Democrats Will Use Immigration to Divide and Conquer

It reads like a page directly out of the Democrat's playbook on midterm elections. Let Republicans self-destruct by splitting from their base on a core issue. Senate Republicans this week will decide if the federal government will respond to 89 percent of Americans who believe illegal immigration is a serious problem.

Any bill that does not refuse amnesty, and require true border and internal enforcement will collapse public confidence in the GOP Congress, and therefore be the breaking point of the Republican Party. The bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee rewards lawbreakers with amnesty, plain and clear.

The temporary worker/amnesty bill from the Senate Judiciary Committee will cause every Democrat in Congress will jump onto it, because they know that this single issue is the opportunity to divide and conquer. If anything costs Republicans the majority this November, it will be this amnesty bill in the Senate that they are trying to force-feed to Congress and the American people.

In the face of bitter opposition from the majority of American citizens, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill to reward millions of illegal aliens with legal worker status -- despite the fact these aliens have already proven their disregard for the laws of this nation. Beyond sending a message to potential residents and legal immigrants that we don't take our own laws seriously, this is a misguided and dangerous path for our nation, particularly in a post 9/11 world.

Any policy that reduces or eliminates the penalty for violating our immigration laws is amnesty. It is disingenuous for any lawmaker to claim they are against amnesty, but support these temporary worker amnesty programs.

Economically, these programs don't help our country, but hinder its growth. Americans are conditioned to believe that illegal aliens support our workforce, because they supposedly take jobs Americans will not do. The reality is, employers hire illegal workers who will work for much less than legal workers, driving wages down and making it impossible for legal workers to compete. There is no job Americans will not do. The hottest, most difficult, dirtiest and dangerous job in the world is rooting terrorists out of Fallujah. Marines are doing that job for $8.09 an hour.

The core of the strength of America has always been an ever-broadening middle class. The flood of immigration, both legal and illegal threatens an eventual destruction of the middle class and is resulting in the creation of a servant class. We cannot stand by while our middle class is eroded so that the ruling class in America can create a servant class for themselves.

We can stop illegal workers from taking jobs in the U.S. My New Illegal Deduction Elimination Act, or New IDEA, H.R. 3095, would eliminate the tax deduction employers can take on wages and benefits paid to illegal workers so it becomes a taxable event. The result would be to raise the cost of a $10 per hour illegal to a $16 per hour worker, creating the opportunity for American workers, shutting down the jobs magnet and broadening our middle class.

In addition, it would be ludicrous to base our national and economic security policy on the promise that temporary workers will return home once their worker permit expires. There has never been a successful temporary worker program in history.

History has proven time and again that legalizing the illegals won't solve the problem, it only serves to exacerbate it. Since 1986, Congress has passed seven amnesties for illegal aliens. The mass amnesty bill passed in 1986 that legalized 3 million aliens backfired, and the illegal alien population quickly doubled in a decade and tripled in less than 15 years. Further, dangling the prospect of citizenship in front of potential lawbreakers will only spur a mad stampede for the U.S. border to get in line for the next amnesty.

As a sovereign nation, we must control our borders and enforce our own laws. Ignoring our laws is not the path to maintaining a free, safe and prosperous society.

The House passed a comprehensive immigration reform policy in December that provides tools to secure America's future. H.R. 4437 does not reward any amnesty program and includes heavier border enforcement and construction of a border fence. The bill also provides for real enforcement in our interior, reduces the jobs magnet by requiring worker verification, and invokes penalties for local governments that provide sanctuary for illegal aliens.

The Senate must use these provisions as a baseline for their debate. This issue has pushed fed-up Americans to the abyss, and if we don't take the right turn, we deserve to be pushed into it.

Economically, these programs don't help our country, but hinder its growth. Americans are conditioned to believe that illegal aliens support our workforce, because they supposedly take jobs Americans will not do. The reality is, employers hire illegal workers who will work for much less than legal workers, driving wages down and making it impossible for legal workers to compete.

APPENDIX C: VIEWS OF ECONOMISTS AND OTHER SOCIAL SCIENTISTS TOWARD IMMIGRATION
Stephen Moore, Rita J. Simon, and Julian L. Simon

There is agreement among economists that immigration has had, and has now, a positive effect upon the economic condition of the United States. We surveyed those persons who have been president of the American Economic Association, as well as those who have members of the President's Council of Economic Advisors. In answer to the question "On balance, what effect has twentieth century immigration had on the nation's economic growth?", 81 percent answered "Very favorable" and 19 percent answered "Slightly favorable". (Complete data may be found at the end of this Appendix.) None of these top economists said that immigration was "slightly" or "very unfavorable," or felt that he or she did not know enough to answer. This extraordinary consensus belies the public picture of the economic profession as being on both sides of all important matters.

