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.
BTW. If the Feds enforced the employer sanctions contained in Reagan's Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, illegal workers would be left with no alternative choice but to leave the US and return to where they can find steady work.
Sure. But are you saying that just because Mexico avoids their responsibilties, that we should too? Particularly in this case, where we are the one's damaged, and Mexico gains a huge windfall of money flowing into their country.
We are going to have to fix this problem, or it won't be fixed. 700 miles of fence is a joke, and that's the *most* anyone can hope for in the way of enforcement out of Washington. So now what?
Of course there is. We have no border security. That's a problem.
Everyone who wants in, gets in. Right? If they're willing to wait their turn they might.
Where's the guarantee the US will allow in any and everyone who wants to come? It doesn’t exist. So those who don't want to try through legal channels should ignore the law end enter anyway? In your world, apparently.
If you're going to thwart the will of the people, and amnesty is NOT the will of the people, then you seem to suggest that breaking the law is somehow good.
Dream on.
Try to gather a little logic and think it through.
So you want "more of the same", which is all that silly fence is.
We need to take another direction. Bush proposed what is probably the best option (not a *good* option, but the *best* that was achievable) and hard core conservatives spit in his face.
And we lost the election.
The best bet for us, and the world, and the Mexicans, is to regularlize the process, and that involves the Mexicans and other illegals returning to their homes first.
Anything less than that is a disaster and will breed enmity for generations.
BTW, that makes us the Liberals and you the hard-core nutcases on the right.
*Your* proposal. Not mine.
That seems to be your solution and it seriously lowers my assessment of your ability to process information.
Pointing out that putting 12 million people in jail is impossible brings you to the conclusion that we should eliminate all laws, and you have a lowered assessment of *my* ability to process information?
I only worked in law enforcement while working my way through college, but I certainly can respect someone else for pursuing a law enforcement career. You seem to have zero respect for laws and their enforcement, or at least, that's what your replies convey.
Question: Do you favor amnesty for illegal immigrants?
I'm trying to make this really easy so it's a yes or no question.
*Even a "Y" or "N" would work...that way we know where you're coming from on this issue.
Wanting illegal immigrants delt with does not get someone proposing strict border enforcement elected. If it did, JD (who I voted for) would have won. The problem is much more complicated than just a fence, and those who have not spent their time in the conservative echo chamber know that.
JD came off here in our district as mean, angry, and with a simplistic solution that the swing voters did not believe would work.
Ah Dane, there you are. Lets let everyone know that Dewine was part of the OBL!
Bet all you out there in Freeper Land did not know that there is a huge illegal immigrant population in Painesville, Ohio. This local happens to be in the soon to be ex-Senator's district and Dewine still lost. Did you also know that Congressman Latourette (R), Dewine's House counter part won easily?
What did the house past just before the elections Dane?
Oh ya, that's right. Let's build a fence like 70% of the current US Citezen's want.
Facts Dane, stick to the facts!
Nobody ever said put them in jail, but, somehow you have to say that to make some sort of 'taking points' assertion.
You are setting up ridiculous "straw man" scenarios.
You are in favor of the "cut and run" approach to illegal immigration...."well there just are too many of them so let's just give up".
You've got a big liberal streak in you if that's the way you deal with things.
"I am so disappointed with fred barnes and William Crystal. I used to subscribe to their magazine until they started with this BS. Now they are calling their own friends names. Now I would not wipe my butt with their propaganda rag."
Me too, the idiot from the WS called me and asked why after 6 years I am not renewing ... I said Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol nad hung up!
"Oh BTW, the author of your link, Roy Beck is a person who said the time between 1925-1955 was a golden economic period in America"
No he did not Dane, he said "Golden Era of Immigration"
Facts Dane, stick to the facts!
Sure. That's all there is to it. Just enforce the law and everything is peechy. No blowback. No unintended consequences. Zero downside.
Right.
If anything like that was going to happen, then a Republican White House and Congress was the best shot. It didn't happen, and now it surely won't.
Now what?
They, increasingly, seem to want to dictate what the public wants, as opposed to actually listening.
And did you know that an even bigger pro-amnesty sherrod brown won. Thatalways get left out.
Oh ya, that's right. Let's build a fence like 70% of the current US Citezen's want.
And which the nancy pelosi congress will now scrap, if you haven't noticed.
You're the one who said that we allow in plenty of foreign workers. That it just takes time. Now you say they can't get in. Make up your mind.
The day we allow enough foreign workers into the country that there is no demand for more of them is the day that illegal immigration will end. Not one day sooner.
Those who do not understand this don't understand capitalism and market forces.
Uh he said between 1925-55 poductivity increased and wages increased. What about that thing called the Great Depression which was exacerbated by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley tariffs.
He would have been more honest if he had said between 1945-55, and that was a time the US was the only major industrial power that was not ravaged by the war. That era was indeed a golden time for the US as the US had a monopoly in industrial production as the other major industrial countries had to catch up.
Displaying the backbone of a jellyfish is not good in a discussion on this forum.
Facts and logic win. Hiding from unpleasant truths and questions not covered by your "talking points" will cost you big time in the respect department.
No, it's not. The word "amnesty" has been demigoged (sp?) to the point that it's merely a political slogan.
You are correct the people don't want "amnesty". So what they're going to get is more of the same. More illegals across the border, carrying their mexican culture with them, because they will not assimilate into an American culture that refuses them "amnesty".
Not handling this problem intelligently will result in the total loss of the American culture. Just wait and see.
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.