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.
>>>>Now what?
That's easy. AMNESTY! Federal amnesty for all illegals.
As I've been saying (for the last year or so), Bush ignoring his conservative base has been a death blow to the GOP. That's been the problem all along.
"The Blue Collar Repub DID NOT VOTE at all !"
Below was a posting that I wrote last week when responding to another Freeper. Good analysis of the vote by you, did you see that the GOP lost 8% of the white male vote?
The Northern Pacific States have Microsoft, Boeing and tourism. The same goes for California. Texas has energy, tourism and shipping. Nevada has gambling. Florida has tourism and great weather; Chicago, the epicenter of finance and marketing. The Eastern seaboard has shipping, fishing, government, tourism … etc.
What does the Midwest have? Good weather year round, hell no! Pretty girls skating down the boardwalk on a beautiful February afternoon, Hell no! Movie industry jobs, nope! How about agriculture? That too has been erased.
The problem is that the Midwest made things, but because of globalization those skills are no longer needed. Hence the powers that be are trying to substitute with the insurance, medical and bio-tech fields. Those noble professions still are not providing the stimulus to grow the regions economy. So what does an underemployed populace do? They go to the ballot box and vote themselves a raise. I am in absolute disagreement of this, but it is in effect what is happening. Ohio, PA, IN, IL and New York will become more blue because of the afore mentioned.
Reagan figured this out and by him spending heavily on defense; a lot of those dollars were spent in the Midwest, which garnered him a win in 84. The rest as they say is history.
Remember, all politics are local and people vote their pocketbook.
The recovery that most this nation has experienced has not come to the Midwest and actually has come at the expense of this regions economy. Regretfully, the GOP has over estimated the Midwest Social Conservatives loyalty to the GOP. It may result in the Presidents impeachment, time will tell
Yes. You are absolutely correct.
and that involves the Mexicans and other illegals returning to their homes first.
Which won't happen.
So if the best bet for us is to regularize the process, why are you insisting on them taking a step that will not happen?
Most illegals *live* here. They don't have a place to live in Mexico. They don't have a job in mexico. Why on earth would they leave and risk the chance they will never return. Answer: they won't leave.
Now what?
Amnesty for 20 - 30 million illegals is a given. That's what the rats wanted, that's what the rino's in the senate wanted, and that's what Bush wants. So get used to double rate homeowners taxes to support the illegals in the spanish only schools, and a doubling of medical insurance to pay for their medical that they don't pay a dime for.
We are all waiting for your pronouncement on what you consider to be:
"handling this problem intelligently.
So far, you've been like the liberals in telling us what's wrong but offering no solution. That's the easy, spineless way of going about it.
OK. How would YOU handle it?
"Do you think the Weekly Standard will catch on before it's too late?"
I have no real idea, but my gut tells me no.
I simply do not understand why it is so necessary to kowtow to the wealthy in light of the fact that we have a world filled with poor, but honest people who are certainly even more deserving of an opportunity at a better life.
Those guys DO NOT live in Latin America's richest land.
Are you blind or stupid? I never used the word "plenty" nor did I say we let in all. I said the United States admits between 700,000 and 900,000 legal immigrants each year. And it does. I also said coming to this country was not "impossible" (your word) and that it is time consuming. Both statements are true.
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.
Whether it is enough is not the issue. The issue is we have laws determining who can legally enter and when. Open border freaks like you can't make your argument without advocating ignoring those laws. How clever of you.
And illegal immigration can and will end when our elected officials grow a set of nads and stop pandering to the so-called "immigrants rights groups", not one day sooner.
Because we have a 'republican' president, he can veto any ammensty proposal produced by the democrats. Unfortunately, our 'republican' president is not going to stand for conservatism, but will use the democrats to push his globalist agenda.
If the illegals could no longer hold down jobs here, at least half of them would leave before the weather gets any colder here. They are not refugees...they just came for the $$$ and, so far, the liberals have been making sure that that plan works.
Thank you Mark Krikorian.
I'm bookmarking this because it lays out in clearcut fashion what the open border sychophants have attempted to peddle is hogwash.
