Posted on 08/30/2006 4:50:28 AM PDT by RKV
The New York Times front page profile on my friend, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), "Star of the Right Loses His Base at the Border," is really all about the anti-immigration, far-right group led by Tom Tancredo of Colorado to oppose any broad-based immigration reform whatsoever--and to label any proposals for temporary workers, or even Pence's 17 year citizenship path, as "amnesty."
This word "amnesty" is being used to attack absolutely any conceivable immigration compromise. I could go on forever on this subject. I have written several columns on it. But at the end of the day, the Tancredo crowd, which includes Pat Buchanan, just wants border security to keep out immigrants.
They also want to deport all illegal or undocumented immigrants. "Border security" and "deportation" are their watchwords. They manage to completely ignore the economics of the problem, whereby Mexicans seeking higher paying jobs in the U.S. rather than the faltering Mexican economy can produce are coming here to work. After all, living conditions in the U.S. are a lot better for all but the richest people than they are in Mexico.
If we ever deported the 10-15 million undocumented workers, then the U.S. economy would be severely damaged. New studies show the Mexicans actually help the U.S. economy and wages actually rise overall, (though there are small losses in border town wages). Even unskilled American workers benefit from lower priced goods and services generated by these new Mexican worker-immigrants.
Pat Buchanan attacks me as "worshipping at the church of GDP." But in a CNBC Kudlow and Company interview, I reminded him that I also worship at the church of Catholic Mass, as do the vast majority of the Mexican immigrants. These faith-based folks would create a new blue-collar middle class that is sorely needed in this country if we let them.
They would also finance Social Security over the next fifty years. Though it should be noted that academic research shows that 2/3rds of them pay Social Security with phony ID cards and will never receive the benefit as matters now stand. And, of course, they pay the sales tax on whatever purchases they make in stores.
The problem will never be solved unless we legally permit roughly 400,000 per year to fill the demand for U.S. jobs that are currently available. This resembles the Bracero Program and it must be part of any solution. It's just plain common sense that at any given productivity rate, a larger labor force generates more GDP growth to the benefit of the U.S. economy. During the high tide of immigration, over the past twenty years, the U.S. has enjoyed unrivaled prosperity at low unemployment. So, again, I ask, if immigration is so bad, then why are things so good?
Yes, there should be tough border security. Yes, there should be foolproof ID cards, with biometrics, for Social Security and employment purposes. Former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming, the co-author of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform bill, has said the failure of that bill was a function of the lack of an ID card system.
But the intransigence of the Tancredo-Buchanan crowd is a remarkable political event which is all out of kilter with poll after poll that shows a substantial majority of respondents favor broad based immigration reform.
If these guys win, the Republican Party loses, and the nation loses. Unlike the big countries of Western Europe and Japan, the U.S. benefits from immigration that keeps our population rising. (In fact, harking back to the Catholic Mass, roughly 45 million unborn children have been killed since the abortion wave was launched by Roe v. Wade in the early 1970's. We have an opportunity to replace this extraordinary loss of human life with hard headed but compassionate and economically sound immigration reform).
Incidentally, I wrote the article for Human Events when that newspaper awarded Congressman Pence its "2005 Man of the Year" award. I know Mike. The man is a wonderful, Reagan-thinking conservative. His life is governed by religious values, a belief in a strong national defense, and a pro-growth approach to low taxes and less government spending.
This Tancredo-Buchanan backstabbing does this rising GOP star a great disservice. If allowed to go unanswered, it would represent another devastating blow to the Republican Party.
While the Pence-Hutchinson immigration reform idea is not perfect, it does represent a useful discussion point for future action. As diplomatically and kindly as possible, with all the greatest respect for differing points of view, let me just say that the Tancredo-Buchanan attack on Mike Pence is nuttier than a fruitcake.
"Mexico Fox to Usher in New Prez"
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BEA0CB7C8-38E6-4811-87C6-B1D47AD5A46C%7D)&language=EN
Oops never mind, I thought it was a news story about G.W.'s new retirement job!
