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.

[JustAnotherSavage]

"My guess is that it is closer to 30 million already in country and that doesn't even begin to take into acount the numbers who enter legally from all directions then conveniently forget the expiration date on their visas."


Ah, yes, expired visas, shades of 9/11.


Speaking of Visa, did you see this below?
They say $38 billion is being sent to Mexico by "workers". We thought it about 30 billion before this.

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

Happy New year JB.

[JackelopeBreeder]

It's always about power and who you are willing to let dictate your life.

That is the second best description of politics I've ever seen.

My personal favorite:

"All in favor, bleat like sheep."

[Joe Hadenuf]

This is the elephant in the living room that Bush and the GOP establishment are ignoring.

Wrong

This is a 50,000 pound KONG that is standing in the middle of the Rhino Republican platform, that Bush and his party before country crowd, stand winking and nodding at.

This platform was never rated for this kind of weight.

This epic, titanic invasion of our country will never be ignored again by this two party, elite club.

[Fatalis]

You did say that you'd put up, yes?!

Thanks, I'll take that as a yes, you're asking about the fees you'd earlier claimed the Reagan amnesty didn't charge.

The fee for the Reagan Amnesty was $185 in 1986 dollars, between about $400 and $500 today.

Do you have any other misunderstandings about the Reagan amnesty you'd like clarified? LOL

[JustAnotherSavage]

Remember the post about Mexico having more billionaires and million aires than Saudi Arabia and a bunch of countries. All the talk today about contributions to the disaster in Indonesia, etc. from countries --- did anyone hear about Mexico contributing one peso?

If it's prejudice to hate a government and social sytem, then I'm a bigot.

[investigateworld]

Savage, you haven't seen the Canadians the way I have. Yep, with their dorky down to the knees shorts, spindly legs, hanging out at the Malls. Not giving a fig to the world, snorting lines of Viagra in the public view. Yes it gets worse, watching them drive their motor homes at 54 MPH, blaring Anne Murray on their 8 tracks. Their chilling attitudes about our environmental laws as witnessed by their refusal to change their Depends till they've maximum capacity carrying "load".

[Travis McGee]

Not to mention that if we are going to go back beyond the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and other signed agreements between both parties where Mexico was PAID for the land, then we must say that Spain and then Mexico never "owned" the land, since they therefore had stolen it outright (no treaty, no payment) from the various Indian peoples.

[Travis McGee]

Where did this MeCha/La Raza troll slither in from?

[Southack]

[1] "The president was enthusiastic about the bill," said [Jim] Kolbe. "He is supportive and told us to take the legislation up with his staff." Tucson Citizen, August 11, 2003. Mr. Kolbe was further quoted in The Washington Times, September 3, 2003, as not expecting action now, but hoping that the groundwork could be laid for the debate, possibly during the presidential campaign and reiterating his conversation with President Bush that "I would say the president did indicate his views are very close to what we're proposing." In a recent White House briefing when asked when the President would call for a proposal on immigration, White House Press Secretary McClellan responded that "The President has expressed his views and remains committed to that view."

[2] Another reason for thinking optimistically about the legislation is the revenue side. Passage of the legislation could conceivably bring $10 billion plus in new-found revenues to the U.S. government. As opposed to the last amnesty, which imposed application fees of $185 on adults and $50 for children under the age of 18 and capped total family charges at $420 only to cover expenses of processing, the Kolbe-Flake bill envisions the program as a moneymaker with the government not only charging application fees to recover costs of processing, but also fines and surcharges to fund the public fisc. An eligible family of five with two parents, and children aged 19, 17, and 15 in addition to paying an application fee to cover processing expenses would pay penalty fees to the government of $6,000 to change status to H-4B."

$185 application fee under Reagan's Amnesty, versus more than $6,000 in fines and application fees under the plan that appears to be what GWB has in mind...

[JackelopeBreeder]

"Slither" implies a back bone like a snake. I like snakes.

I think we should be looking for a slime trail like a garden slug. Or a money trail...

[Travis McGee]

Yep, you are right. It's gonna take an entire new bureaucracy on the order of the SSA to administer the "guest worker amnistia" program.

