Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Voters Did Not Endorse Amnesty: Open-Borders Advocates Distort Election Results
Human Events ^ | November 20 2006 | Mark Krikorian

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; borders; illegalaliens; illegals; immigrantlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-245 next last
To: Dane
And the democrats are going to be miserly with the Fed. budget.

No party wins by saying they aren't as bad as the other guys, Dane.

Please proceed promptly to your next strawman so we can get this nonsense over with by my bedtime.

61 posted on 11/19/2006 5:54:12 PM PST by dirtboy (Objects in tagline are closer than they appear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man; Dane
I don't preach protectionism, you ignoramus.

The accidentally ignorant are curable.

The deliberately ignorant are not.

62 posted on 11/19/2006 5:55:15 PM PST by dirtboy (Objects in tagline are closer than they appear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Dane
"And their first vote in the 110th Congress is going to be for Ms. Amnesty, nancy pelosi."

I think that will be because the Democrats now run the House.

Most people around here voted straight Republican, so get upset with those that didn't bother to vote. Swing voters didn't help us this year and Independents voted against Republicans.

63 posted on 11/19/2006 5:55:51 PM PST by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
No party wins by saying they aren't as bad as the other guys, Dane.

Huh the democrats did.

64 posted on 11/19/2006 5:55:57 PM PST by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: BW2221

Bingo!


65 posted on 11/19/2006 5:57:03 PM PST by SeaBiscuit (God Bless America and All who protect and preserve this Great Nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Huh the democrats did.

They didn't win. We lost. The party in power has to give a reason why they should remain in such a position. To the average voter, a party that preaches limited government while simultaneously busting the budget has very little credibility.

OK, please put up the next strawman. I wanna be in bed by 10 pm eastern. That should give you time to put up five or six more before I hit the hay.

66 posted on 11/19/2006 5:58:24 PM PST by dirtboy (Objects in tagline are closer than they appear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

None of that caused this as much as those demos. They fired up the Pro-illegals and undermined the GOP support.

No other reason a party defending the nation and growing the economy would have been rejected by rational people. The Hysteria here was incredible as you well know since you were fanning the flames with both hands.


67 posted on 11/19/2006 6:00:24 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
FACT. In the next two years GWBush will sign into law the largest amnesty program in history, and 15 million illegals will become US citizens. Dwarfing the 2.7 million that Reagan granted amnesty to

And the legislation will be proposed and pushed by nancy pelosi.

You all could have gotten on board with the Kyl/Cornyn, but you decided bashing hispanics was a better route, and you paid the price, a nancy pelosi house.

I have a clear conscience in that I did not aid in pelosi's ascendency, unlike others on FR who gave her a proxy vote by sitting out the election, or a direct vote by voting for these so-called new "conservative" democrats.

68 posted on 11/19/2006 6:00:29 PM PST by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
No other reason a party defending the nation and growing the economy would have been rejected by rational people.

Defending the nation? The GOP talked about the War on Terrorism while failing to secure our borders.

Growing the economy? The GOP grew the federal budget like it hasn't been grown before. Anyone can live large on a credit card. But sooner or later, the bill comes due.

I am aghast that the Dems are in power. But the GOP, quite frankly, pissed away their moral standing to stay in power by running up earmark after earmark while simultaneously borrowing money to wage war in Iraq. If they were truly serious about the responsibility of their power, they would have refrained from such.

69 posted on 11/19/2006 6:04:01 PM PST by dirtboy (Objects in tagline are closer than they appear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Dane
And the legislation will be proposed and pushed by nancy pelosi.

And you will get all warm and squishy about it, Dane.

70 posted on 11/19/2006 6:04:34 PM PST by dirtboy (Objects in tagline are closer than they appear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Dane
"but you decided bashing hispanics was a better route"

Ok, Dane, stop right there. That is not true and you know it. BUT, it's what the Dems made the Hispanics think. No one here is anti-Hispanic. We are anti-illegal immigrant. I guess the Dem ploy worked with you too?

71 posted on 11/19/2006 6:08:16 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Still haven't answered my question.

What's to hide?

