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.
I swear that woman has the instincts of a shark. She smells blood. the illegal immigration issue is going to get us a president Hillary if we aren't careful. This is just my opinion, but I'm seeing a mindset in this country built on selfishness and greed. Law, shmaw. Who cares if laws get broken, as long as you don't get caught. That's the bottom line folks, just don't get caught. America is turning into a nation of narcissists.
We are America. When we stop acting like Americans, and throw our rules and laws down the toilet, we won't have an America left to live in. The illegal immigration issue is a large piece of a very disturbing picture puzzle.
Have the people from all over the world, who are waiting patiently for their visas, figured out that they might never be able to come here? Time to plug in the "no vacancy" sign, and welcome those who wish to come here and be Americans.
I absolutely agree. It IS a privelege to be an American. The people who patiently wait years, maybe even a decade to come here legally, are the people imo that America needs. I of course do have sympathy towards my fellow human beings who are being "deported" by Fox, but they need to take their country back by what ever means necessary. They talk about pride, but I want to see just how proud they are. They can't keep coming over here illegally. It's a different ballgame post 9/11. Didn't Border Patrol capture 15 North Koreans recently?
The children born on American soil of illegal parents, should no longer automatically be given citizenship either. Harsh? I think not. To a significant portion of illegals, this is a deliberate ploy to be able to remain here, in some cases on welfare.
Remember the "Marielitos"? I wonder if Fox is doing the same thing as Castro did.
This article was origanilly posted here:
http//:www.enterstageright.com it has several live links that are extremely interesting. The live link on transnational progressivism is a long article but it gives an interesting perspective on soverignity, and the organized effort to undermine it.
sorry that is http://www.enterstageright.com
A pair of very good and true posts, thanks.
I might add, that the "guest worker" program will not work. Among the consequences will be that no one will want to leave the U.S. after they can no longer work. We'll be stuck with them...and the cycle will continue.
sw
Hmmm. when I moved from state to state, I had to get a new drivers license for THAT new state. Should work the same...some states give licenses if the voters/people approve, others do not. If the people in the states get a say in the matter, I think most states (except California and New York) will not allow licenses if not in the state legally.
I had not heard of "transnational progressivism" before and googled it. Boy did I get a wake up. Thanks.
I stand with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that our RIGHTS come from God, not government edict. When my ancestors came to PA there was no INS. The law simply stated it was illegal for the indigent, prostitutes and people of low moral character to enter the US. Until the 1920's the sole role of the INS and its predecessors was to enforce those rules of "character" on immigrants. There was no concept of "illegal immigrant" until then.
That said, there are problems. A small percentage of Mexican immigrants and a larger percentage of Russian immigrants are criminals and not people of good moral character. Bush should reverse the executive order of Nixon that makes the INS the exclusive agency with the power to inquire of immigration status. Nixon prevented local government... and even the FBI from inquiring of immigration status. That order prevented local law enforcment from deporting undessireables and from enforcing the extradition requests of other countries that want their citizens returned to answer to felonies from which they are fleeing.
There are many similar practical and mutually beneficial changes that we could agree on.
Devastating news but important to know. Also, not surprising. Remember, Mexico never severed ties with Cuba and they enjoy a thriving mutual diplomatic relationship.
By now, I am forming the notion that Mexico is our biggest international problem. Forget the ME and the EU. The corruption in Mexico seems to be tied in to drug trafficking and that is a way we know the terrorists finance their operations. Our State dept. probably knows a lot and does a lot they don't tell us. Still, we cannot continue to overtly IGNORE: drugs, corruption, illegal immigration, non-extradition of murderers, Mexican and Central American gangs, and you all know the rest.
I'm starting a little list of FReeper genealogists; don't know what I'll do with it, though. :-)
If there is a list that is THE list, add me. I signed up for someone else's list and, of course, I have my own. :-)
Jim's immigration poll should have left no doubt in anyone's mind that the overwhelming majority of FReepers do not approve of illegal immigration...yet, the term "FROBL" continues to be thrown around as if it actually had meaning.
The entire "either you are in favor of closed borders, or in favor of illegal immigration" is actually one of the many widely recognized logical fallacies that exist in open debate...the fallacy of the false dilemma, also known as black and white thinking.
Here it is in a nutshell:
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:
The apparent position taken by some here is that if an individual in not in favor of "closed borders", then that individual must be in favor of illegal immigration...as if there were no other choices, when in fact there are many choices.
Personally, I favor controlled borders, immigration laws that benefit the country and the economy, a foreign policy that favors neighboring countries over distant ones, and a realistic approach to the issue of the illegal aliens already in the country.
I oppose mined, militarized, or fenced borders, and zero immigration policies.
That does not make me a fan of open, uncontrolled borders.
Since I favor controlled borders, I am also in favor of empowering the agencies charged with enforcing immigration laws and protecting our borders, and providing them with as much manpower, equipment, and financial backing they need to get the job done.
Since I favor immigration laws that benefit the country and our economy, I would support immigration laws that favor immigrants of Judeo-Christian countries over immigrants from Muslim countries that support terrorism or Eurosocialists, and that bring the best and the brightest from the developing nations of the world to our shores.
Since I support a foreign policy that favors nearby countries over far away ones, I support incentivizing American business ventures in Mexico over China, which in my mind would create jobs where the people who need jobs are.
Does everyone agree with everything I believe in?
Absolutely not.
I guess the biggest source of disagreement on this issue is whether one believes that the Bush immigration initiative is movement in the right direction.
I believe that it is, some believe that it isn't.
But that does not by far mean that I advocate the notion of open, uncontrolled borders.
P.S I don't believe that any wave of immigrants will fail to assimilate into the American culture, it's an unstoppable juggernaut. But I do believe that like any other large immigrant group in our history, they will add to the American tapestry with the same positive impact others before them have.
Add me to it! You never know, it might come in handy. :)
Where is FITZ?
To be honest, the treatment of illegal immigrants now is the issue, not what we did a hundred or even 20 years ago.
I'd love to have you come visit me, but it isn't necessary. I understand Ohio is starting to feel the crush, too.
Interesting...I though you were on our list, but you're not.
I'll add you.
Remember, you can always do a keyword search on 'aliens'. It's one way around trying to find the posts in the Smoky Back Room!
Luis, I found myself agreeing with you up to this point. My family has had to move out of their traditional homes to flee the violence that the gang-bangers in Phoenix have brought across the border with them.
I don't know if the legality of their immigration status has anything to do with it, I suspect it doesn't. However, the social fabric of their existence south of the border doesn't mesh with ours. Lawlessness is a way of life that the gang-bangers embrace and we abhor. There's no way around it.
Call that black and white if you will, but it's better than the red we see whenever we have to drive through Maryvale or Chandler. Them's is facts, my FRiend, not a flippin' genteel debate topic.
Keep up the fight guys!
Yeah, sure. It's only the illegal immigrants that speak Spanish, not the legal ones. It's only the illegal immigrants who are ruining our neighborhoods, not the legal ones. It's only the illegal immigrants that are diluting our culture, not the legal ones. It's only the illegal immigrants who fail to abort their babies like good assimilated Americans, not the legal ones. It's only the.....
If an influx of less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the population is destroying your culture and threatening the sovereignty of America, I think you have some misdefined terms.
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.