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.
This issue may very well draw a third party candidate though.
This falicy is often repeated. Which demographic is first affected by a new wave of illegal immigrants? Hispanics!
Hispanics who have been here and started to rise on the totem pole, are the first one's replaced when new immigrants show up willing to work for bottom dollar.
I would peg the percentage of hispanics that disagree with illegal immigration at about 50 to 65%, possibly as high as 75%.
Excellent point.
Most don't care.
If polled they will say they are against illegal immigration.
If polled they will say they are against illegal use of hands.
But the polls also consistently show that immigration ranks way down the list of issues that people care about.
When the issue does come up for debate in the next few years, and Bush rolls out his machine to pass his reforms the people will support him.
Meanwhile, the anti-immigrants are circling around in a little group of hysterical screaming whackos and think they are being heard by the real people outside their circle.
One thing I would say about a president hillary is that if anyone had the unmitigated gall to hit us while she was president, the nation that sponsored it would be likely to find itself a smoking ruin.
Course, she'd probably institute gulags for oldthinkers too so...
To me it isn't even the employment thats the worst thing. If all the mexicans disappeared today we'd probably have -5% unemployment. It's the corruption, and the creeping socializm that I'm most interested in stopping.
I would peg the percentage of hispanics that disagree with illegal immigration at about 50 to 65%, possibly as high as 75%.
=====
If it is true, then they should PUT PRESSURE ON THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS to start acting on this calamity along with the rest of America that cares about this illegal invasion...
Thanks for the ping.
Given that we still have folks on welfare, I expect that those kind of labor conditions would have the benefit of reducing that statistic as well.
LOL.
LOL! It's YOUR little circle that's out of touch with reality.
BTW, we're not "anti-immigrants", we are for LEGAL immigration. Big difference...
sw
Please add me to you ping list, thank you.
Switzerland is at peace with itself - of course it has four official languages. It has been a republic for something like 700 years (in one form or another). We could learn a few things from them (IMHO).
"If you wish this call to continue in English, press '1'; si desea escuchar en espanol, marque numero dos. Y tenga un buen dia."
If we can borrow a phrase from Hillary - we need to keep immigration safe, legal and rare. Heh.
On this issue, more than any other, the Grand Old Party/Good Ole Boys are perpetuating the image of the GOP as a party of the rich and of big business. I suspect that the unfortunate truth in this case is that all of the above are true and Republican politicians are in a Catch-22: their base opposes "amnesty light", but if they oppose it, many of their biggest financial contributors will bail on them.
(I guess this thread will demonstrate to that moron that said that any post that was contrary to the GOP party line gets pulled is full of hot air. You out there, Mo?)
I will draw hell on myself for saying this, but so would I.
I would rather see the Democrats moved rightward than the GOP leftward.
I love it that there are FReepers who know their "pedigree." (Don't freak out, guys, it's a genealogy term.) My German ancestors arrived in the New Land approx. 1732, and set about farming in Pennsylvania.
I went to Atlantic City this past weekend to walk the Boardwalk. I must tell you, what I saw was not good. Loads of welfare cases and mostly hispanics working the hotels and casinos.
I am all in favor of dropping the hammer on illegals, etc etc, but this welfare nonsense is just crazy. If there were no welfare, these people would be forced to work the hotels if they wanted to eat.
Sure they do, you just never bothered to find out what it is.
The republican party is split, and the dems have the largest block of unified votes.
If Congress passes a reform bill, it will be heavily influenced by the dems. Probably more democratic than republican.
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.