By the way, what makes Nancy Pelosi's stand of illegal immigration any different fromk that of the liberal Democrats that voted her to that post?

I never heard it mentioned by her or the MSM in the run-up>

I can see the headlines now "NANCY PELOSI TO BECOME SPEAKER BECAUSE SHE FAVORS AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS".

Most of us grownups knew that the outcome of the speaker of the house vote was a forgone conclusion. Her views on amnesty were not much different than those of just about every other Democrat congressman that gave her that vote.

From this, you conclude that it was her stand on amnesty for illegals that put her in.

72 posted on 11/19/2006 6:08:36 PM PST by capt. norm (Liberalism = cowardice disguised as tolerance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
And you will get all warm and squishy about it, Dane.

Uh no I won't. I was for Kyl/Cornyn, but it was your ilk who trashed them relelentlessly, but you got your just desserts with nancy pelosi.

73 posted on 11/19/2006 6:08:59 PM PST by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
they did not VOTE Period. The amnesty bill and Bush comment on "doing the work crap " ticked off the blue collar repub in Conn, western NY, Penn, Ohio, ID, KY, .The repub in the senate and congress were warned about the split by the RNC pollster but they decide to take the cash from the illegal K street crowd ( agri, real estate, ) and let the bill just not be voted on. It ticked off 10 % of the rnc base which stayed home !
74 posted on 11/19/2006 6:09:04 PM PST by BurtSB (the price of freedom is eternal vigilance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Those who are rabid for fences, police and military on the border were going to vote Republican no matter what. But the squishy center that contains the swing voters didn't like it.

J.D. Heyworth here in AZ5 didn't talk about anything but border fences for the last year. He lost.

The bottom line, the congress passed a border fence, but did *not* pass "amnesty", and the Repubs lost. Either the swing voters were mad because they think a fence is a simpleton answer to a complex question, or they wanted a more comprehensive approach and didn't get it. Either way, the enforcement only option is a loser.

75 posted on 11/19/2006 6:10:08 PM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Nice. Taking a cheap pot shot at Reagan because you're getting your butt handed to you, once again on the immigration issue. Reagan stood with one of his dearest political friends. Fact remains, Reagan was a supporter of an Americans RKBA. Reagan also was a defender of the 2nd amendment. Read the following from, Guns and Ammo magazine.

In our September 1975 issue, Ronald Reagan, then two-time Governer of California, penned this column. A man of conviction, Ronaldus Magnus was true to these words before and during his eight-year presidency.

"I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive."
Ronald Reagan

76 posted on 11/19/2006 6:10:54 PM PST by Reagan Man (Conservatives don't support amnesty and conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
Ok, Dane, stop right there. That is not true and you know it. BUT, it's what the Dems made the Hispanics think. No one here is anti-Hispanic. We are anti-illegal immigrant. I guess the Dem ploy worked with you too?

Oh pkease all one has to do is look at the disgusting remarks towards Mel Martinez on FR, a person who has the same ACU rating as Tom Tancredo, 100%.

77 posted on 11/19/2006 6:10:56 PM PST by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I was for Kyl/Cornyn,

Dane, any immigration bill will have to be signed by Bush. At the end of the day, he is responsible for what will happen.

I am opposed to a guest worker program for damn good reason, given the European problems from their such programs. If we truly need more people here, bring them in as full-status immigrants. Otherwise, stuff it.

78 posted on 11/19/2006 6:11:11 PM PST by dirtboy (Objects in tagline are closer than they appear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Thanks for providing the "comic relief" tonight.

For a while I was stupid enough to take you seriously.

That's a mistake I shall not repeat.

79 posted on 11/19/2006 6:11:27 PM PST by capt. norm (Liberalism = cowardice disguised as tolerance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Dane
This is hilarious on two levels, Dane. First of all, you bash Tancredo nonstop, and now you invoke him as a conservative benchmark?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

And second, the ACU ratings blithely ignore the Senate shamnesty bill. Which means they are not serious about rating conservatives.

80 posted on 11/19/2006 6:12:53 PM PST by dirtboy (Objects in tagline are closer than they appear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-245 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson