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.
Bush Orders Flag Tribute to Tsunami Victims (media bias alert)
I think this is the most recent example of my post.
The average Mexican was actually poorer in 1998 than he had been in 1981. You'd move too if that happened to you.
I'm poorer now than in 1981. I was earning $40 per hour with heavy overtime back then, but can't find even a part-time job that pays $15 these days.
So where should I move?
Anglos and Saxons were European tribes more or less.
It was more taboo among the Anglo-Saxon Protestants after all many of them were Puritan and Quaker religious fanatics. The Anglo-Saxon Catholics and Scottish Catholics and Scottish Freemasons were more likely to mix and less likely to murder than the fanatics.
I don't ever expect the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Historian to tell the truth regarding the crimes of their forefathers. They would prefer to blame disease than face the facts. The Anglo-Saxon Protestant likes to think of himself and his values as morally superior but History discredits that idea.
I hope yu don't believe the Aztecs were the good guys. Try to remember they most of the tribes lived in fear of the Aztecs. The Aztecs even attacked the Spaniards.
The Spaniards survived with the help of the Aztec's Native enemies. Then, the Spaniards kicked butt. The Aztecs got what they came looking for when they attacked the men who were serving in Europe's best Army.
As usual you did not bother to answer the question. WHO on FR has put forward ZERO immigration?
On an earlier post you asked me who congresspeople are that oppose open borders/want immigration reform, it's going to take a while to list them all (you know who they are and could look if you cared to), lets start here :
______________________________________________________
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
__________
INHOFE SAYS INTELLIGENCE REFORM BILL OVERLOOKS MAJOR ISSUES
Wednesday, December 8, 2004
WASHINGTON--U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) today voted against the final passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (S.2845), which was eventually approved by the Senate (89-2).
"Today I joined the majority of our Oklahoma delegation in voting against the final passage of this bill," Inhofe said. "While there where many provisions I agreed with, unfortunately there were also glaring omissions that where impossible to overlook and caused me to oppose final passage. snip---www.inhofe.senate.gov
_________
Hunter, Sensenbrenner Hold Line: Military & Intel, Illegal Aliens & Driver's Licenses
On News/Activism 12/03/2004 9:35:08 AM PST · 46 replies · 1,131+ views
HUMAN EVENTS ^ | Dec 3, 2004 | HUMAN EVENTS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1293689/posts
____________
"Others opposed to the guest-worker program were Reps. Lamar Smith, Sam Johnson and John Culberson of Texas; John Hostettler of Indiana; Nathan Deal of Georgia; Ed Royce, Gary G. Miller and Dana Rohrabacher of California; Tom Tancredo of Colorado; John J. "Jimmy" Duncan Jr. of Tennessee; Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland; Kevin Brady of Texas; Robert B. Aderholt of Alabama; Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. of Mississippi; John Sullivan of Oklahoma; J. Gresham Barrett of South Carolina; Barbara Cubin of Wyoming; Sue Myrick and Walter B. Jones of North Carolina; and Steve King of Iowa."
*******
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c1084uPlbV::
COSPONSORS(29), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 7/22/2004 Rep Bradley, Jeb [NH-1] - 10/6/2004
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] - 7/22/2004 Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 7/15/2004
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 7/22/2004 Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 7/15/2004
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 7/15/2004 Rep English, Phil [PA-3] - 7/15/2004
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 7/15/2004 Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 7/22/2004
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 7/15/2004 Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 11/17/2004
Rep Hayworth, J. D. [AZ-5] - 7/15/2004 Rep Hostettler, John N. [IN-8] - 7/15/2004
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 7/15/2004 Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 7/15/2004
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 7/15/2004 Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 9/15/2004
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 9/15/2004 Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 10/6/2004
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 7/15/2004 Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 7/15/2004
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 7/22/2004 Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 7/15/2004
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 9/15/2004 Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 7/15/2004
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 7/15/2004 Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 7/15/2004
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] - 7/22/2004
Expressing the disapproval of the House of Representatives of the Social Security totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico. (Introduced in House)
You are Absolutely correct my good kind observant soul I am a CONSERVATIVE now and forever. There is a difference and thank you for noticing; spread the word, we need all the help we can muster!
>"IOW "My mind is made up, I'm posting to change your opinion but I don't have the intellect to respond to challenges."<
Why should I waste my time with folks like you who continually use slurs like "BUSH BASHER!" "RACIST!" "BIGOT!"
Your "Gang" is using the same tactics the gay activist lobby uses against folks who are opposed to gay marriage.
"Homophobes!" "Gay bashers" "Bigots!"
Real intelligent. REAL conservative.
Michelle Malkin wrote about those who use your tactic HERE:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1293482/posts
"Activists smear anyone who wants better borders"
-By MICHELLE MALKIN
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1293482/posts
I like to look at the silver lining. The race-baiting RINOOBLs keep these threads bumping along to the top. With their unwitting help, these articles are read by ten times more angry middle class Americans than would otherwise get a chance to see them.
How many lurkers and casual freepers get to reply #731 ? Perhaps 1% of those who read the article and the first 50 replies. By constantly tossing the ball back to us, the race-baiting RINOOBLs are doing us a great service. They are just too dense to understand this. Thank Goodness.
COSPONSORS(29)
You are correct. I could find this same list of 30 fringe freaks if I looked for them. What I can't find is the other 70 congressmen you claim exist.
WHO on FR has put forward ZERO immigration?
I will find some Freepers who oppose immigration on the ridiculous grounds that America is overcrowded, when I return home later this evening.
>"The race-baiting RINOOBLs keep these threads bumping along to the top. With their unwitting help, these articles are read by ten times more angry middle class Americans than would otherwise get a chance to see them."<
that's a good point, Travis!
Thank you,
All you race baiting RINOS, for bumping these threads!
You can't even count and I can't debate someone who is dishonest.. Do not address me again. Do we need to get the powers on here again to tell you to ..........
I am worried that they will sooner or later figure this out, but so far, they are too stupid to understand that they are helping out the cause of securing our borders with every race-baiting reply and bttt.
I don't like to lie.
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.