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 thought was similar but was this, "What socialist rock did you crawl out from under?".
What planet do you live on ? Libertarian world where everything is pure theory regardless of the cost of real world consequences ?
America is a nation. Not a market. Not a "philosophy".
So lets let in any and all criminals and the physically and mentally ill. I don't think so, and thankfully, neither does the overwhelming majority of Americans.
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.
What?
Look. America is a country defined by opportunity, by changing standards, by egalitarianism, it's a meritocracy kept afloat by putting into play the spirit to do one's best. People who are opposed to immigration are afraid. Afraid that they will be exposed as being unable to change, or as being incompetent, or as being bigoted. How did the Poles get here? Or the Swedes? Or the Latinos? Or the Germans? Or, for that matter, the Anglos? It is ridiculous to suppose that the rules have somehow changed because your tiny group feels threatened. This is America. If you don't like our Freedom, why don't you immigrate to somewhere your xenophobic ideas will be welcomed?
We need harsher immigration laws not less. I would like to incarcerate employers who have a repeat history of hiring illegals.
What have you got against Republicans?
Its all becoming clear now.
Nothing, but I do think that people who deliberatly and repeatedly break laws need to spend a few years of quality time in the greybar hotel.
My family has been here for 350 years. I am not going anywhere. Our country is not defined by "opportunity" or "changing standards." This country is defined by our love for our fellow citizens, by our respect for their fundamental rights and by our willingness to defend our republican form of government as defined in our founding documents. I don't know what country (planet) you can from, but as another poster has stated, perhaps you ought to go back there and re-immigrate - legally this time.
The majority of Americans aren't opposed to immigration they're opposed to ILLEGAL immigration.
But since you apparently don't have the ability to differentiate between the two my opinion is that with respect to this issue you should be ignored.
"perhaps you ought to go back there and re-immigrate - legally this time.
"
I didn't see anything that indicated that he's an illegal immigrant. He only said that he's and immigrant. Sorry if I got the gender wrong.
I love America... where else can newcomers tell the natives to get lost?
What a country!
How does keeping cheap labor out of the country hurt anyone? How does keeping productive would-be citizens out of the country damage the nation? Does anyone really think that Latino immigration is going to destroy America? Does anyone really fear the imposition of Sharia Law in this country? Freedom of Relgion will take care of that last part, and, honestly, if Anglo culture fears wave upon wave of landscapers, fruitpickers and dishwashers slowly moving up the corporate ladder, then Anglo culture obviously has some pretty serious issues that *should* destroy it. Come on. Show some compassion. Everyone deserves the opportunity to prove themselves.
Exactly, I have nothing against someone who immigrates leagally, but illegals should be deported and those who hire then jailed.
Sounds like he drank the 'living document' koolaid.
It has hurt me, it has hurt my family, it hurts all Americans when you use illegal labor to artificially depress wages in this country.
Whatever he/she/it is, they are a troll.
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.