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 is remarkably staid with his pig-headed attitude towards immigration. He is either disingenuous, sucking up illegal immigrants for votes, kow-towing to those who want cheap mexican merry maids,psychologically in need of a warm fuzzy mutually admiring " leader" Vincente ( I have $45,000 boots, too) Fox, or planning to annex Mexico. Which is it?

By the way, do not think mexicans work that cheap, just the women do, look at all sorts of illegal activity and high wages from the machos...not counting the billions in subsidies ( we buy them cars here) and welfare.

I am not happy with Bush with respect to the Mexican border and the Mexican/ElSalvadorM13/Guatamalan and alQuaeda invasion. Do you realize two cities the size of Roanoke Virginia are being plopped down into each of the fifty states, yes your stste too, each year by illegal mexicans alone and we pay all the bills and infrastructure and crowding and crime prices?

As far as I am concerned, US citizens not willing to take those jobs and more willing to take the welfare is what's wrong.

I agree, look at the economies of Europe, they have all types of onerous controls on employers about work and much more generous welfare and their unemployment rate is twice of the US and their economic growth is anemic.

The REAL issue here, though, is that people are committing crimes by crossing the border

Once you get away from the border states, nobody really cares how or why they got here. The REAL issue is that every small town in North Carolina & Georgia have literally 100's of Mexicans suddenly standing around on the downtown streets & the local folks are going to vote for whichever candidate who promises to do something about it. Amnesty & welfare are not the answers the local folks are looking for.

YES! No driver licenses, photo entry cards, date of departure , deport them and fine the living hejl out of employers...like punitive millions !! and include Wally Rot( you may call it Wal-mart, I call it ChiCom WallyRot) who slickedtheir way out...and don't forget to fine the universities also and don't let them hide behind the mantra " we'll we don't count, we're stte".

Pardon the staccato, in a hurry

Happy New Year to all you American Citizens on FR...the lurkers have my other wishes

Yeah but would a jury convict a criminal whose crime is to take a job cleaning toilets or pick vegetables.<<

Well, and there's another thing: Illegals should not have the right to a trial by jury - illegals do not have the same rights as citizens (or should not, anyway).

BTW,the GOP is dropping the ball for sure, but Democrats are the bleeding hearts that caused this mess in the first place.

I say We the People are allowing our rights to be denied by not standing up for them. We allow our tax dollars to be spent supporting illegals and educating illegals. We foolishly depend on the court system and our representatives who seem to have their own agenda).
So far, Our government is not doing the will of the people who elected them, so we must take a stand that proves we are Not Kidding, and it should be perhaps a bit drastic. The Boston Tea Party comes to mind. It would take great organization, but why should we continue to be taxed and pay for the take-over of our country? Thousands of people refusing to pay for the welfare of illegals would be quite an impact. But that's just a dream. We are all Jellyfish.

The day the Intell Bill was signed by W, I was called for donations to the GOP. I slammed the wallet shut and explained why. Our health insurance went up 250$ a month over last year. That's 3000$ for what I see is care of illegal aliens screwing this country over. Obviously, Bush is okay with this. So, if they want any donations, they'll have to steal it back from the illegals. We are being extorted, and there will be ..........
NO
MORE
MONEY
FOR THE REPUBLICANS
UNTIL
ILLEGALS
ARE DEPORTED.

NONE.

That's the way it's going to be around here. So if this is an opportunity for Democrats to jump in, lie for votes, and screw us over totally, then so be it. GOP.. YOU *HAVE* BEEN WARNED indeed.

Your hatred of Hillary is your own concern and not shared by 60% of the American people.

Hatred doesn't win. The side that was perceived by most Americans to be driven by hatred lost in 72, in 96, and this year.

In fact, the GOP lost congressional seats in 1998 because the American people DID NOT WANT an impeachment crisis.

Hillary couldn't get in the White House if she announced she was a lesbian having an menage a trois with Monica and Oprah.

Freepers need to get it: no one has even fathomed the term "negative vote" until they see Hillary get a nomination nationally.

I think you're dead wrong. Yea, the country hates that witch, but the country has been dying for ANYONE to do something about immigration for decades. Christ, most services in this country offer two languages now. They hate what illegal immigration has done to the country more than they hate her.

I think you're dead wrong. Yea, the country hates that witch, but the country has been dying for ANYONE to do something about immigration for decades. Christ, most services in this country offer two languages now. They hate what illegal immigration has done to the country more than they hate her.

If you think that hillary is going to round up 8 million people and kick them out you, IMO, are living in a pipe dream.

There is a saying that those you do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The Clintons used such carefully worded platitudes in 92(plus they Perot to help suck off votes) and it looks like hillary is going to try it again in 08.

----OH will NEVER vote for Hillary. Nor will 300 other EVs.----

As things stand, Hillary has an automatic 183 electoral votes going in. Automatic. 107 of those come from only three states (CA, NY, IL). Then there's CT, DE, HI, ME, MD, MA, NJ, RI, VT, and WA.

65 more electoral votes are from states that are not givens but generally lean Democrat: MI, MN, OR, PA, and WI.

That's 248 electoral votes.

So, Hillary needs only pick up two or three swing states to get the 23 she'll need to get to 271. OH and NH alone would do it for her. FL alone would do it for her. AZ, NM, and CO could easily swing her way over the immigration question.

Hillary's chances of becoming the 44th President are very real, and the GOP had better understand that and work like hell.

-Dan

"Somehow I think the GOP has the backbone to do it."

You have every reason to "think" that.

Every card the DemocRATS have layed on the table (showing their hand) so far, has gotten taken away from them.

Let's wait and see what "issues" the DemocRATS have left to run on - WHEN THE TIME COMES. Hahahahaha

The GOP base despises Hillary. But that is 40% and concentrated in the reddest of states. Those were the states whose congressmen supported impeachment. Most of the country, as you apparently have not noticed, did NOT support impeachment. That's the blue states and most of the West.

These are the states on which she could base a successful run for the White House, especially if she seizes the immigration issue and runs with it.

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

Yep, GWB (& friends) knew a year ago that most Americans were against his "proposal", yet they have not pushed to remove any of the *incentives* we have (and there are many) to be here illegally.

How 'bout closing the revolving door at the border ?? First time your caught entering illegally, you may never apply to ever come legally.

Address the 'anchor baby issue', make at least one of the parents be a US citizen.

Build fed 'tent jails' in each border state, for first time, non violent illegal criminals. Let them work for 'good time', for early release & deportation. They could do trash picks & build road blocks in areas where the drug loads are driven in & the hot cars are driven out.

Make the SS verification mandatory for all employers to use, and actually fine those not using it.

(just to name a few)

But they have done nothing, except to wait another year, & repeat the same proposal. (and expect citizens to accept it this time.) Meanwhile, another million have walked in.

Citizens (VOTERS) want to hear that millions of illegals are getting LESS (not more).

(ya know, it's our tax dollars that fund all these incentives)

If you think that hillary is going to round up 8 million people and kick them out you, IMO, are living in a pipe dream.

I'll bet she won't pimp for a scamnesty.

Like I said, many liberals are closet racists and will welcome an end to our invasion by the brown complected poor of 3rd world. Hillary can deliver for them on illegal immigration

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

Make the SS verification mandatory for all employers to use, and actually fine those not using it.

We should have had this years ago. An SS# database can be set up in a snap. One of our credit card companies could easily do this. One than can be accessed over the internet or by phone. Employee verification is on the books but employers are allowed to accept phony, fake work documents without punishment.

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.