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.
OTOH, enforcement only, such as the House bill, will be inadequate.
Since Prop 187 was approved by the people themselves, I'm going to hazard a guess that that's not what was responsible for the Republicans' loss in California. As for its effect on Hispanic support for the Republicans, according to Rich Lowry, anyway:
"Republicans were getting about 30 percent of the Hispanic vote before Proposition 187, and have been getting about 30 percent since. Their basic political problem with Hispanics is that they are poor, and poor people vote for Democrats."
Totally wrong. If each of the 12 million illegals made just 1000 dollars each per year, that is 12 billion right there. Fact is, most of them avg. 1000 dollars or more per month.
If there are 12 million illegals, this works out to $1.33 per day per illegal. I don't think so. Even illegals will not work for $1.33 per day. If you give them the weekends off, we are talking $1.00 per day. They won't even work for that in Bangledesh or China.
The talk of wooing Mexivoters reminds me of the business that was losing money selling widgets, they made it up in volume though.
Claro que si. You speak the truth.
Why do people quickly forget that the civil rights act of 1964 was meant to have the government enforce the laws better, but the illegal immigrants now are protesting for the government to abandon law, totally opposite?
You know whose civil rights are being violated? It’s the legal resident taxpayer, that’s who, and when amnesty goes thru, the legal resident’s rights will be even violated more,
US legal citizens will be disenfranchised because those whom receive amnesty will end up with twice the voting power as legal citizens. Mexican nationals will be able to vote for US president, and as dual citizens also participate in Mexican Elections. There is no provision for the illegal immigrant to renounce citizenship in any of these uninvited guest amnesty programs.
For all realistic purposes, the Mexican government is governing in the southwest but US citizens have no voice in these affairs. For example, consular cards issued by Mexico are valid IDs, and they lobby to create laws such as amnesty, and other social programs. They are working with trucking and ports, building a new port in Mexico to service the US. The Mexican government is making decisions effecting everyday life here in US proper, and their role will only increase,
Yet, even with the effects of Mexican government touching every legal US citizen, we are not eligible to participate in Mexican elections. In this future country without borders there is no plan for us to be represented equally, yet legal citizens will be paying most of the taxes for all the social services and new infrastructure that will be required.
Now whose civil rights do people think are being violated, which side is more like the African American of pre 1964 whom was promised equal protection and representation entitled by the constitution but who is receiving the short end of the stick in this region with overlapping borders?
With this scenario it really wont matter if the GOP losses or gains votes, the two party system and your vote will be irrelevant.
"Totally wrong. If each of the 12 million illegals made just 1000 dollars each per year, that is 12 billion right there. Fact is, most of them avg. 1000 dollars or more per month."
Fact is they send most of it to relatives in Mexico, how does that contribute to our economy?
When you work, you create value. If someone gets paid 5 dollars, he has done at least 5 dollars worth of value or else no one would pay him.
They need to stay in their own country and create value.
If 72 percent of white Americans (70 percent of US) vote as a bloc like other ethnic groups, illegal Hispanic immigrants would have little or no influence. Divided you die.
It does lower the trade deficit that many FReepers complain about. No, really, it does. Net Capital Outflow is equal to Net Exports. Capital flowing out raises NX and moves the trade deficit toward being balance. Besides, if illegals what to sacrifice their earnings and transfer those earnings to family in their countries of origins, the money will get repatriated and buy American goods or assets, they're only hurting themselves with such charity.
That should be $5B in tax revenue, not GDP. The author of the piece below did not account the cost of incarceration or uncompensated heath care, only direct welfare payments.
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Immigration.html
As for inflation, check out Sowell's column for today:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2006/03/29/191639.html
If this were the policy that was chosen, it would be very interesting to contemplate the dis-satisfaction amongst the hardliners, such as yourself, with the pace of implementation of enforcement or the effectiveness/ineffectiveness, in preventing illegal entry, the added enforcement might have at any particular time during the gradual implementation. In other words, an enforcement only solution will not satisfy you.
please ping me if you find it.
However, if they are payed by a gov. subsidised farmer to grow crops at an artificially high price, are they creating net value?
Well .. I have an Hispanic daughter-in-law who has a very large family. They came here the legal way and have been productive as citizens of America.
They do not want amnesty for illegals. And .. I think you'll find the majority of Hispanics do not want it either.
So I don't agree there will be a backlash - I believe the GOP needs to do what's right and not what's POLITICALLY CORRECT.
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.