Posted on 11/19/2006 4:43:19 PM PST by Reagan Man
The idea is spreading that this month’s Republican electoral defeat somehow represented voter rejection of the enforcement-first approach to immigration championed by the House Republican leadership, and meant, instead, voter endorsement of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy approach that would amnesty (or “legalize”) the illegal aliens already here and double or triple future legal immigration.
This notion is so colossally wrong only a senator could believe it.
Kyl Won, DeWine Lost
Sen. Mel Martinez (R.-Fla.), that is. The presumptive general chairman of the Republican National Committee is peddling this ludicrous pro-amnesty spin, joined by a number of other politicians and journalists. Martinez told the Washington Times: “I think we have to understand that the election did speak to one issue, and that was that it’s not about bashing people, it’s about presenting a hopeful face. … Border security only, enforcement only, harshness only is not the message that I believe America wants to convey.”
Even before the election, the pro-amnesty crowd was preparing a full-blown disinformation campaign. Immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes blamed the then-coming Republican defeat in part on Congress’ failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration. “But imagine,” Barnes wrote, “if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’—Mr. Bush’s word—immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria was practically quivering in anticipation: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
“Angry band of xenophobes”? “Nativist diehards”? That’s you and me, folks.
After Election Day, the name-calling continued. Tamar Jacoby of the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute used her entrée at the Weekly Standard to denounce “far-right” groups she said were motivated by “xenophobia” and engaging in “demagoguery” over this “wedge issue.” She sounded an awful lot like a Democrat complaining about, say, the defense of traditional marriage. The Wall Street Journal, of course, cackled at “Immigration Losers” and warned against following immigration controllers “down the garden path of defeat.”
The open-borders crowd scavenged for results they hoped would confirm their pre-packaged conclusions. A favorite was the defeat of two Republican immigration hawks running for the House in Arizona, incumbent Rep. J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, who was seeking liberal Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe’s seat. The problem with pointing to these results as proof of the public’s support for the Bush-McCain-Kennedy “comprehensive” amnesty plan is that the very same voters overwhelmingly approved four good ballot measures related to immigration: denying bail to illegals, barring illegals from winning punitive damages in civil suits, prohibiting illegals from receiving certain state subsidies for education and day care, and declaring English the state’s official language. Clearly, the actual policy issue of immigration control remained hugely popular and, while Hayworth’s opponent endorsed a guest-worker program, he explicitly said on his campaign website, “Secure Our Border and Stop Illegal Immigration,” “Hold employers accountable for whom they hire,” and, “I oppose amnesty and will not support it.” Hardly a Bush echo.
Searching elsewhere for some ammunition, amnesty proponents pointed to the defeats in Colorado of Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez and Republican House aspirant Rick O’Donnell as proof that the public is with them. What they don’t mention is that Colorado voters approved two tough initiatives: one to deny the tax deductibility of wages paid to illegals and another requiring the state’s attorney general to sue the federal government over non-enforcement of the immigration laws.
In the anti-Republican storm, both hawks and doves were affected. Immigration-control stalwarts such as Republican Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana were washed away, but so was Republican Senate amnesty co-sponsor Mike DeWine of Ohio. On the other hand, nationally known immigration hawks such as Republican Representatives Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin enjoyed easy re-election, as did Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, an immigration dove.
The pro-amnesty crowd has yet to explain why, if the public is with them, no candidates made a main part of their campaigns their support for legalizing illegal aliens and admitting millions of additional foreign workers. The only exception was Jim Pederson, the Democrat running against Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona. Pederson not only championed the President’s amnesty/guest-worker plan, but lauded the 1986 amnesty disaster as well. Unsurprisingly, he was defeated.
Some smarter—winning—Democrats actually had very tough immigration positions, explicitly endorsing an enforcement-first approach. For instance, Brad Ellsworth (who defeated Hostettler in Indiana) said: “We need to tighten our borders, enforce the laws we have and punish employers who break them.” Sen.-elect Claire McCaskill of Missouri expressed similar views, as did Sen.-elect Jon Tester of Montana and Jason Altmire, who was elected to the House from Pennsylvania.
Regardless of the facts, if the “amnesty mandate” myth takes root, the consequences could be dire. We’re already seeing its effects, with President Bush’s saying the day after the election that immigration is an area “where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats.” Martinez’s selection as RNC chairman is particularly disturbing in this context, because he didn’t just vote for the Senate amnesty, he actually wrote the final version. His Hagel-Martinez bill (S 2611) passed in May, despite the opposition of a majority of his fellow Republicans in the Senate—and it was dismissed out of hand by virtually all House Republicans.
