Posted on 02/14/2005 9:56:21 AM PST by atomic_dog
If a Republican politician is uncommonly good on both economics and social issues, he will probably be terrible on immigration.
It’s an unfortunate fact of political life that’s taken me some time to get used to, but here it is: If a Republican politician is uncommonly good on both economics and social issues, he will probably be terrible on immigration. Think Dick Armey, Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake and Jack Kemp in his better days. All strong economic and social conservatives; all weak on immigration control.
And that’s just conservative Republicans. Moderate to liberal Republicans tend to be even worse. Flake’s guest-workers program, one of the pieces of legislation floating around that corresponds fairly closely with the Bush administration’s amnesty-light proposal, is co-sponsored by his fellow Arizona Republicans Senator John McCain and Representative Jim Kolbe. While there are many honorable exceptions, the GOP as a whole has been useless, and sometimes pernicious, on immigration.
Yet most rank-and-file Republican voters take a more sensible position. They believe that immigration should be legal and controlled, occurring at a manageable level accompanied by assimilation. They are receptive to immigrants who actually intend to give their allegiance to America, but don’t see any need to import poverty, cultural balkanization and sociopolitical fragmentation.
In other words, the GOP’s grassroots conservative base approaches immigration with different motives than the cheap-labor lobby, transnational progressives, multiculturalists -- and many of the Republican candidates they end up voting for. This discontinuity between the party’s leadership and its voters has only gotten worse under George W. Bush, who has maintained a stubborn infatuation with the idea of offering “temporary” worker status to millions of illegal aliens and extending that status to an apparently limitless number of willing foreign workers all over the world -- only after their prospective U.S. employers have verified that the jobs they’re being offered are of the kind that Americans just won’t do, of course.
There is much that can be said for Karl Rove’s political acumen. His grassroots turnout strategies in the 2004 campaign certainly paid off. But immigration, an issue Rove seems to mistakenly see as the key to a Hispanic Republican majority, is testing the Architect’s limits. Republicans with their ears closer to the ground -- and the conservative grassroots -- don’t see amnesty and guest workers as winning political issues.
According to a Washington Post report last week, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay distanced himself slightly from the president on immigration reform. DeLay’s proposal wasn’t much better. He would offer illegal aliens guest-worker status, but only if they go home first. It doesn’t benefit lawbreakers as much as Bush’s version, but many current illegals would probably still see their status regularized after a visit back home and overall it would increase immigration. In the New York Times account, the Republican leader suggests it as a possible modification of the White House proposal.
DeLay’s arm-twisting tactics may have earned him the nickname the Hammer, but he also has a good read on the House Republican Conference. If he is suggesting compromise, it is a good indication that the President’s immigration-liberalization plan cannot pass as presently outlined, because it lacks GOP support.
Rush Limbaugh, as attentive to the opinion trends of right-of-center Americans as any commentator, has also spoken of a grassroots revolt against the party establishment on immigration. In late January, he warned that the President’s approach to the issue jeopardized his initiatives on Social Security and tax reform. Limbaugh went further to contend that porous borders threatened our national sovereignty and the electoral coalition that supports the Republican Party.
The latter point was also made in a National Review cover story at the end of last year, written by David Frum rather than one of the magazine’s usual immigration restrictionists. “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,” Frum wrote. “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.”
Even voices on the Wall Street Journal editorial page have taken notice. In an Opinion Journal column following Limbaugh’s volley, John Fund urged “measures to address the legitimate concerns of Americans who worry the federal government has completely lost control of the borders.” While he mainly criticized serious immigration reforms and downplayed the electoral clout of restrictionists, Fund implicitly acknowledged the gap between the GOP’s elites and the voters they need to remain in power.
The immigration debate has become the latest struggle for the soul of the GOP, with the party’s majorities potentially hanging in the balance. Time will tell whose lead Republican officeholders decide to follow -- the Hammer or the Architect’s.
sw
If it weren't true, it would be funny...
sw
Actually I would prefer that this be a states right issue. States are the ones putting out the money for hospitals, school expenses, tax losses, etc.
www.dictionary.com defines society as:
A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines society as:
A community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
Finally, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law defines society as:
an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization
I define a society as follows:
A group of people willing to submit to a set of rules in order to partake in the benefits produced by the group as a whole.
Given the above definitions, it would seem that those who want to be part of this society, should adhere to the cultural, economic, and social rules of this society. If you walked into Burger King passing out coupons to McDonald's and telling everyone who comes in that Micky D's was better, the manager would ask you to leave.
If you walked into Burger King and starting asking all the customers for money to buy a number one combo, the manager would ask you to leave.
If you walked into Burger King and started making a nuisance of your self, and you refused to settle down when asked, the manager would ask you to leave.
The point is, if you are not willing to live by the rules of the society, you cannot expect the society to welcome you with open arms.
The only difference between Burger King and our society is that the manager of Burger King, will actually ask you to leave, and call the cops to enforce his request if you don't.
And BTW, before there is any wringing of hand and gnashing of teeth, yes, I agree that some of the rules need to be changed from time to time. There just happen to be rules for doing that as well, and last time I checked, those rules did not include, intimidation, extortion, or explosives.
Best Regards
Sergio
Very well put!!
"Fox looks to strengthen ties with Arab world."
"Four accords were being signed during his visit, Fox told Algerian government-controlled daily El Moudjahid, ranging from exchanges in education, art and culture to a decision to do away with visas in diplomatic and official passports."
The president has completely lost his mind.
http://www.el-universal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=9397&tabla=miami http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1342584/posts
He's also pretty well defined the political landscape here on FR. Do we side with enforcing our laws & following our Constitution or do we side with the IRs [Immigration RINOs]?
Perhaps el Presidente thinks this will help add pressure for an immigration accord with the US. I can't think of any oil industry-related reason he would want to ease visa rules with any ME country.
Mexico is NOT our friend.
... or Algeria.
How do other nations deal with diplomatic and official passports?
I think when Hillary made the comment it was that she wanted abortion to be safe, legal and rare. I paraphrased her (more than a bit) so I doubt you were agreeing with Hillary. ;>)
In an interview on Fox News, Mrs. Clinton said she does not "think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better." In an interview on WABC radio, she said: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."
"Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we're going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let's have a system that keeps track of them," she said.
Unlike many pro-business Republicans, Mrs. Clinton also has castigated Americans for hiring illegal aliens.
"People have to stop employing illegal immigrants," she said. "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."
sw
LOL! Me too.
Part of my family came from England in 1623, and the others,(Cherokee) were already here.
My husbands family is from Checoslovakia (sp?), and he and my families came to Texas about the same time, early to mid 1800's.
I just SO glad there are other Americans that keep up with familial history! :)
Thanks.
The bottom line is still this: I don't give aa hoot who picks the lettuce, hell, I'll do it myself.
But if there is a next time a plane gets crashed into a building, it ain't gonna be some yayhoo from Peoria. It'll be someone who got into this country with a nod and a wink.
9/11 changed everything. We have to start thinking that way or it will happen again.
We are in 100% agreement.
Your welcome.
She does know how to mouth the words. We better get on the right side of the American people on immigration or this is going to HURT.
sw
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.