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.
Questions:
How does the enforcement of this guest worker deal work?
I mean, where is the employer's motivation to ensure their workers are g.w.?
Who makes sure they comply?
Won't the employers still hire the illegals "off the books"? Thereby making the whole thing a farce
We could never enforce the laws against employing illegals, so how can we believe we could enforce g.w. regulations?
And even if we could enforce, won't we see inflation on goods and services as the businesses pass their cost increases onto the consumer?
Bullship! Virtually NO effort has been made to beef up manpower on the border and no effort has been made to discourage employers from knowingly hiring illegals.
Great example, the 1964 Civil Rights act was a GOP cause. Blacks vote almost 90% Democrat.
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.
65% of legal latino's in CA voted for Prop 187 to stop funind illegals. Latino-American here are fully aware that mexico is dumping its underclass and criminals here and want it stopped.
Illegals contribute about $5B to the US economy, they cost somewhere in excess of $70B in unpaid ER visits and prison costs alone. Not to mention they send back home about $20B that has no velocity of money in the US..ie it contributes to inflation.
And as Sowell pointed out today, these crops are subsidized surpluses with artificially supported prices. Realistically, there would be less inflation with out the illegals.
In other words, Dick Morris and President Bush have the same opinion about illegal immigration. What's wrong with this picture?
Kerry got 56% of the Hispanic vote in the last Prez election. A guest worker-amnesty program would only enlarge that majority for the Dems.
After things have calmed down from enforcement of border security and employer sanctions, then and only then, have the Congress come back at some future date with a legitimate temporary foreign worker program. But do not tie HR 4437 in with any Senate proposal for guest worker-amnesty.
Amnesty for Illegals in 2006 = Hillary as President in 2008
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but wasn't it the people of California who voted for Prop 187?
It's not the latino vote we have to worry about -- there are plenty of latinos in Florida and New York, but you don't see them marching in the streets. It is the illegal vote that we have to deal worry about. No illegal person should ever be allowed to vote anywhere in this country, and I do believe California has a problem with illegals voting.
Before you decide to make the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes the model for the United States, be sure that state is a model for following this nation's laws.
Appeasement has never worked in history. Either we take care of the situation now, or we will all become like California and suffer the consequences later.
There would still be people that we'd need to keep out, even under the most liberal of programs.
"I know everyone is angry about illegal immigration, but if you don't live in California you don't know the half of it. "
I live in California. I was upset about illegal immigration 20 years ago and 15 years ago. But most of the country, and their politician representatives could have cared less about us in California.
So I decided I had better adjust, accept life on life's terms, or be unhappy. I did manage to adjust, The fact is: there are a lot of Hispanic people in California. More than when I was a kid.
So I am greatly amused now, when people from other regions are involved, now that they are getting some illegal immigration. Greatly amused.
And vote we will they can ignore us but we are a force to be reckon with.
Are we absolutely certain that there is a Republican majority? The liberal democrats appear to be running the show.Have the Republicans all morphed into democrats?
Add 30 stars to our flag.
I am getting a certain ammount of pleasure from knowing that it must be very uncomfortable in DC these days. They're caught between the voters who put and keep them in power and the special interests who pay them for legislation.
They're going to lose either the voters or the special interests. The problem is, if they lose us, they lose the special interest money.
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. yes, I know people keep saying "no they don't", but I am not so sure. the political calculation here can't be ignored - the Dems wouldn't be solidy lined up for this unless they have made the political calculation, and the republicans being pushed to the breaking point over it.
Bush, rather then leading, has instead decided to push his own party to the splinter point.
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.