Posted on 03/29/2006 4:27:02 PM PST by thoughtomator
HOW THE GOP CAN SURVIVE THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE
By DICK MORRIS
March 29, 2006 - The immigration bill pending in Congress poses as crucial a test for GOP efforts to reach out to Hispanic voters as the 1964 Civil Rights Act did in determining the future partisan preferences of America's African-Americans.
In 1964, the Republican Party, led by Barry Goldwater, was painted as sacrificing the interests of civil rights to its goal of attracting Southern support, although Republicans backed the bill in far greater numbers than Democrats did. But when Goldwater ran for president rejecting civil rights legislation, it doomed GOP chances among black voters for at least the next 40 years.
Will the Republican need to appease its anti-immigration base similarly vitiate President Bush's efforts to appeal to Hispanic voters?
Hispanics, let's remember, were the swing voter group in 2004. Having voted for Al Gore by 30 points in 2000, they sufficiently trusted Bush to back Sen. John Kerry by only an eight-point margin. If the Republican Party now turns its back on these newly swing Latino voters, it may permanently lose its ability to win America's fastest-growing voter group, perhaps dooming the party altogether.
But the demands of the GOP base must also be accommodated. Here's how:
One must separately consider the three key elements of immigration reform under discussion: The border fence, the guest-worker program and the criminalization of illegal aliens and those who employ them.
The GOP base wants a fence. It is vital to the entire concept of whether or not we can control our borders. All efforts to beef up manpower on the border have failed to stem the daily flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico. A fence is the only way to do it. By backing a fence and demonstrably taking control of our southern border, the Republican Party will appease the demands of its base.
But to prevent disaster among Latino voters, it must accompany the fence with a more liberal policy on guest workers and criminalization.
Simply put, the fence must have a gate that swings open for immigrants we want and need. To avoid permanently antagonizing our southern neighbors and to keep the labor supply on which so much of American business and prosperity depend, we need a guest-worker program.
The GOP base, happy with the fence, will probably go along with it. Whatever the Congress needs to do to differentiate the guest-worker program from amnesty it should do, but it must pass a generous guest-worker program. (If it is necessary for those here illegally to return to Mexico and reenter as registered and enrolled guest workers, to convince the right that a guest-worker program is not amnesty, so be it).
With a 4.7 percent unemployment rate, we will be slitting our own throats by denying our economy access to Mexican workers. We just need to make them legal, not illegal. With a border fence to enforce the difference, a guest-worker program will work politically.
And it is also important for the Republicans to avoid symbolic acts like making it a felony to be here illegally or to employ someone who is. The same practical deterrence is quite possible through the fence, and merely upgrading the jail time from a misdemeanor to a felony won't make much practical difference.
Judges, in any event, are not about to crowd our jails with millions of felony illegal entrants. Deportation is and will be the answer to those we catch -- and deportation has new meaning with a fence in place.
Yes to the fence, yes to guest workers and no to greater criminalization are the keys to giving the Republican Party access to Latino votes in the future while coping with an issue that roils tens of millions of Americans.
He wants us to "triangulate" our sovereignty?
How so? A fence is a good idea. A wall even better.
You know how difficult it is to get a visa to even visit the USA? A pro-american, hard-working, capitalist-loving vietnamese who applies for a visa to come to the USA is told up front that he has less than a 5% chance of being accepted because the US is trying to absorb the millions of illegal mexicans. It needs to be easier than this in order to be able to have more control. Right now, it's almost impossible to enter the US legally. This only encourages lawbreakers (though I don't justify it). And yes, we need to be tough on illegals here already. They are lawbreakers.
I wonder if we really should punish businesses for hiring illegals. In one way I say yes but in another...is'nt it OUR GOVERNMENT who is responsible for keeping out illegals? Why punnish businesses in the USA for our government's failures?
Face it! We have enough legal trouble trying to jail terrorists. You really think we will deport 12 million illegals? REALITY CHECK! DUH!
LET'S BUILD A WALL NOW!
We have plenty of time to talk about what to do with those already here. Let's build the wall before we have 30 million illegals.
They no doubt were forced to in order to avoid raising the wage even more to attract US citizens.
If they really and truly wished to hire legal workers, they would raise wages and recruit more aggressivley. If a job is truly so distasteful and difficult that 'no American will do' it, then by the laws of supply and demand, it should pay more than less strenuous or offensive jobs.
Mass importation of labor (legal or otherwise) is a transparent ploy to artificially depress wages in certain sectors. It's class warfare.
I agree with Dick Morris on this. He notes that the Latino vote went to Gore by 65 - 35 in 2000, but only went to Kerry 54 - 46. That is a huge "swing" and the Republicans would be ill-advised to ignore it. Jump up and down and holler about illegal aliens all you want, but electoral politics is the bottom line.
Morris has some good ideas here - - control the border (with a BIG fence), ID all workers who come in from Mexico, and deport those who refuse to comply. Sounds okay to me.
Electoral politics does not explain why Bush submits budgets to Congress that don't contain funding for BP agents that Congress had just previously authorized. It's not like anyone in the Hispanic community would have used it as a rallying cry against him if all he did was submit a budget that merely provided for what the law authorized.
If anything, pulling stunts like that fosters anger in the Republican ranks over that issue, which further advertises to Hispanics that the Republicans don't like illegal immigration (assuming they'd consider that a bad thing). From an electoral perspective, the action made no sense whatsoever.
Electoral politics also does not explain his ready support for the "REAL ID" Act, which was billed as an anti-illegal measure. In reality, it didn't do much except further erode state sovereignty over certain types of documentation (which no doubt is why it passed so easily). But the fact that it's perceived to be an anti-illegal measure would, if your theory is correct, be detrimental to Republicans' standing with Hispanics, far moreso than simply budgeting for BP agents that Congress authorized.
"well, someone has some polls that perhaps we haven't seen. somewhere, someone has polls that must show that hispanic americans (not the illegals) support guest workers, amnesty, whatever."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060327-101940-1854r.htm
I agree, there is no excuse, we ARE at war and those borders should have been a first consideration in protecting AMERICAN CITIZENS.. from terrorists and invaders. But I guess common sense and serving the will of AMERICANS is a thing of the past for politicians.
I clicked the link you provided and found zero discussion of illegals or the taxes they pay or the govt. services they use.
Only the citizen blacks vote as a block. In 2004 the asians were 50-50 and hispanics were 55-45 for kerry,
regarding 59, why don't you complain about farm subsidies ?
"Yes to the fence, yes to guest workers and no to greater criminalization"
Yes to the fence, yes to increased immigration after a 5-year moratorium (no guest worker apartheid) and yes to greater criminalization! ESAD, toe-sucker!
"A liberal guest worker program? You mean like the French and Germans once had? I've been there, I've seen the results, no thanks."
No, like the South Africans had.
Oh, wait a sec...
"The GOP base, happy with the fence, will probably go along with it."
Not this voter. This entire article just pi$$e$ my off!
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
it doesn't say anything about how hispanic americans feel. that's the swing voting bloc both parties are targeting.
Politically, I couldn't think of a better demographic group to make up our latest wave of immigration than the Hispanics, maybe the Pols. My only problem is our like of control, Mexican politics, and the fact that they are unskilled.
Can you immagine anything more beautiful than Mexico and the Mexican people with the rule of law and property rights we started out with?
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.