So after a few years, the cry will be, "This is costing too much! Just make them citizens now, and be done with the 15 million mountains of paperwork. It will save billions of dollars!"

But Charlie Brown has seen Lucy's trick before, and we ain't gonna try to kick her sucker's football AGAIN.

Even if she thinks Charlie Brown is so stupid that he will fall for renaming amnistia the "guest worker program."

As the Germans say: "There is nothing in the world as permanent as a temporary guest worker."

[MissAmericanPie]

If Bush lived on my block one week his entire attitude would change. But that's the problem isn't it, he doesn't have to live with the damage he is doing. Damage that local police cannot keep up with or deal with.

I live across the street from a beautiful park, last night eight different gang members left their graffitti laying claim to the park. The police have been informed that there is going to be a blood bath over which gang owns the park I have lived across for decades, will the Crypts own it, the Bloods, the Familia, and the five other Mexican gang names I can't keep up with? A hispanic was found dead in the park a few months ago, a drug deal gone bad no doubt.

Today there was a major drug bust at the park, tonight the police knocked on our door, our house had been robbed the night before, asking we watch for anything or anyone going into the park, to stay away from windows lest a stray bullet find it's way into our home.

I'm done, these little punks that have robbed my house many times are not taking my neighborhood, or costing me my family and beautiful home. My line is finally in the sand. If the gangs ratchet this mess up a notch to fire fights in the park this neighborhood will not stand still for it.

[Fatalis]

$185 application fee under Reagan's Amnesty, versus more than $6,000 in fines and application fees under the plan that appears to be what GWB has in mind...

So, now you're admitting that the Reagan amnesty charged fees?

BTW, that's $6K for a family of five, or $1200 a head, for the Kolbe/Flake/McCain plan.

Are you always this sloppy? LOL

Oh. Do you have a link to the President's proposal for fines?

[Southack]

"So, now you're admitting that the Reagan amnesty charged fees?"

Yes, the 1986 IRCA did charge a $185 application fee. I was really looking for "Fines," but that's my own fault for not being more precise with you.

[Fatalis]

As the Germans say: "There is nothing in the world as permanent as a temporary guest worker."

That's why we need to be selective about our guest workers. None of them can be illegals.

People who come here legally, are employed and economically self-sufficient, and have two or three years of assimilation under their belts are going to be some of the best possible immigrants we could want.

[Fatalis]

Yes, the 1986 IRCA did charge a $185 application fee. I was really looking for "Fines," but that's my own fault for not being more precise with you.

Where has President Bush proposed fines?

[Travis McGee]

Who is the bigot? You are the bigot for automatically assigning racist motives to anyone who wants to defend America's sovereign borders from a criminal invasion. Anyone who believes in protecting our borders is slimed as KKK-like. You are the first to start screaming "RACIST!" in a lame attempt to shut down debate.

Sorry, but the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson-style race-baiting shake down artists don't cut much ice here. You are yourself just another in a long line of race-baiting trolls, it's just pathetically clear to us.

This is the last sad pitiful card you can play: the race card. We have seen your type many times, your schtick is nothing new here. Get a new act, newbie troll, yours is so 1980s. It's over. Try harder. Get some new arguments. Simply screaming "RACIST!!!!" in a lame attempt to deter honest debate won't work any more. We all see who the racist is: it's you.

[Torie]

How did we get bogged down in the irrlevant red herring of the chump change regarding fines? Are you guys concerned about finding more money to feed the Leviathon or something? Maybe you should. The Military has this new plane that costs 250 million a platform, if I recall, the same price as Allen's new 400+ foot yacht (the Microsoft sidekick to Gates). Getting the fines up there, might buy a few of those planes. Cool.

[Southack]

"How did we get bogged down in the irrlevant red herring of the chump change regarding fines?"

Fines are associated with plea bargains, something that *amnesties* tend to pardon.

[txdoda]

more than $6,000 in fines and application fees

I believe that fine when I see it.... collected. (any mention of the anchor baby issue ??)

btw...this is the second time I've seen the illegals *children* referred to as 21 & under (here one is 19).

Any idea why citizen kids are adults when they're 18 ??.......unless you filed for a *child tax credit* then I was told my 17 yr. old was "too old for the credit".