Unfortunately I'll have need to direct people to this again and again.
Unfortunately we're in the position of having a President that is .... very much NOT an ally of the American people and our sovereignty on this issue. That leaves a) Senators willing to block it in enough numbers...I can hear the laughter or b) Enough Dems in the house newly elected by pretending to be something they weren't getting scared and shutting down such a bill in anticipation of '08. I don't like being in a position where we're reliant on Dems, and I have little hope on the score.
As for the President? I don't trust him on domestic issues, and certainly not on this one. He cares more about the good opinion of his enemies, then those that got him there and had his back for years even in the bad times. Loyalty is a two way street. He can't demand loyalty, and return none. Yet that is what he did for years, and the day he basically called me a racist for not supporting illegal acts...well, that was the final straw.
Now would I still have elected him? hell yeah. Because no matter what else he does, we got Roberts and Alito. We had to fight for them, but we got them. And with rehnquist dying we would have been down to only two without him. So, yes, in the end he did make a big impact that will have far reaching resonance over the years we'll appreciate.
Hopefully amnesty doesn't make this contribution null and void in that long term.
When one realizes that if all laws were strictly enforced that a huge majority of citizens would be criminals, then, yes, my respect for laws is dramatically lowered.
Question: Do you favor amnesty for illegal immigrants?
Define "amnesty", as it applies in this case.
I'm trying to make this really easy so it's a yes or no question.
When the discussions on illegal immigration were going on in DC, there were as many proposals as there were Congressman. You will have to define what you mean before a yes or no is possible.
What I am for is the continuation of the American culture. The American way of life. And I see a huge issue looming on the horizon where millions of mexicans, with mexican culture, are coming across the border and having children like crazy. They're not going to go away, so they *must* be assimilated. Political ideas like border enforcement and attacks on words like "amnesty" is a total waste of energy. Another method must be found, and I think Bush had the only workable solution. As I said above, it is not a *good* solution, but I fear that it is the only one that will maintain our American culture, and I think that conservatives have blown it big time for not supporting Bush.
In fact, they have it good in terms of average world condition.
Elbowing aside all the other people in the world just to let in more Mexicans is sinful and racist.
Define "amnesty".
If it means that illegals won't go to jail, they've already got that, and I don't see that fact changing. Do you?
So now that we've cleared up the idea of whether they're going anywhere, or not, now how about we figure out how to document them and assimilate them into America.
That might take a bit to write up right quick.
Bottom line, Bush had some good ideas, and knee jerk conservatives sawed off the limb underneath him. And them.
A Democrat couldn't have said it better.
"Can we please have some common sense on this thread."
Yes, Dane, if you simply log off and go back to DU where you belong.
I truly have sympathy for your neighbors ... or anyone who lives within a mile of you.
If it was as easy as you make it seem, then why are there 12 million illegals here?
Immigration standards are not easy, and without doing research on the subject, I feel very safe in saying that it is virtually "impossible" for those millions of unskilled laborors who are here now to have immigrated legally.
Whether it is enough is not the issue. The issue is we have laws determining who can legally enter and when.
It is a huge demonstration that the law is a blunt instrument that it has created such a huge problem, and has been so resistant to intelligent change for so long.
In this case, amnesty is the Feds granting a pardon to 15 million illegal aliens for breaking US law, and allowing them to be placed on a path to citizenship.
>>>>If it means that illegals won't go to jail, they've already got that, and I don't see that fact changing. Do you?
That's not true. If existing US immigration laws, as in the IRCA of 1986 were enforced, as they should be, we wouldn't have a problem with illegals that exist today. US immigration laws are not being properly enforced. That is what the debate has been in recent years.
>>>>So now that we've cleared up the idea of whether they're going anywhere, or not, now how about we figure out how to document them and assimilate them into America.
You've cleared up nothing. Allowing US law to be ignored isn't something I support. And I don't have any desire to see illegals assimilated into American society. Obviously, you have no problem with amnesty for illegals. I'm not surprised. LOL
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.