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.
Immigration is not only necessary for American prosperity, it is necessary for American freedom and for the continuation of the background philosophy of this nation's founders (ie, not the freaking pilgrims, those idiot zealots didn't found anything).
America as a philosophy is not wed to a single language or a single so-called national culture, and must be allowed to grow and change as it always has. That's what freedom is all about. The borders should be open and free, and citizenship should go to those who want it, not just to those who feel it some sort of unearned birth right? How absurd. Pay taxes, respect or fight to change the laws. Asking anything else is positively unAmerican.
I, by the way, am an immigrant.
Agreed, the powers that be need to stop the pandering that risks our national security and jeopardizes our sovereignty and start doing their jobs.
If they don't they will lose a significant amount of support.
THESE ARE NOT JOBS AMERICANS WON'T DO!!! These are jobs Americans will not do as cheaply on under as bad of working conditions as an illegal.
From what I hear, McCain is pro-life.
And it will be a disaster.
That I agree with 100%.
What part of ILLEGAL don't you understand?
I have go update my ping list soon. About 1/2 of the posters have been banned.
"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."
Amen to that. That's how this VOTER sees it.
"America as a philosophy is not wed to a single language or a single so-called national culture, and must be allowed to grow and change as it always has. That's what freedom is all about. The borders should be open and free, and citizenship should go to those who want it, not just to those who feel it some sort of unearned birth right? How absurd. Pay taxes, respect or fight to change the laws. Asking anything else is positively unAmerican."
That's the kind of uneducated attitude that will have everyone living according to sharia law someday.
In this day and age the borders should be anything BUT open and free.
Yep.
Listen Up! Basic macro-economic lesson. When businesses are allowed to hire illegals, the price of labor will be artificially reduced.
Well duh!!!
Sorry, but wrong, wrong, wrong. 1) "America as a philosophy is not wed to a single language or a single so-called national culture, and must be allowed to grow and change as it always has." America has, as the twin pilars of its heritage - a) Christianity and b) Anglo-saxon law. I have no idea how you passed your citizenship (or are you a citizen?) exam without learning those facts. That is not to say that we are a Chrisian nation or England, but those two sources provide a huge fraction of our institutions and government. 2) "The borders should be open and free, and citizenship should go to those who want it, not just to those who feel it some sort of unearned birth right?" We believe in private property here, and our country is our joint property. We get to set who comes and goes just like you do in your own house. Our Constitution recognizes citizenship by birth, or didn't you read it? I don't need to justify that any more than what I have already said. In general, I think that you would like things better at DU, than here.
Good. You understand the principle. Now take the next step and apply it.
That is one of the reasons I pointed out what I did. Good example, if the illiegals are rounded up from say a meat processing plant where thwy are paid $8 an hour. And say there are no more illegals to fill the space, then they will have to up the wage to hire Americans.
Its part of the American character.
I'd suggest that one day, Jury Nullification will take care of any and all immigration laws. The system is anti-American. It's like prohibition. It's stupid. Immigration laws hurt America.
We need harsher immigration laws not less. I would like to incarcerate employers who have a repeat history of hiring illegals.
See post #38
What country did you come from?
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.