Replies

"NumbersUSA.com's goal of reducing annual legal and illegal immigration to more traditional numerical levels enjoys broad based public support. Virtually every major poll that has been conducted in the past decade finds that a majority of Americans support lower immigration numbers. As"

Same way I would not rely on polling data present by the Democrat Leadership Council or Move On.org, I cannot take seriously numbers presented by a group that states the above as their goal on their website.

However, I think we can both agree on a couple of things.

1. An Anti-Immigration position is not the slam dunk vote getter that some elements of Conservative movement think it is.

2. To avoid the emotionalism that seems to rear up on this issue, I will assume that those who favor a tougher line on immigration are my political allies who I agree with much more then I disagree with and have legitimate concerns on this issue. Therefore, I will strive to avoid using value laden terms that may be offensive like "Anti-immigration crowd" or "Tancadeoites". However, I to have legitimate concerns about the position some of you are staking out. When I question those positions, I would expect a thoughtful statement of WHY you feel that way rather then the following.

"Dont be such a dhimmi dumbass.

Wait till the bombers hit LA, or NY. Then wait to control borders, we cant offend anyone while they are killing us.

Get bent.

If anything happens prior to '06, see who controls the house.

Security first, political correctness last.

I have plenty of Lard for the Muslims"

As long as those of you who favor a tougher line on immigration respond to anyone who questions the assertions and assumptions you present with the above, you are never going to build a political consensus to support your ideas. So, let's start back at the beginning.

What specific proposals do those who want tougher immigration laws have?

For example, one idea that offends my Libertarian heart but make sense to my brain, is the idea of prosecuting businesses that profit by hiring illegals. Since no amount of border enforcement is going to completely stop the flow of illegals we have to take steps to discourage the flow. The basic reason illegals come to the USA is work. The logic seems obvious, make it harder for them to get work that makes it less attractive to come here. How do you get businesses to stop hiring cheap labor? Make it more expensive, and legally painful, then it is is worth to hire illegals.

Mr Losertarian.

There are a few of us that have been slammed perpetually by Cultural Jihad, Bayourod, Dane, and have given thoughtful responses to their (and your) neandertal rants.

This thread was about Tancredo's "what if" statements, which you decided to inject or overlay your opinion of immigration policies.

You cannot point to responses on a consnservative website as being policy, although in your dull normal world you may think it's policy.

Please stick to the subject and not spin this post into an immigration thread.

Those of us that think and experience life have a different spin and valid opinions, and (gasp) may actually support statements by (gasp) Tancredo, who support securing the CONUS from the islamotarian death cult.

Crying bigot brings no thought to the table on your behalf.

Well I don't think NumbersUSA does its own polling. It simply compiles those favorable to its stated goals.

I agree that taking anti-mass immigration stands is not a surefire vote winner for Republicans, but that is mainly because immigration simply does not rank as a top-tier, vote-deciding issue for most people. People are much more likely to base their vote on national security, the economy, education, healthcare, values, etc. I've never had any illusions about this. Bush's Guest Worker proposal wasn't very popular with anyone (it went too far for conservatives, but not far enough for the Left), yet the specter of President Kerry easily swept aside such reservations (and others) for his conservative base. And Buchanan obviously failed to get much out of the issue when he ran in 2000. But I do think that taking a more traditionally conservative stance on immigration would be a net winner for the GOP, though obviously it alone could not guarantee victory.

There is unfortunately too much emotional baggage attached to this debate. And for the record, I don't deny that there are some genuine racists or xenophobes who support the conservative positions on immigration, but I do take offense when their share is claimed to be anything more that the almost certain fringe element it actually represents. I know from personal and anecdotal (I know..such evidence is mostly worthless) experience that this simply is not so. And when I look at polls showing at least 40%, and often majority support for such things then I know it to be true because I simply don't believe that there are that many genuine xenophobes. And finally, I can look at how it cuts across racial, political and ideological lines. Large percentages of blacks, for example, also express conservative views on immigration, and even Hispanics themselves often register support for reducing immigration in levels that at least equals the GOP's share of the latino vote.

And it is a shame that much of the fighting is between those of us who generally agree on most other issues. While I don't doubt that some on my side of this issue put forth some reckless rhetoric at time, it is my perception that those most eager and willing to slap-down and attack fellow conservatives are those represented by the Wall Street Journal way of thinking. That paper never misses an opportunity to throw around the 'nativist' charge.

You are probably right about most of the trite responses you list, but one does have merit in my opinion -- I do fear that it will take another major terrorist attack before we can finally let go of some of the PC contraints on this debate.

As to solutions; you hit on one of them with strict interior enforcement of immigration laws. To stop illegal immigration you have to remove the incentives for aliens by making employers unwilling to hire them. I think that as long as we have the laws on the books, then we should enforce them. Otherwise, change the laws.

If such action really is not in the best interests of our nation, then I wish that the politicians would at least lead us into an honest debate about it. Tell us that the laws are unworkable. Tell us we need more immigration. But just be honest about it, and don't try and cloak it with euphemisms. Call an amnesty and amnesty for example, and then be prepared to face the possible consequences at the ballot box. As long as both parties implicity agree, then there isn't much threat to most politicians anyway.