Preventing the acceptance of the open-border crowd’s fairy-tale version of the election is imperative—both to stymie next year’s Bush/Democrat efforts to pass the amnesty and to preserving opportunities for future Congresses and Presidents to actually address this pressing issue in a constructive fashion.
I haven't really looked it over but here's a chart of wins and losses.
In the primary we got rid of a pro amnesty RINO congressman and replaced him with an anti amnesty conservative who won in the general election. That's Tim Walberg who was one of very few endorsed by the Minuteman PAC.
http://www.numbersusa.com/hottopic/results2006.html
Not at all. But we should allow in whatever number that it takes to fill the jobs. Our unemployment rate is at nearly an all-time low, particularly in the border states, so there is no rational to keep people out. Attempting to keep people out who have a proven ability to get and keep jobs is the black market that our broken laws have created.
These people are going to be here, whether your or J.D. Heyworth likes it or not. So we'd best deal with them by IDing them, teaching them english, and pushing them to assimilate. As long as they stay in the black market, that will not happen, as we have seen.
The United States admits between 700,000 and 900,000 legal immigrants each year. It's not "impossible", it's just time consuming.
No.
How about taking that idea all the way home:
Make EVERYTHING legal and that way there would no longer be any crime.
Does Mexico have any responsibility in this debate?
Ok. Go arrest all 12 million illegals tomorrow. Where you going to put them? How are you going to feed them? How will you find workers to fill the jobs they now hold?
You're in a dream land.
Every person living in this country has broken laws. According to your logic, we should rigidly pursue and punish to the fullest extent every single citizen.
But that just isn't the way it works and I'm darn glad that it doesn't.
It's not like we are dealing with a bunch of peasants here ~ no we are not ~ they're smart and slick and aggressive.
You can't compromise with them.
I should have read the thread. Look at post #29. It gives you a list of the new members. I just checked the last name Yarmuth, a Dem, and googled him. Guess what, he is against illegal immigration. LOL. I'll check this list out tomorrow.
Yeah...maybe we should offer to copy their rigid laws regarding immigrants. Mexico wants us to do what they would never dream of.
I remember reading a post about Mexican immigration law and they'd scream bloody murder if we ever proposed such laws.
Yeah, to dump all its poor and disheveled into the US while it can.
And you think that it would be realistic to recreate a three thousand mile Berlin Wall across open deserts? Guarded by how many troops?
My point is that the border will be crossed. Right now, many illegals cross over every season. Should we lock the border much tighter, they will stay here year-round. You think that's a good idea?
That seems to be your solution and it seriously lowers my assessment of your ability to process information.
Hayworth, a six-term incumbent representing Scottsdale, Tempe and parts of Mesa, Phoenix and Chandler, was dogged all year by ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Forti added that when he mentioned Hayworth’s “scandal factor” he meant that by election day, Democrats and others had successfully painted the Republican as a candidate entrenched in political wrongdoing.
----snip----
http://www.loftydonkey.com/article/149/gop-spokesman-hayworth-lost-race
Most all the Democrats ran on illegal immigration enforcement. All were moderates or so called "conservative democrats".
You aren't going to convince anyone around here that illegal immigration is not a strong issue.
Why did Arizona pass 4 initiatives against illegals with a 70% margin?
Why are municipalities all over the country passing ordinances against illegals?
So you worked for free?
Even assuming your motivations were totally pure, don't tell me that if laws were passed tomorrow that made INS unneccessary that all INS employees would joyfully go home happy with the situation.
Your views on border issues are interesting. But I will keep it in mind that you have (or had?) a vested interest in keeping border issues in tension.
The Belin Wall was meant to keep people inside the Iron Curtain. Construction of a wall on the southern border with Mexico would be a defensive barrier to keep people out of the USA. Its part of our national security and something that should have been built right after 9-11. With a wall like the Israeli`s built on their western border, it wouldn't take any US troops to help in the operation. Just triple the size of the Border Patrol and the manpower will be available.
So then there is no border problem. Everyone who wants in, gets in. Right?
And please tell me how nancy pelosi's election helps their cause?
I can't help it if these voters cut off their nose to spite their face.
So, where is it you come down on this? Everyone should be in jail, or no one? Obviously you want one extreem or the other.
Yeah... we're solving their poverty, homelessness, etc. problems on the backs of our own citizens and some of our "leaders" like McCain think this is ok because there might be a vote or two in there.
After all of this, I'm starting to get a better realization of why we fought the Revolutionary War.
How many more years of thwarting the voters' decisions (especially by the courts) and twisting them by the politicians will it take before the next one?
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.