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.
My ancestry is German. My Ggrandparents came across on a boat. They ...... shock.... went through the LEGAL immigration process. They were (sit down now) even ISOLATED to make sure they weren't bringing any diseases here!!!
NONE of their children spoke German as they were growing up. THEY learned English. They KNEW that this great country was what THEY wanted to be a part of, not the other way around.
They also didn't ask for handouts. They'd brought enough money over to buy a small plot of land and farmed it, increasing their wealth. (such as it was). They did NOT expect the community to work around them. THEY worked around the community.
An earlier poster asked...Why is it so hard to enforce the laws we already have? I ditto that question.
By the very nature of being an illegal alien, I DON'T FLIPPIN' CARE what country you're from....you are committing an illegal act. WHY must this be so complex???
You missed my point, Luis. In that post, I was being personal. Judging by your posts, Luis, I don't see you personally as a either a racist or a violent criminal.
OTOH, I've seen enough death and destruction in my town to say with conviction that the current wave of illegal immigration is bringing too much crime with it.
I don't have any recent experience with south Florida, so I'm not going to comment on your situation. I deal pretty much in personal experience, not debate points, FRiend. I'm sick and tired of losing friends to this garbage and I'm going to do what I can to stop it.
Period.
The same misleading argument can be used with China. If they only imported 1% of their total population annually it would still amount to 10 million. While 1% doesn't sound like much 10 million is. And that's the problem with the US, the more that come in the higher the total admissions becomes if you don't lower the percentages.
Okay, thanks for the tips!
I doubt Mclame could win the primary now. The only primary he has a chance to win would be the democrat primary.
Let's set something straight...illegal immigration is wrong, no one should be here who is not legally entitled to be here.
I was speaking of massive immigration in general, such as what the US saw with the Irish, the Italians, etc.
Generally speaking, there have been some real problems in FR making a distinction between legal and illegal immigration, and one of the most important things that need to be accomplished when it comes to debating immigration, is to separate one from the other.
Having said that, I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that massive immigration has always brought with it the problems that you now specifically attribute to illegal immigration; the Italian mass immigration that began in 1884 and ended in 1920 brought seven million people to our shores, most of them honest, hard-working family people, yet the "family" that we associate with the early years of the Italian migration into the US was headed by people named Capone, Luciano, and Gambino.
But it wasn't they who cemented Italian-Americans into the American dream, it was the hard-working, honest millions who truly impacted our society. It will be the hard-working, honest millions of Hispanics in this nation who will eventually come to the surface, and make us realize that the criminals and the hoodlums were a small minority of the whole people.
Have faith in America.
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.
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.
How do you control a border that is as wide open and as desirable a place as ours is, without actually "controlling" it? There must be some physcial barrier involved in order to deem it "controlled". And, if putting up physical barriers is "providing them with as much manpower, equipment and financial backing they need" then what is your objection. Do you plan to count on the existing 'honor' system to keep illegals out?
What exactly, do you find so objectionable to physical barriers? I really need to hear this answer.
Please don't talk about Bush's plan. It's not going to work. Millions of people aren't going to come out of the woodwork (ants) just because he asks them too. He's going to have to offer them something. It's going to have to be either citizenship or the ability to collect SS back in their home country. Neither is going to set well the American people.
Jails, concentration camps, and East Berlin had walls...I don't believe that your idea of turning the US into what amounts to a jail is the right thing to do. I believe that other ways are more permanent, and will not make my country look like a concentration camp.
Is it your ego that does not allow you to understand that others may not agree with everything you think?
The only way that Bush's plan will not work is if we don't allow it to be tried, and your fence isn't going to be built.
Count on it.
"Millions of people aren't going to come out of the woodwork (ants) just because he asks them too."
But you and your guys insist that the only way you will accept a guest worker plan is if these "ants" not only come out of the woodwork, but go home voluntarily.
In other words, YOU don't even believe in your own expectations.
Superb piece of hyperbole. I never said it had to look like a concentration camp.
So how do we, in your words, "control" our border. Laws aren't doing it. Hoping won't do it. What, then, do you mean by control?
Is it your ego that does not allow you to understand that others may not agree with everything you think?
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the past experience of following this issue in the news is a figment of my imagination? I don't get your point. It is not what I think - it is reality. Control is control. That is not an emotion; it is a state.
An analogy for you. When is a dam not a dam? When it is full of holes. Like our border. You can't say the river is under control if the dam is full of holes.
BTW, the same could be said of you regarding this issue.
Oh...so the walls and the mine fields suggested would make it look like what exactly?
Macy's?
Tell me...what places come to mind when you picture high security walls?
Jails?
Concentration camps?
East Berlin?
That's what you want America to look like, and I am not signing on to your idea. I believe that more border agents, better technology, better surveillance, and an aggressive foreign policy aimed at helping create a strong working class via shifting off shoring of US manufacturing from China to Mexico is a more permanent solution.
I thought the freedom to make political choices via your vote was part of what makes America great.
Oh...so the walls and the mine fields suggested would make it look like what exactly?
Macy's?
Tell me...what places come to mind when you picture high security walls?
Jails?
Concentration camps?
East Berlin?
You keep demanding that I defend statements that I never made at the same contradicting yourself. You really should keep track of what you say.
I believe that more border agents, better technology, better surveillance...
Do you think all that will control our borders. And, if we put all you say into place what do we do with those that are caught? Wouldn't it be easier to place a physical barrier along our border using half the manpower?
You may THINK that it will not look like a concentration camp, but it will, and I don't want my country to look like a jail, a concentration camp, or East Berlin.
By the way, you have a lot of nerve claiming that I expect you to defend statements you've never made after repeatedly lying about me and claiming that I am a supporter of open borders and illegal immigration...try improving your reading skills, I never claimed thet YOU specifically called for mining the borders, and I am sufficiently fluent in the English language to have actually said "Oh...so the walls and the mine fields you suggested would make it look like what exactly?" had I wanted to insinuate that you had said anything about mine fields. So quit trying to make me defend statements that I never made.
"And, if we put all you say into place what do we do with those that are caught?"
If you stop them from crossing you've done all you need to do.
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.