Posted on 12/31/2004 5:43:33 AM PST by 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.
And for purely cynical political reasons, after vetoing welfare reform 3 times, don't you agree with that(especially after Clinton went against his core leftist being).
The Clinton's are all about gaining power, damn the principles.
1917 (to be exact) saw the passage of "Asia Barred Zone". Further laws in the 1920s, for example the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, also known as the Permanent National Origins Quota Act, began a quota system that lasted for 40 years.
This act, combined with standards regarding citizenship, whether statutory or precedental, clearly established that Asians were not welcome, and neither was anyone else who might look Asian.
Classically the national origins quota system has been taught in public schools as justified by the influx of Italian and Greek immigrants who sought to come to America "only to make money" and who "refused to assimilate".
I've always thought it remarkable that even before the economic dislocations that began in 1929, our Solons in Congress had in 1924 the wisdom and foresignt to see that Greeks and Italians might decide to return home rather than starve to death in breadlines in the Great Depression nearly a decade later.
I think the restrictions you are referring to regarding your grandfather were those barring idiots, syphilitics, anarchists, polygamists and folks with TB. Guess he passed the tests.
Off topic again. He signed it. I leave you to traduce Clinton's motives. I don't give a damn about tham. He signed it.
You do know that the Mexican President is elected for a single 6 year term don't you(it's almost like when being elected there the President is an automatic lame duck). The next Mexican Presidential election is in 2006, who would you give your support in 2006?
Uh, just pointing out the fact that Clinton vetoed welfare reform 3 times, tough noogies if you don't like that fact.
"I agree however with the notion that Hispanics are not coming here for welfare per se"
Okay, I had about a dozen living across the street in a 800sq. ft house, before I sold and left. 3 or 4 of the men left daily, let's assume they worked. The woman and 5 kids got all the social benefits, even down to the 3 year olds ear piercing.
Here's some material on Social service costs to illegals.
Cost of illegal immigration in California estimated at nearly $9 billion (VERY INFORMATIVE!!!)
On News/Activism 12/07/2004 1:00:09 PM PST · 120 replies · 1,702+ views
North County Times ^ | 12/06/2004 | EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1296406/posts
______
HHS Says Healthcare Providers Must Provide Free Translation Services
On News/Activism 10/08/2004 11:23:47 PM PDT · 20 replies · 249+ views
Pacific Legal Foundation ^ | September 2004 | Pacific Legal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1239789/posts
________
Illegal Immigrants' Cost to Government Studied
By Mary Fitzgerald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 26, 2004; Page A21
A report that found that illegal immigrants in the United States cost the federal government more than $10 billion a year -- a sum it estimated would almost triple if they were given amnesty -- has drawn criticism from immigration advocacy groups.
For its report, the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based group that advocates tougher immigration policies, used Census Bureau figures to compare the revenue that illegal immigrants contribute through taxes with the cost of government services they use. ----snip----
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33783-2004Aug25.html
_____
I didn't say it all penciled, fiscally. It clearly does NOT in the short term. I might have been born at night, but not last night. I think it might pencil looking back a generation or tow hence. In fact, I suspect it will, but I could be wrong.
Look at me... RED TEXT ALL OVER DA PLACE!!!
Now look at me again... BLUE TEXT ALL OVER DA PLACE!!!
NOW look at me again, again... BIG TEXT ALL OVER DA PLACE!!!
You see, stupid, isn't it?...
I agree with your font abuse point. It is VERY annoying to me. Typcially folks use it who lack substance otherwise, and thus feel the need for compensatory puerile graphics.
Let me give you an example. Just as Congress was passing Welfare Reform the USPS was implementing a new standard called "Move Update" that involved changes of address.
If a mass mailer of First-Class Mail did not make sure he had the latest address for all the addresses on his mailing list he would have to pay the higher rate applicable to ordinary mortals rather than the substantially discounted rate given to big corporations (all with good reason mind you).
