Tamar Jacoby: Open borders/servant class labor shill.
Posted on 07/10/2006 2:54:41 PM PDT by sinkspur
Congress may be surprised when its public hearings on immigration energize all of us moderate Americans
The immigration bills passed by the House and Senate in recent months could hardly be more different. The House package is harsh, punitive and focused exclusively on tougher enforcement. The Senate bill balances toughness with pragmatism by including provisions to admit the workers we need to keep our economy growing and deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country.
The prospect of reconciling the two bills has always looked difficult – the legislative equivalent of marrying a giraffe and a hippopotamus. As part of their maneuvering for position, House Republicans declared that they wouldn't even negotiate until they had held a series of special hearings on immigration, which started last week in San Diego and Laredo. And despite signs of softening recently, even hints of possible agreement on a phased solution, the House still has gone ahead with its hearings. Yet this, I believe, may not be such a bad thing.
Why would I say that? After all, the details on the hearings leave little doubt about the House's intentions: to look tough and – let's put it charitably – skeptical about immigration, both legal and illegal. Many sessions are scheduled for border states, where frustration about illegal immigration runs highest. And they will address such subjects as retroactive Social Security benefits for illegal immigrants, whether state and local law enforcement should be empowered to arrest illegal immigrants without other cause, whether existing border enforcement is tough enough, and English as the official language – all subjects guaranteed to rub raw the public's irritation.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Tamar Jacoby: Open borders/servant class labor shill.
The President and many leaders in Congress are considering several different proposals for immigration reform. If Congress was considering legislation which would do the following to create an earned legalization program:
--Provide resources to greatly increase border security,
--Impose much tougher penalties on employers who hire illegal workers,
--Allow additional foreign workers to come to the United States to work for a temporary period,
--Create a system in which illegal immigrants could come forward and register, pay a fine, and receive a temporary worker permit,
--Provide these temporary workers with a multi-year path to earned citizenship, if they get to the end of the line and meet certain requirements like living crime free, learning English, paying taxes.
Note the use of positive language here. Also, there is no mention of other key and odious aspects of the Senate Bill, such as tax forgiveness for two of five years and allowing Social Security to be collected.
And now, let's see the other push question (emphasis will be mine):
13 Now, thinking about a DIFFERENT proposal for immigration reform…
This legislation would do only the following: Tighten the borders, Put tougher penalties on employers and workers who violate immigration laws, Create an expanded guest worker program that allows people to work here only temporarily, and Most current illegal immigrants would never be eligible for citizenship.
Note the negaive "only. And nowhere is the key difference between the two bills mentioned - enforcement first for the House version, enforcement someday for the Senate. I wonder how much the numbers would have changed if that had been part of the two survey questions? I think we all know the answer to that one. In reading this guy's columns, he's a shill for the pro-open borders interests.
I also notice that the MI doesn't have the results of that poll on their website.
Where did you get the poll questions? It's not available at the MI website.
Tamar is a female, and you are saying that likely GOP voters are too dopey to understand the difference between the House and Senate plans, so Torrance and Lake have to dupe them into favoring the Senate bill.
I've noticed something, dirt. In the vast majority of polls which show that the American voters favor some sort of guest worker program and even citizenship, in addition to enforcement, the usual response around here is "the polls were rigged."
However, the one or two polls (both funded by organizations that oppose both legal and illegal immigration) which show a slight plurality favoring enforcement only are taken as gospel.
My take (and it is reflected in this poll) is that about a quarter of voters will be influenced by a candidate's position on immigration.
The other 75% will vote on national security and not give a second thought to immigration. Notice that, in this Torrance-Lake poll, immigration is seven out of nine in terms of issues important to likely voters.
I clearly noted how they used favorable language for the Senate bill and negative language for the House bill, while omitting key aspects of both, to get the results they wanted. Read if for yourself, sink, and tell me that the two questions were not seriously slanted.
In the vast majority of polls which show that the American voters favor some sort of guest worker program and even citizenship, in addition to enforcement, the usual response around here is "the polls were rigged."
Which careful analysis usually indicates. Like what I did here.
However, the one or two polls (both funded by organizations that oppose both legal and illegal immigration) which show a slight plurality favoring enforcement only are taken as gospel.
I take those with a grain of salt as well. But a poll cited by NRO, which is pretty centrist in the conservative movement, and which used clear and neutral language to differentiate the opposing positions, the GOP came out overwhelmingly for enforcement first.
he other 75% will vote on national security and not give a second thought to immigration.
I think the pols will be surprised about the impact of immigration in November. But we'll have to wait and see for that.
Thanks to both. The flash presentation doesn't work very well, though.
Public policy experts agree that there are at least 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. There are currently many proposals about how to handle this problem. I would like to read you several proposals. For each one, please tell me if you would favor or oppose this proposal.
And then the options. Note which ones are worded negatively and which ones are worded positively:
“Enforcing our current laws so harshly and strictly that illegal immigrants would eventually just go home because no jobs would be available.”
“Creating a program in which illegal immigrants could earn legal status as a foreign worker, but
“Deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants by any means necessary.”
Nah, no bias here.
“Tightening security on the borders and enacting stricter penalties on illegal immigrants and employers who hire illegal immigrants.”
“Only enforcing our current laws should be enough to resolve this problem.”
“Creating an earned legalization program in which illegal immigrants could earn legal status and eventual citizenship by working, paying taxes, learning English, and waiting their turn behind people in their home countries who are already waiting in line for visas.”
Nah, no bias whatsoever.
There is no question that the House bill, with its classification of illegals as felons, is much harsher than the Senate version.
And, I agree with Jacoby that the hearings are not going to roust up additional support for the House bill.
In fact, nobody is paying them much attention from what I can see.
Enforcement only IS much harsher than enforcement plus a guest worker program. Mike Pence has realized that and put forth an alternative.
The house bill was passed last december. That was before the open border people got organized. I believe that a large number of house members that voted for the house bill, can't wait to vote against it.
If the house were firmly behind Hastert on illegal immigration he would not need to hold hearings to increase support for the house bill.
They are going to pass something very close to the Senate bill. It will not take much longer to get it done.
Once it is done Illegal Immigration will drop off the news cycle to disappear into the no longer covered stories bin?
Don't believe me?
I have just two words for you:
""Why would I say that? After all, the details on the hearings leave little doubt about the House's intentions: to look tough and – let's put it charitably – skeptical about immigration, both legal and illegal.""
Ah, Bolten-esque "momentum" building plugged with little lies like it's about "legal" immigration. Jacoby is one of the wage depression lobby's paid mouthpieces.
As for English as an official language, no, that was Bush/Bolten/Rove who first brought that up first. Thought that was enough of a sop for their "base", or how they think the "base" thinks.
My guess is that internal polling has shown a backlash by legal Hispanics over the rhetoric coming out of the Tancredo wing. The GOP cannot afford to completely lose another minority group to the dems.
Bolten and Rove have been flaunting one push poll after another.
With North Korea and Iraq in the news, the focus has shifted to national security, which tends to make all other issues pale in comparison.
I'm beginning to believe that the voters--who have never put illegal immigration in the top five issues of concern to them--wouldn't even notice if the whole discussion about immigration just faded away.
Not at all. The hearings keeps the issue in the public eye, and is aimed squarely at democrat house seats up for re-election in border states. That the debates bother senate open border republicans is a side issue.
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.