Interesting. Thanks for the ping.
We have bigger problems than an Immigration BIll:
Congressman presses on 'superstate' plan
Asks Bush administration to fully disclose its activities
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala.
A congressman is pressing the Department of Commerce to fully disclose a congressionally unauthorized plan to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that critics say could lead to a North American union.
Referring to an attached letter from a constituent, Rogers wrote to Gutierrez:
Judging by information contained in this letter, a number of legitimate concerns are raised regarding the implementation and operation of the SPP, including the membership and charge of its working groups; potential memoranda of understanding with foreign countries; and whether there has been any Congressional oversight of these working group, to name a few.
Rogers concluded by asking Gutierrez for a prompt review of the issues and for a response "as soon as possible."
The attached constituent letter was written by Eunie Smith, president of Eagle Forum of Alabama and by Bob Couch. They posed the following questions to Rogers:
What is the membership of the 30 SPP working groups?
What is the charge/working agenda of each of the 30 SPP working groups?
Please provide to me any trilateral memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada.
Please provide findings, reports and presentations of the working groups.
Under what congressional action are these working groups constituted?
What congressional oversight is there of this process?
Are the working groups redefining American laws to make them tri-lateral?
What specific plans are there for reporting to Congress?
The constituents' letter also suggested four lines of inquiry should congressional hearings be convened to examine SPP working group activities:
Is the sovereignty of the United States threatened since it has been reported that a North American court and a parliamentary body are being proposed, complete with the "Amero" to replace the U.S. dollar?
Wouldn't an "outer security perimeter" remove the capacity of policing our borders from the hands of United States citizens?
Isn't "harmonizing entry screening and visa and asylum regulations" code for a quantum leap in liberalizing our country's immigration laws?
What about the May 2005 CFR Task Force documents calling for a "seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico" and for a "permanent tribunal for North American dispute regulation," as well as calling for allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the U.S.
The constituents' letter also attached a copy of a July 2005 article by Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly entitled, "The Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada."
Schlafly was one of the first analysts and commentators to question the purpose of SPP. In her article, she wrote that the Council on Foreign Relations task force report entitled "Building a North American Community" let the "cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries."
Schlafly argued the CFR task force report "spells out a five-year plan for the 'establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community' with a common 'outer security perimeter.'"
She commented:
This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin 'committed their governments' to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
Rogers' letter to Gutierrez supports a demand for information made last month by Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
Smith, on behalf of Eagle Forum of Alabama, told WND she is "very pleased" with Rogers' commitment to inquire into the SPP operations.
Must be?
MUST be?
Why?
Mike Pence was interviewed on a local radio station here in Dallas yesterday. He is a very reasonable guy. All of us are fortunate to have such alevel headed gentleman in the House.
But what if it is true?
So what?
No one can make a case that the US needs immigrants AT ALL.
IF we do, we should be selecting those, from all over the world, who have a positive contribution to make to our society.
I'd be fine with banning ALL immigration - I see no reason for any.
But if there is to be any, let's at a minimum have the immigrants show proven value before they come.
What's so wrong with that?
If a person has broken the law, violated our sovereign borders, stolen public services, committed fraud and any other number of illegal acts to come, live, and work here ILLEGALLY they should not ever be rewarded with ANYTHING other than quick deportation, fines, penalties, and possibly a jail cell.
Here here!!!
A Sovereign United States of America or North American Union?
On March 23, 2005, Presidents George Bush, Vicente Fox of Mexico and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada issued a joint statement announcing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).
In May 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) issued a task force report entitled Building a North American Community to provide specific advice on how the partnership [SPP] can be pursued and realized. It calls for:
· a common security perimeter by 2010
· a North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers
· a freer flow of people within North America/full labor mobility
· trinational ballistics and explosives registration
· increase[d] information and intelligence sharing
in both law enforcement and military organizations
· a North American Investment Fund for essential infrastructure and educational projects in Mexico
· a North American energy and emissions regime with a tradable voucher system for emissions
· moving beyond the confines of current legislative and regulatory frameworks to regulatory convergence
· a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution
capable of
establishing precedent
· a trinational competition commission - continental anti-trust agency - to address harmful subsidy practices
· open skies and open roads, allowing North American transportation firms unlimited access to each others territory
· a North American Education Program
Is our federal government taking this report seriously?
