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.
PING for later
I'm aware of what Buckley and Will said of Buchanan and they are quite wrong. I've got both of Buchanan's books ("A Republic, Not An Empire" and "The Great Betrayal") and no one who has read them can claim Buchanan denies the Holocaust (of which he's written negatively in Catholic newspapers for more than 20 years), is favorable to Hitler (whom Buchanan has written negatively about in Catholic newspapers for more than 20 years.)
Buchanan doesn't state America's involvement in WWII was unnecessary because he is well aware we were attacked. Rather, he states that Hitler's armies weren't a threat to us because he couldn't even take England.
You can't hold the younger Hoffa guilty for his father's sins.
Catholicism condemns the crimes of socialism and capitalism; that does not make us (nor Buchanan) anti-business. Indeed, if you read his books you'll discover he thinks protecting America's businesses and industry is critical for our future.
Just because David Duke is wrong on many issues does not mean he is wrong on all issues. Where he is right, he usually abandons the fanatically free-trade values of the Protestants and favors the pro-America values of Buchanan. Our current trade policy can best be described as "Unilateral Free Trade" because businesses in America can't compete against what is essentially slave labor in China.
Just because Buchanan was opposed to NAFTA doesn't mean he is a socialist. Catholics have always believed in social justice and our belief in a living-wage is quite reasonable. Look over in Europe. Our main airline manufacturer, Boeing, must compete against a European airline industry that is subsidized by four national governments. Those same governments are behind the attacks on Microsoft Corporation whose only real crime is being a successful American business.
When NAFTA was passed I was living in Indianapolis. Within two months the major electronics manufacturer in Indianapolis said it was closing its plants and relocating to Mexico. Many companies are abandoning ship.
"So to actually get their "reward," they've got to finger their real employers and give up a real address, all subject to verification."
You are absolutely dreaming if you think most illegals and their employers will submit to that. So when all is said and done you'll have Matricula, fake SS's, fake drivers licences, and now some fake blue card all floating around. What a freaking nightmare. And you'll still have an undocumented illegal problem, except then no one will give a hoot about the laws. Can you spell 'delusional'?
That's what "some" people said about the WWII & Camodia holocausts. (Head-in-sand.) My "anecdotal" observations are on record... with people who do know me... and what's more... who matter--- to both of us.
Do you believe NONE of these people will line up for the guest program?
None... oh, that's a brilliant argument.
Hello...
Hello.
:::Scratching head:::
Suppose to be "cute" and clever????????? :::YAWN:::
Canada just closed the doors on these "refugees." REFUGEES... did you hear that? Yes. Now I have a question. So what?
Do you understand what "refugee" means? Yes. Same question...so what?
If you truthfully understand and say, "So what?", then you are hopelessly unconcerned about our country. Because you bother to post on FR, I choose to believe it is that you don't really understand what it "means" to refer to these "illegals" as "refugees." I find it disconcerting that the change of status from illegal to refugee has no significance to you.
why is it that so many of the immigrant-bashers are also foreigners? frum is canadian.. malkin in a fillipino... it is getting ridiculous.
When I've read negative comments, here on Free Republic, concerning Pat Buchanan. I always wondered if the poster had bothered to read any of his books or was just repeating someone else's opinion.
A guy from India once was telling me how all his life he wanted to be an American. He studied English, listened to American music, converted to Methodist --- because he figured that was the most American religion. He said he liked everything about America --- but that we shouldn't be so easy with immigration because 95% of his country wanted to come here, 95% of China wanted to come here, and almost all of Latin America wanted to come here --- just to name a few --- and then we wouldn't have what we have.
And imagine what would happen if Bush would say the employers bringing them in should pay the costs of them and that free health care and education from the taxpayers wasn't going to be part of the deal. I notice Bush avoids bringing the topic up about who he figures will pay.
Some will --- just for the money they can make selling it and reporting it stolen --- just as what is commonly done with the green cards. It's not rare for one green card holder to have to obtain a replacement for his "stolen" green card every few months. It's big business.
I would bet not a single one of the current employers of illegals wants his prized illegals if he has to pay the costs for them. They'll continue with illegals for the same reason they have them now.
And if they decide to remain anonymous and unregistered? Bush can't deport them now when they're that way, why could he deport them later?
And WIC vouchers, food stamps, Medicaid cards, etc. We don't need another "fiscal sinkhole."
The key is supposedly, reform. This has the multifaceted potential of all kinds of "abuse." Especially, false reading of "registered guest workers." Considering they are here "illegally", why wouldn't they "break" another series of laws... at the taxpayers expense.
The employers have no choice. The illegals want blue cards with every fibre of their being. Thus, it isn't delusional, but rather, is almost pre-ordained. Illegals will register themselves and their employers to get their blue cards. Our government with use that newfound information to verify compliance, something that we can't do today when everyone is unregistered and anonymous.
You're only a virgin once. Likewise, businesses are only anonymous once (i.e. only anonymous in the sense that the government doesn't know that they are employing illegals).
Once that first illegal registers that business so that he can get his blue card, that business is subject to compliance verification. Simply hiring new illegals and firing the blue card illegal is no longer an option; the illegal has already fingered the law breaking employer.
That's why convincing illegals to *REGISTER* with our government is so important. Businesses can only get away with hiring illegals so long as our government doesn't know they are doin it; that registration process ends that anonymity.
If they decide to remain anonymous, then they risk everything.
You see, it just takes *one* illegal to ruin the party for all of the rest. Once that one girl registers for her blue card, then that entire sweat shop is going to be verified for compliance by our border patrol and various law enforcement agencies...meaning that every illegal in that sweat shop who has chosen to remain unregistered gets deported when the raid comes after the first illegal registers.
The only defense is for the rest of the illegals to register, too. So the whole sweat shop is going to register. Every illegal there will register rather than risk getting deported under a tougher new system...because if they are unregistered when the raid hits, then they are the odd man out.
The government could easily figure out who is hiring illegals --- failure to pay into Social Security tax and workman's comp. Or clean up the Social Security number databases --- that shouldn't be difficult at all in the day of large comprehensive data bases. Or check out some of those stolen passports and green cards --- which ones are being used illegally.
Ending the practice of anchor babies would be a very good step --- the government knows full well when it's bailing out border hospitals that the welfare checks for anchor babies is one of the biggest draws and brings in the worst types of people --- ones who are likely never to work.
There are already many legal routes of immigration, legal temporary worker programs, green cards etc that many employers and illegals are choosing to by pass. All this does is give them another program to bypass.
The cash economy is more difficult to track than you've imagined so far.
Right now, more than 8 million illegal aliens and more than 1 million illegal alien employers are all anonymous. There's no government file on them. There's no way to know which companies to audit.
The clever aspect of President Bush's immigration proposal is that it encompasses a way to end that anonymity. To get their blue cards, illegals have to register themselves and their employers. Now we know which companies to audit for compliance.
Without anonymity, employers can't get away with hiring illegals and paying sub-legal wages. To end anonymity, you've got to get them registered.
Registration is the key. Registration makes a very, very large problem (8 million or more currently anonymous illegals) into a very manageable problem.
Without registration, we've got to devote enormous manpower resources to track down each anonymous fugitive; not so once they are no longer anonymous.
No, that's not all that it does. It gets them registered. It ends their anonymity. It fingers their employers.
Why is it that you want those illegals and their employers to remain anonymous and unregistered? You must not want to solve this illegal immigration problem.
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.