that welfare would end as we know it, bill clinton vetoed welfare reform 3 times before signing it in Aug. 96(at Dick Morris's urging).

Why should anybody believe the Clinton's about anything?

As far as persuading (bribing), Fox and his pals to rejuvenate Mexico's economy, etc., thereby giving Mexicans a reason to stay home, why should Fox do anything? We keep lowering the bar and absorbing those who don't like conditions in Mexico. As long as Fox knows we'll do this, he has no incentive to change. Psychology 101. Bush should slam the door in Fox's face and send the illegals home. Period. But he won't, not even when some Islamofascist terrorist group, already training in Mexico...learning Spanish...sneaks across the border and blows up San Francisco or some other western city.

You derived this:
You..."Why do you hate the native American? They may be our most valuable asset against the Muslim fanatic. The real point is that the United States government committed "crimes against humanity" against some of their ancestors. We can't just ignore that."

Out of this????
Me..."And many of us are descendants of people who were run off their land in this country as well...hell, let's just give the damn country away to any minority group that demands it!"

I was talking about MY cherokee family. But we decided 200 years ago to be Americans first. Don't pull that racist crap on me.

Many of the "illegal" aliens from south of our border are descended from native American tribes that fled rather than be exterminated here in the United States.

Very few. In fact what we get invading the United States are Mexicans from Mexican Indian tribes and Mestizos who are partly Mexican Indian and part Spanish. These Mexican Indians never lived in Texas, Arizona or California. And they certainly never lived in North Carolina or Chicago which have lots of illegal alien Mexicans.

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.