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.
Says who? How quickly did the TSA come into existence, with its 60,000 employees? Virtually overnight. And this was building a department from scratch, not simply adding on to an existing department. All it takes is political will.
well, all I can say is that if there really was evidence that within the hispanic american population - that the opinion of your daughter-in-law was in the strong majority - we wouldn't be where we are right now. I am just talking about the political aspect of this right now - I wish what you were saying were true, but it can't be, the Dems wouldn't be so solidly behind this, and the Rs wouldn't be so splintered.
"if the US were to create a liberal guest worker program, there would be no demand for illegals."
But a liberal guest worker program is nothing but a full amnesty. And since no illegal in their right mind would enter a strict guest worker program (to be taxed, identified, located, minimum waged, ohsha's, etc), what you get is any guest worker program will in the end be equivalent to amnesty.
Have your calculations taken into account how many of them would vote Democrat regardless?
"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."
True, but very little of the value stays in our economy if it is sent to Mexico.
I know my information is anecdotal, but that doesn't make it false.
I've heard lots of callers on several types of talk shows that say the same thing.
I am not challenging what you are saying.
all I am saying is - there is a disconnect somewhere, because when you look at how this is lining up politically - the Dems are 100% convinced that supporting guest workers/amnesty is going to improve their position amongst hispanic american voters, and the Rs are being pushed to the breaking point worrying about losing the support within that block they currently have.
You're assuming that the only reason for this mess has to do with the views Hispanic voters. I think there's something much more to it than that. I think that politicians prefer to have their constituencies Balkanized. They're much easier to manipulate that way. They don't want Americans who care about the Constitution and the principles of this country. They want voters they can lead around with base promises of instant gratification.
Then there are those who want an EU-style merger of the continent. That's a powerful force in Washington as well.
http://www.aztlan.net/
This site says it all...know thine enemy!
I can't disagree with you - those forces are at work. but there is also a short term/limited outlook calculation being made here - and its obvious that the Dems believe they can garner higher levels of hispanic american support, by opposing tougher border controls and embracing the senate bill.
Sure, we'll get our fence: it'll span the southern border from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico in all it's one-foot high glory.
Among whom, specifically? I know that they've made gains among Hispanics, but I've never seen any breakdown further than that, as to whether the gains have been among recent arrivals versus those with a long ancestry in the U.S. I think Rich Lowry's insight that I posted at #42 looks like a very good explanation for political trends. Hispanics have tended to be poor, and poor people tend to vote Democrat. As Hispanics start to do better economically (which has certainly been happening over the last decade or two), it's only natural that more of them will vote Republican.
But recent arrivals, and their relatives, are still more likely to be among the lower-income Hispanics.
I didn't thinkyou were challenging me .. and I realize that one family does not a consensus make.
However, I wish the repubs would just do the right thing and stop using politics to measure every move they make - like the dems do.
Its all in black and white.
The new border agents will be hired incrementally
It will take years to build the fence
Under employee verification, existing employees won't be checked til year 6.
Again, I don't know how obvious it is that that's the reason for their behavior. I think they're just doing what Democrats do, same as when they vote for more welfare or other social liberalism. It's just their natural ideology.
If you're talking about bills actually pending before Congress, it may be in "black and white", but it's certainly not in stone.
How much progress have they made on the few miles of fence in California.
I doubt that they can implement verification on schedule. The pilot program, with few employers participating, has a 15% failure rate.
Dick is being an idiot.
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.