Welfare folks regularly mail stuff to welfare recipients even if the checks are transferred directly to banks where the recipients hold accounts.
Move-Update had a tool associated with it that allowed mailers to quickly access change of address orders filed back to 3 years before. It was fast, done by computer, and seemed to be something that could pay for itself almost with the first run of a list.
Well, the Welfare People had a rule running back to the establishment of the federal welfare operation in the 1930s that seemed rather innocuous and simple, but almost unenforceable. The rule required any welfare recipient to report to a case worker if he or she "changed address". Else, no welfare payment could be made.
It was claimed (or alleged, or imagined) that many welfare recipients cheated by simply qualifying at one address, moving to another and qualifying there under another name, and then moving to yet another and qualifying there. The thought was many welfare recipients were cheats who took far more than they were due.
Well, the welfare people in the various state finance departments were among the very first to use Move Update's "Fast Forward" system to get the latest addresses of the folks getting the big bucks.
Numerous states reported that sometimes MORE THAN HALF of the recipients did not qualify for payment since they had MOVED and not reported to a caseworker!
Well, the story is that Welfare Reform worked. Half the folks came off welfare and got jobs. America got better, and everybody was happier.
So, was it the magic of Welfare Reform and the smiling faces of the case workers extending new educational opportunities to recipients, or the cold hard discipline of a robot-like machine called "Fast Forward" that did the trick?
You be the judge.
Similar magic can be performed with careful application of computer power to the question of proving or disproving identification. All that's missing is an instant penalty, and that might well be the cancellation of credit cards and the freezing of bank accounts, either of the employer, the illegal, or both, and maybe those of their friends, relatives and neighbors ~ whatever it takes. It'd sure wake folks up.
To borrow a phrase:
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."
I'm not into exchanging insults or engage in childish "flame wars". I have a real life, and I only come to FR for exchange of information, not to engage in an ICQ teenbopper trashtalk.
Happy New Year, and best wishes for 2005.
Thanks!
Happy New Year to you too!
I'm well aware of the role of the Cherokee tribe in American history. Most of the people opposing the "illegal immigrants" from south of the border are very racist. By the way I figured you were native American by your id. I was just teasing you though. I am part native American too.
"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."
The ancestors of many of the Mexican Indians were driven from our country. Probably more than either of us will ever know, right? Also, much of our country was once controlled by Spain and then Mexico. Texas as you will recall was once part of Mexico.
LOL! You sound authoritative, so you must have evidence.
"Most of the people opposing the "illegal immigrants" from south of the border are very racist"
You are misinformed unless you consider 85% of Free Republic racist and people like Wm. F. Buckley,Limbaugh, Frum, Michael Reagan, some from GOPUSA and many others. 47% of the "hispanic" population in Arizona voted for prop 200.
Nope. No-one has the backbone to do it. And, unfortunately, in this climate anyone who tries will be severely bloodied. With recent elections close to 50 - 50, whoever makes the first moves will be demonized and will lose enough 'Hispanic' votes to lose all elections.
What other immigration group has ever so monopolized US immigration that Americans had to press 1 for English ??? (and had to foot the bills for translations/educations ??)
Mexico has had the same opportunities/natural resources to become as great as the USA, & yet they remain a third world county in most of their states.
Name any other 'head of state' that has ever marched into our White House, & made demands of our President, as to what he wanted for his illegal citizens here ?? Mexico also does not back our WOT, & *obviously* never did back the WOD.
Don't you think the USA might seem 'somewhat' racist, to the rest of the world, by always allowing mexico the largest share of *instant legals* ???
I've got mexicans in my family, they too are sick of this constant invasion from the south, crowded schools, crowded hospitals, & high taxes for all the freebies.
Let rich mexicans pay higher taxes, for a change, & build a middle class in their own country, for their own countrymen.
and I'm not racist, I've always said deport ALL illegals........we've got millions waiting in lines to come legally, the FIRST TIME.
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.