Posted on 11/14/2006 10:05:58 AM PST by Checkers
As soon as the House and Senate GOP have their leadership teams in place, and soon after the lame duck session ends, the 250 House and Senate members should repair to a conference center somewhere for a long conversation on illegal immigration leading to a consensus position. Certainly there will be outliers, but an ongoing bloodletting over the issue is the only major obstacle in the path to return to majority status. An ongoing focus on the issue is found at Powerline, and though I am unwilling to simply credit Tamar Jacoby's take on the subject, she is generally correct that the issue of illegal immigration did not deliver a wave of support for GOP candidates who thought it would.
I have been a skeptic of the power of the issue based on last fall's special election in which Congressman John Campbell easily bested Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist depsite national focus on and support for Gilchrist by the anti-illegal immigration movement. Once the promise of border security was delivered via the fence legislation, the issue lost a great deal of its pull because border security is primarily what the center-right wanted. Regularization of the nation's millions of illegals along common-sense lines such should follow the fence's construction --or at least robust beginning of construction. If the GOP avoids plainly inequitable proposals such as the grant of social security benefits for the wages earned while illegally in the country or a path to citizenship for those who do not return first to their home countries, the comprehensive legislation can be worked out quickly.
And it should be, but the construction of the fence is a very big deal. It is a symbol of seriousness about border security, and also a symbol or responsiveness to the demands of the electorate. The fencing is something the voters want to see done, and done soon. Their demand was met rhetorically, and now it has to be fulfilled in reality.
I think many Republicans fail to understand just how significant the fence is, and of the crucial necessity that the Adminstration get it underway and soon. There should be a point man or woman at DHS --accountable to Secretary Chertoff-- and a very public, very transparent accounting of where the fence is going and how much has been constructed. Delays due to excessive planning will be interpreted as feet-dragging, and a bait-and-switch in the making.
Advocates of regularization should recognize this dynamic as well. If the fence goes up and genuine border security emerges, the public will support rational regularization. But if Democrats attempt to spike the fence or the Adminstration attempts to pass off 100 miles as a down payment on 700, the issue will flare again. "Virtual" fencing gets zero credit from the public. They have been promised the real deal, and seeing will be believing.
If the Adminstration cannot get a few hundred miles of double fencing in place in a matter of months, it will invite the sort of withering and constant criticism from the anti-illegal immigration absolutists that will drain support from a comprehensive approach. My conversation on the fence with Tony Snow on Thursday last was not what I expected, but hopefully the DHS is getting its act together quickly and will have the transparency in place soon.
Sorry Hugh, there's not gonna be a fence. Doesn't fit into the "global plan" of the CFR.
"We are certainly heading for a civil war, on many levels."
When it comes to illegal immigration, know thy enemy, lest we forget which side of the issue our government is on. They did nada, not a thing, to prevent or stop 500,000 to 1,000,000 from shutting down LA, let alone the other major cities across the country. It happened more than once and was not unanticipated.
http://www.mexica-movement.org/granmarchapart2.htm
There will eventually be a FINO (fence in name only), but neither party is going to take any meaningful steps to protect our southern border. Border security will either be carried out by private citizens or it won't occur. Both major parties clearly want illegal immigration to continue and both major parties want amnesty. That and spending as much of our money as possible as quickly as possible are the only two points on which both parties enthusiastically agree.
each day 13 Americans are killed by illegal aliens driving drunk. Many more are seriously, permanently injured
... ... ... ... ... ...
The cost is GREAT !
I did send some money down to Graf, wish it could have been more... yes, you are correct. We should be making direct campaign contributions. Look at the other RNC casualty -- Katherine Harris.
One more reason I don't like the squishy Hugh Hewitt.
"As soon as the House and Senate GOP have their leadership teams in place, and soon after the lame duck session ends, the 250 House and Senate members should repair to a conference center somewhere for a long conversation on illegal immigration leading to a consensus position. Certainly there will be outliers, but an ongoing bloodletting over the issue is the only major obstacle in the path to return to majority status. An ongoing focus on the issue is found at Powerline, and though I am unwilling to simply credit Tamar Jacoby's take on the subject, she is generally correct that the issue of illegal immigration did not deliver a wave of support for GOP candidates who thought it would."
It is true that immigration is a wedge issue.
It is also a trust issue.
Tamar Jacoby is *NOT* an unbaised observer, but a minion of the open-borders lobby.
There does need to be GOP-based consensus, but it cannot happen by having elites dictate that 'consensus' to the voters.
Look at AZ English-only prop.
"This is why the GOP should listen to Michael Savage and not Hugh Hewitt. As soon as the border bill passed, Savage was on the air to warn listeners not to take it seriously until it was funded."
SaVage, who gave money to Democrats like Waxman to win the election, are *oh* so helpful! (/sarc)
I am beginning to think he's a mole.
"This is why the GOP should listen to Michael Savage and not Hugh Hewitt. As soon as the border bill passed, Savage was on the air to warn listeners not to take it seriously until it was funded. Then the next day, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Aztlan) said that the bill was only symbolic and "would never be funded". Only superficial thinkers like Hewitt thought the issue died with the fence bill. Minuteman supporters and true anti-illegal conservatives were not fooled by this posturing. We knew that without funding attatched, the bill was a cynical attempt to buy our votes."
I know that
a) there is truth to what you say
b) Hugh is trying to repair the 'broken fence' of immigration and is correct in looking to compromise
c) the open-borders lobby will mis-represent the results of the election in their eagerness to gloss over the real problems here
d) The fundamental healer is TRUST. That trust will be broken by Democrats anyway but GOP can gain points by standing behind the fence idea.
e) The failure to support House Republicans is the worst possible outcome on immigration. they were the one thing holding back amnesty. BOHICA.
"70% of the electorate opposes illegal alien floods. "
Then why did they vote for the pro-amnesty Democrat party?
The illegal vote will be more significant than the legal vote long term.
Given Americans lack the will to even construct a symbolic fence much less deport, the illegal population will become permanant residents.
According to NumbersUSA, who I trust on immigration much more than I trust Hugh Hewitt on anything:
11.5% of all Republican seats in Congress were lost as Democrats took back control of Congress,
but only 6.7% of the Members of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats.
While 9.6% of Republicans with a NumbersUSA A grade lost,
25.0% with an F grade lost.
Immigration control did not take the Republicans down, far from it. The insane, tarbaby nation building Iraq policy, corruption, and big spending took them down. Don't buy the Hewitt kool-aid or 2008 could be a disaster even bigger than 2006. (Wasn't this the guy who was saying on election eve that the Republicans were going to do very well?)
States and communities all across the country are taking immigration control measures because of the unwillingness of Bush and Congress to act. This is and will continue to be a big grassroots issue that the Republicans will abandon at their peril.
Now what do you think conservatives are going to do with the 5 million + American citizens whose parents are in the country illegally?
"The illegal vote will be more significant than the legal vote long term."
As it is in CA.
My tagline says I'm skeptical...
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.