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.
Defining who these invaders are is a prime target. This proposal assumes honesty from a specific ethnic group. Very limiting and presumptious.
No, the proposal makes no such assumptions. To get a blue card, illegals have to register themselves and their employers...and that registration has to be verified (e.g. follow up with the employer by a federal agent).
Once registered, they get their blue cards...and we end their anonymity. It is that anonymity that lets employers get away with hiring illegals in the first place. Once registered, those employers have to pay Minimum Wage or Union Scale, too. Plus taxes. Plus medical. Plus workman's comp.
So by registering illegals, you remove the prime defense of illegal empolyers (i.e. anonymity), and you also eliminate a large portion of the salary/wage cost incentive.
What you need to ask yourself is why you are so dead set on keeping illegals unregistered and anonymous instead of endorsing President Bush's plan to register them.
Why do newbies insist on making up stories?
I won!
ROFLOL!!
Again, you assume they will go for the blue card.
Here it is in context:
Defining who these invaders are is a prime target. This proposal assumes honesty from a specific ethnic group. Very limiting and presumptious.
No, that's not the assumption. They *will* go for the blue card if the incentive is high enough.
For me, I assume that the blue card's privileges are enough incentive to accomplish this feat.
For others, they may think that it will take a larger incentive than just the blue card to get illegals to register themselves and their employers.
But note that it is only the size of the incentive that is being debated. Given the right incentive, they *will* go for the blue card registration.
Buchanan's Nazi fighting uncles are not Buchanan, in fact Buchanan believes US involvement in WW2 was unnecessary and wrote so in his book. This prompted William F Buckley to rebuke him.
"I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism " Buckley - National Review Dec 30 1991
Buchanan has been a vocal Holocaust denier. His hatred of Jews is palpable. His admiration for Hitler(he was the leader of the National SOCIALIST party in Germany during WW2) is unashamed and well documented and I believe he does a disservice to his uncle.
Salon does a good job of compiling proof after proof of the Buchanan I know.Salon News | Who's afraid of Pat Buchanan?
"David Duke is busy stealing from me. I have a mind to go down there and sue that dude for intellectual property theft." - Manchester, NH Union Leader, December 15, 1991
As for his anti business/socialist tendencies here are his own words from the press conference where he accepted the endorsement of Lenora Fulani of the International Workers Party.
"My campaign is committed to a living wage for every family. What does that mean? It's not an outrageous concept. It goes back a long way, in my tradition. A hundred years, as a matter of fact, if you go back to some of those encyclicals. It means that one member of the family, one spouse, a husband or wife, ought to be able to earn enough to enable the entire family to live in decency while the other spouse, if they choose, stays home with the younger children or raises the children, as was true in my household, or the one I grew up in. And that's not so wild a dream, but it's our dream."
"This is the latest administration capitulation to Beijing at the expense of working American families, and for the benefit of transnational corporations," he said in a November 15 1999 campaign statement, referring to the U.S.-China agreement.
"Jim Hoffa is a good man and he's a friend of mine. And I am going to Seattle. I know he's going to go out there. We're all going to get our Teamsters jackets on and speak to some troops."
"Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, just like Lenora is. And Bernie and I worked together in harness, as did [Minnesota senator] Paul Wellstone, to stop that miserable NAFTA deal, which was going to sell out the industrial independence of the country and the sovereignty, as well as the jobs of American workers."
I have read Buchanan, and more importantly I've seen him speak on the campaign trail. This multimillionaire portrays himself as a defender of the little guy against the evil corporations. To Buchanan capitalism is the problem and government is the solution. He is a socialist, or rather a national socialist.
" Think. Be smart. Get them registered."
Are you nuts? What do you think, illegals who never registered before, who bought SS numbers and fake documents, who don't speak English, who live in isolated barrios, and who realize if they give a correct address, it ill allow them to be picked up for other crimes, are all going to suddenly register?
I guess your Bush solution is two phased: Step one: 1) impotent laws that are an effective amnesty and promote a border rush, followed by 2) strict border enforcement when it is too late.
The most effective course would be to momentarily ignore the illegal aliens now in the country. Just suddenly beef up the border and announce to the business community that Title 8, USC will be enforced to full effect.
Make sure the announcement also goes out in Mexico -- hey amigos, there won't be any jobs waiting when you get here. That will definitely slow the nightly rush on the fence.
Shortly after that, announce that all illegal aliens have 60 days to liquidate their assets and return to their point of origin. Failure to do so results in forfeiture of all assets and deportation anyway.
Anchor babies? Let's put that one to the real legal test. The 14th amendment specifically excludes offspring of foreigners here on diplomatic or governmental assignments -- people who are here legitimately. Why shouldn't the same rules apply to the offspring of those who are here illegally?
Sounds like a recipe for an economic implosion to rival the Great Depression. 10-15 million workers and consumers gone in 60 days. On the bright side many Paleo's will no longer be receiving their disability checks and won't be able to afford internet service.
You did great! You stuck to your convictions and went with your knowledge, as opposed to some blindsighted "status quo" rhetoric. *Next wave... will be the tsunami... for sure!
The real numbers would probably be well in excess of 20 million. The 8 to 10 million figure was an estimate made in the 2000 census. Guess what happened in the intervening years?
I'm sitting here looking at the apprehension figures for Arizona dating from FY 2000 to present. The final number exceeds 2.6 million from 97 countries. The Border Patrol does not have the resources to catch more than a fraction, so multiply that 2.6 million by 3 or 4 to arrive at the number who made it safely -- then add the 2.6 million back in because standard procedure is catch and release and the coyotes openly brag that eventually all of their clientele make it.
Do remember these are only the figures for Arizona. The numbers for California, New Mexico, and Texas are equally disgusting. Further, these figures do not include a few million more who arrived with legal visas of one form or another and then conveniently forgot the expiration date.
The real tally may run as high as 30 million, but your government really would prefer that the general public remain blissfully unaware of that fact -- until it's too late.
Yes. Illegals will sign up in droves for blue cards, registering themselves and their employers in the process...and just as gun-banners would love to register we gun owners, for the same reason do I want to register illegal aliens.
...Because registration is the key to removing anonymity; anonymous fugitives require too many law enforcement resources to track down. We've got to get them back onto the grid.
When the immigrants take the profession over, the wages go down because these people will work for less under the table, and the job becomes less desirable.
I found it very difficult to work with people that spoke little english. Not that I dislike them, but that they sit there in a group talking amongst themselves and you feel like the odd man out.
I have had jobs like this while I was working my way through college. It was very uncomfortable, and you really don't know if they are talking badly right in front of you or not.
Dubya's little speech this time last year triggered a run on the border that really resembled a tsunami. By March 2004, traffic was running 114% over the same time period in 2003. Those of us who live here just love it when our masters start mumbling the compassionate conservatism crapola.
This is serious. And this "guest" worker idea will not work. There is nothing wrong with the law that exists... other than the fact it has been neglected for far too long. What exactly are they going to do with those "guests" who don't "register"???????? For crying out loud, the number we know is the "tip of the iceberg." Compassionate conservatism... good grief. How dumb do they think we are?
Or the Border Patrol has been given more money, manpower, and authority. They are effectivly stopping a higher percentage of illegals. Then keep in mind that TX, NM, and CA could be doing an even more efficient job than AZ.
I'm not saying this is the case, only that it is equally possible. Your numbers could be wacked because you have made assumptions that you can't back up with evidence.
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.