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.
Right or wrong, they're here. Getting mad and stamping your feet that they must leave or go to jail won't fix the situation.
For the record, I detest the fact that they've come into my country illegally, and are busy transforming it's culture into a mirror immage of the failed culture of Mexico. But simplistic solutions as offered by J.D. Heyworth will not work. This requires finesse, and many many different "solutions", not the least of which is educating illegals in the American culture and insisting they assimilate.
I don't support a blanket "pardon".
A cop pulled me over for speeding on Saturday. I did 71 in a 55. Guilty as sin.
Cop gave me a warning.
Under your logic he shouldn't have. I figure that happens millions of times a year. Are you steamed about that fact?
I think illegals should pay a fine for breaking our law, just like a speeder pays a fine, or a tax evader. Even thieves get off with probation or fines, are you worked up about them?
Border enforcers like J.D. spun paying a fine for breaking our law as "amnesty". That's pure political spin, and the fact that it kept many conservatives home during the election I'm sure just pleases the libs to no end.
Obviously, you have no problem with amnesty for illegals. I'm not surprised.
You just now defined "amnesty" in this post, yet you've decided that I'm "for" it. Typical. You're thinking with your emotions, not your brain.
Ronald Reagan was "conservative", but sponsored a real amnesty. Not even a fine levied for illegal entry into the country.
Was Reagan a "conservative", or has the definition of what a conservative thinks merely changed?
"...and as for DeWine losing, he was replaced by an even bigger liberal and those dunderhead "conservative" writiers never mention that fact."
Not talking about any other issue than immigration here Dane. Sherrod Brown, a loser on most issues, is strong from what I have read on illegal immigration. Never mentioned that, huh?
I believe I've already made that clear. It's because no one has the nads to addresss the issue. 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.
You say that as if their being here were a good thing. Obviously, your mind has been manipulated by the media.
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.
Open borders and lack of enforcement of the law has created the problem. And ignoring laws you don't like won't fix it.
"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 cleared up nothing.
Giving people a "cut in the line" and allowing them to stay for a fine and eventually allow citizenship while others wait is amnesty. Illegals should, at the very least, return to their home countries first and apply. That's not deportation or jail and involves illegals not being in this country, and has a good chance of being in any immigration bill. Looks like your logic is flawed.
So you are saying that the ties with Jack Abramoff had no effect in the election and them tainting JD with corruption had no effect?
I think you are trying to spin the results here.
How come Tancredo won going away? He is the most critical of the administration.
1. More dishonesty. You know the fence and immigration was not a big issue this past election. Gas prices, Iraq, the economy, scandals and ethics were the big things.
2. A fence is supported by a strong majority of Americans, so I doubt it hurt anyone.
According to a new survey by Rasmussen Reports, 60 percent of those surveyed like the idea of a barrier along the U.S. Southwest border as a means of dramatically reducing illegal immigration from Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America.
3. Why must the open borders advocates live in a total fantasy world?
"And which the nancy pelosi congress will now scrap, if you haven't noticed."
Limbaugh said the democrats are already backing off the immigration thing. If true, I guess that means an amnesty ain't a political winner also.
And there is a difference between saying you will, and really do it Dane. Nancy Pelosi and the democrats may try to stop the fence, but there is always the chance of some compromise to keep it to a certain level, stuff involving the budget and of course the conservative democrats.
Why do you agree with Pelosi about the fence anyway Dane?
I don't agree with your rationale at all.
An illegal alien is not a US citizen and therefore doesn't have the same rights as an American does. And speeding is not equivalent to illegal immigration.
>>>>You just now defined "amnesty" in this post, yet you've decided that I'm "for" it. Typical.
You asked me to define amnesty. I did. Your remarks on this thread show support for amnesty. If you're not for amnesty, what are you for? And don't forget, a guest worker program outlined in S.2611 and supported by Bush, is for all intents and purposes, amnesty. In addition, Bush wants illegals to have a path to citizenship, which is another term for amnesty.
>>>>You're thinking with your emotions, not your brain.Non sequitur.
If the employer sanctions of the IRCA of 1986 were enforced, that legislation would have been a one time ONLY amnesty deal. Besides, Reagan wasn't into making the same mistake twice. Even with the hindsight of history, Bush wants to make the same mistake again, except this time instead of 2.7 million illegals, it'll be for 15 million illegals.
Bush Announces “Million Mexicans a Month” Plan
President Bush and Mexican President-elect Felipe Calderon pledged to work closely on border security and migration, which Bush said remains a top priority for his administration. Bush told reporters, “I assured the president-elect that comprehensive immigration reform is something I believe needs to happen.”
Under the Bush plan, the U.S. will move its security perimeter to Mexico’s southern border. “Mexico’s southern border is much shorter than the northern one,” Bush pointed out. “It will be easier to patrol to prevent unauthorized entry into both countries.”
Mexico’s southern border would be jointly patrolled by armed forces from the two nations. As compensation for allowing the U.S. to move its security perimeter south from the Rio Grande, Mexico will receive funds from the U.S. sufficient to support one million Mexicans. The payments will be made monthly based on a random drawing of names on the unemployment rolls. Mexicans must appear in person to collect.
Bush expressed confidence that the monthly stipends would deter Mexicans from seeking to enter the U.S. illegally. “If Mexicans are already getting checks from America without having to work, why would they sneak into America to take sub-minimum wage jobs?” Bush asked.
“I was strongly struck by President Bush’s comments where he said that the new Congress could open new possibilities of understanding,” Calderon said, “This is a very opportune moment for both countries to pursue the goal of a comprehensive international migration reform.”
In related news, Democrats have announced plans to repeal the recently enacted border security fence between the U.S. and Mexico. “The voters have elected Democrats to end the racist Republican scheme to shut out our Hispanic brothers,” said Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). “The American people want us to extend the hand out of friendship, not put barriers between neighbors.” Kennedy said he was also working on a tax package to fund education and healthcare benefits for recent migrants, most of whom are poorly educated and have no insurance.
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Bush's legacy: "Shows what I know".
He is, always has and always will. Blackbird.
BS! Blackbird.
BS! Blackbird.
Oh. So its a piece of cake for an unskilled mexican to immigrate.
That looks like a wonderful business model. Mexicans are paying a thousand or more dollars to coyotees to get them here illegally now. All you've got to do is put out your shingle in TJ and bring as many across with full papers as you can handle. You should be rich. I'll expect to see your name on the Forbes list of millionares soon.
It's not a mistake if there isn't a realistic alternative.
Wishing for law enforcment actions that would effectively remove 15 million people from our population is about as realistic as thinking that "if only the Palistinians and Jews would learn to love one another, there would be no war". Well, yeah, there wouldn't, but it ain't happening. And those 15 million ain't going back to mexico, so it's time to come up with plan B and stop wasting time dreaming of "if only" scenarios that will not happen.
LOL There are realistic alternatives. You choose to ignore them because they don't fit your agenda. You support Bush`s liberal immigration proposal. You don't like building walls to protect America from criminals and terrorists, you don't like enforcing employer sanctions or eliminating govt welfare handouts to illegals.
Supporting amnesty for 15 million illegals and eventual citizenship for those illegals and their families, is not the way to go. Its the wrong choice.
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.