The top economists also are willing to extend their backward assessment into a forward-looking policy judgement. When asked "What level of immigration would have the most favorable impact on the U. S. standard of living?", 56 percent said "more", 33 percent said "same number", and none said "fewer". Only 11 percent said "don't know".

It is instructive to compare the views of persons who are not experts in economic affairs. To the latter question about the level of immigration that would be most favorable for the standard of living, a similar high-level panel of other social scientists -- sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists, psychologists, and historians -- responded less favorably. Only 31 percent said that more immigrants would be most favorable. It is also startling to find that even though these non-economist social scientists have no expert knowledge of the matter, only 4 percent were unwilling to hazard a judgment and hence said "don't know", an even smaller proportion than the 11 percent among economists. Perhaps the lack of reluctance of such non-experts to express their views on this technical subject outside their fields of special knowledge helps explain why the subject of immigration is as controversial as it is.

For further comparison, consider the polls of the general public (discussed in Appendix B) asking a fairly similar question, not about the economic effects of immigration, but the more general "Would you like to see the number of immigrants allowed to enter our country increase, decline, or do you think we are letting in about the right number now?" It cannot be known whether the general public response is mainly based on non- economic or economic factors. But to the extent that economic factors enter in, the reaction of the general public is much more negative, and much less positive, than the assessment of top economists.

How should we interpret other social scientists giving more positive responses to these economic questions than other Americans -- even if less positive than economists? One possibility is that the general pattern of higher education being more associated with a positive view of immigration is being displayed here. Another possibility: World-class tenured professors have relatively little to fear from immigrant job competition. But these are speculations rather than facts.)

We also asked economists about the economic effect of illegal immigration: The question was: " What impact does illegal immigration in its current magnitude have on the U.S. economy?" An astonishing 74 percent of the top economists said that "Illegals have a positive impact". Eleven percent said "neutral impact", and 11 percent said "negative impact", with 4 percent "don't know". This is indeed a striking degree of consensus.

This consensus view about illegals held by top economists certainly is at variance with the point of view expressed by most columnists, editorial writers, and television commentators. And the consensus view of economists is quite different from the view held by other top social scientists. Fifty one percent of the other social scientists said "negative impact" about the economic effect of illegals, with only 7 percent "don't know"; it is likely that the general public is even more negative toward illegals. One can only wonder what motivates this view of economic effects of illegals on the part of others than economists. And I marvel at the lack of uncertainty indicated by the small proportion of non-economists who do not feel qualified to answer.

The discrepancy between the view expressed by the economists and that expressed by the other social scientists and by the lay public fits with a general pattern in which laypersons are more worried by many phenomena than are real experts; nuclear power is a striking example. (See Cohen, _____.) At a meeting of world- class experts on agriculture, minerals, oil, forests, soil erosion, and a variety of related natural resource topics, geographer Fraser Hart observed at the end of the day: "All of us are optimistic about our own subjects, but pessimistic about everyone else's," a clear indication of the negative bias on the part of less-informed persons that pervades discussion of resources and demographic movements.

When we asked the non-economist social scientists about the non-economic effects of immigrants, a subject on which they have professional expertise, their judgements are of a different sort. n answer to "What effect has twentieth century immigration into the United States had on the nation's social fabric", 47 percent said "very favorable", 24 percent said "slightly favorable", 13 percent said "slightly unfavorable", and 9 percent said "very unfavorable", with 7 percent "don't know". And in answer to "What effect has twentieth century immigration into the United States had on the nation's culture?" 59 percent said "very favorable", 27 percent said "slightly favorable", 7 percent said "slightly unfavorable", and 2 percent said "very unfavorable", with 5 percent "don't know".

These assessments by non-economic social scientists of immigration's non-economic effects are quite positive. And here it would seem that -- even though such terms as "culture" and "social fabric" may well mean very different things to different people -- the social scientists have this expert advice to give to the American public, derived from their scholarly work: Lay aside your worries (and claims) about conflict and social tension outweighing the positive social-cultural effects of immigration.

So to sum up: If the best economists understand their subject, immigrants -- including illegal immigrants – benefit the economy; they find no economic reason to try not to admit more immigrants, or to prevent the entry of the sort of workers that illegals are, or to get rid of them. This directly contradicts the economic arguments that are given by such organizations as FAIR and THE ENVIRONMENTAL FUND which lobby against immigration, as well as the arguments of the labor union and of such legislators as Senator Alan Simpson. But the voices of such well-respected mainstream economists reported by journalists, who tend to rely instead upon politicians and interest-group advocates for their print stories and television interviews. And the views of the top economists are seldom heard in the current Congressional debate on immigration. ~ Source (Appendix C)

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.

BTTT!