· It is on a U. S. Embassy website. (http://www.usembassycanada.gov/content/can_usa/northamericancommunity_TF_final.pdf )
· It was the subject of a friendly hearing held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 9, 2005.
· Vice-Chair of the Task Force and principal editor of the report, Robert Pastor was invited to address North American policy by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the US House International Relations Committee, and the Canadian House of Commons. He was an advisor to every Democratic Presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter, and was nominated by President Bill Clinton to be ambassador to Panama.
· Many of Pastors proposals from his 2001 book Toward a North American Community, his other statements, and the Task Force Report are already being implemented:
o CFR member Rep. Katherine Harris sponsored H.R.2672 to enact many proposals in the CFR Task Force Report including creating a common security perimeter around the US, Canada and Mexico; promoting the flow of people and goods across our borders; international technical and biometric standards for travel documents; sharing information and intelligence by law enforcement and the military; and development assistance to Mexicos economy. Sen. Richard Lugars S.853 is very similar.
o Sens. John Cornyn and Norm Coleman sponsored S. 3622, the North American Investment Fund Act, to construct roads in Mexico and improve the quality of
education in Mexico.
o New highway corridors linking the three North American countries, and high-speed rail corridors are being built (the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor with passenger car, truck and high-speed rail lanes).
o International merger of railroads (the NAFTA Railway formed by the merger of Kansas City Southern and Transportacion Ferroviaria Mexicana)
o A trinational competition commission was formed (the North American Competitiveness Council).
o A North American identity is being promoted by government agencies and big foundations.
· President Bush has evidenced agreement with the report ever since he took office in 2001:
o In February 2001, he and Mexican President Fox jointly endorsed the Guanajuato Proposal, which read, After consultation with our Canadian Partners, we will strive to consolidate a North American economic community
o In April 2001, at the Organization of American States Summit of the Americas, he signed the Quebec Declaration calling for the integration of the Americas.
o He has refused to respond to intense public and Congressional pressure to control our borders.
o His joint statement with the leaders of Canada and Mexico announcing the SPP and the very limited information that has been available since are certainly consistent with the Task Force Report.
Which other CFR proposals are being planned by working groups that are now implementing the SPP - the harmonization of laws and regulatory policies, a North American ID card, a common currency (the Amero)? Why is there no public debate? Do our leaders agree with Robert Pastor that national sovereignty is an outdated conception?
Margaret Brown, Policy Director, Eagle Forum of Alabama,
As I said, people should look at his plan and if there are parts where they disagree, they should cite cite those parts and say why. It is not necessary to call him a traitor, snake, or other vile name.
What problem is Pence talking about? That our borders are porous? 400000 a year won't fix that. That we have unemployed Americans? 400000 won't fix that. That we have high school kids who sit on their butts all summer doing nothing productive, gaining no basic work experience? 400000 won't solve that either. Oh, I think I get it, he says that employers have a problem hiring cheap labor, then dumping the social costs on the rest of the public?! 400000 will only make that worse.
I agree with you that reagan made a mistake: and my point is that this doesn't make him ANY less a great leader, President, and Man! The same goes for the Hon. Rep Mike Pence!
Precisely. And all the while, the Rudy Guliani Noo Yawk Liberal Shill Brigade fawns over a LIBERAL as the alleged Republican 'front runner'.
That is just plain tedious.
Of course, the MSM wouldn't be trying to muck things up now, would they?
While it may not matter to you, Pence still has the only plan that's workable in both Houses of Congress.
The immigration issue is not top of mind to the vast majority of Americans.
It is a fringe issue, and will remain a fringe 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.