Posted on 11/28/2006 7:38:20 PM PST by Aetius
R Stands for “Restrictionist”?
To the Editor
I knew Mark Krikorian was a master of spin, but he took my breath away in “Interesting Opportunities ” (NRO, November 9, 2006) with his distortion of a sentence I wrote in the current issue of Foreign Affairs.
As a proponent of comprehensive immigration reform, I have indeed, as I said in that piece, been eagerly awaiting the day when “the political stars would realign” to make it possible to enact law repairing our broken immigration system. But that need not mean — did not mean — I was waiting for the Democrats to take over in Congress. Much as Krikorian and his allies wish it were otherwise, a great many Republicans, too, favor comprehensive reform: among others, the president, John McCain, Bill Frist, Mel Martinez, Kay Bailey Hutchison and scores of GOP members of Congress — including conservatives’ conservatives with impeccable ideological credentials like Jeff Flake and Mike Pence.
The political alignment that troubled me was the way, in the run-up to the midterms, the anti-immigrant feelings of a small, vocal minority had become the tail wagging the dog of the immigration debate, preventing Republican reformers from doing what they knew was right. And while I don’t celebrate the Democrats taking over in the House or the Senate, I believe that bottleneck was cleared away on Election Day — thanks to candidates like California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius and Washington senator Maria Cantwell, who did indeed defend comprehensive reform on the stump and were elected any way, often by healthy margins. That most happened to be Democrats was largely an accident — but it should be a wake-up call for Republicans.
Which brings me to the larger point about Krikorian’s slur. Far worse than any insult to me is the insult to the GOP and the damage Krikorian and others in his camp are doing to the Republicans’ future by casting a problem that in fact divides both parties as a contest between monolithic blocs: tough Republican enforcers and soft Democrat reformers. As the campaigns unfolded in state after state last month, there were two monolithic blocks all right. But the contrast wasn’t hard versus soft – it was xenophobic grandstanders versus pragmatic problem-solvers, with virtually all the pragmatists squarely in the Democratic fold. No wonder Election Day played out as it did. Sorry, Mark, but on immigration as other issues, voters like politicians who get things done — and very few thought a symbolic fence met that test.
Will Democrats and Republicans be able to work together next year to fix the immigration system? It’s too soon to tell, but there can be no mistaking the public’s hunger for exactly that — for an effective solution, whoever can provide it. Mark Krikorian will try to block any bipartisan effort, I’m sure, probably using a version of the same tactic he just used against me — casting the compromise that’s necessary as a betrayal of the Republican party. Some skittish members of Congress will listen, no doubt.
But it won’t serve them, and it won’t serve the GOP — merely perpetuate the myths already taking hold that R stands for “restrictionist” and the Democrats have a monopoly on reform.
But with the 2006 midterm debacle, they have stooped to new lows in their disingenuous and absurd attempt to spin the election results as being a vote for their far-left views on immigration. Whether its cherry-picking the defeat of a few high-profile 'restrictionists' and ignoring the losses suffered by proponents of 'comprehensive' reform, or citing polls that offer bogus choices, there really is no limit to what the likes of Jacoby (and Barnes and Kristol) will say to push their agenda of virtually unlimited immigration.
The same polls the Jacoby types misuse to claim public support for their amnesty plans showed that the GOP lost because of Iraq and corruption. So it is an especially great display of chutzpah for neoconservatives to ignore the political effects of the war they wanted so much in explaining the GOP rout, all to prop up the very liberal, very pro-Democrat views they hold on immigration.
And for all the talk about polls, it should be noted that pro-comprehensive reform polls are bogus for two reasons;
(1) They almost always present it as a choice between only a path to citizenship or mass deportations, while completely ignoring the enforcement first/attrittion strategy.
(2) The least attractive parts of the 'comprehensive' bills rarely get any public attention. I wonder, does Jacoby really think that the public would support the comprehensive approach and its 'earned legalizations' and 'paths to citizenship' if they knew it would result in enormous increases in permanent legal immigration? Would they support it if false descriptions like 'temporary workers' and 'guest worker plan' were not used? Why are the comprehensive bills so deceptive?
Why do McCain and Kennedy, as well as Jacoby and Barnes and the head of La Raza, the NYTimes and WSJournal, not get out there and advocate on behalf of massive increases in permanent legal immigration? Why don't they tell us they want tens of millions more immigrants on top of those that current law would admit? If they are so confident in the popularity of their agenda, then why do they go to such great lengths to mislead the public about their agenda?
The immigration system isn't broken. It's being ignored. We need immigration policies that allow people to immigrate, while allowing the nation to control its borders - just like other nations of the World.
We already allow generous levels of legal immigration, but the fact is that more Americans would rather see that level reduced than increased. They certainly oppose the gigantic increases that the likes of Tamar Jacoby support, but rarely admit to, and never campaign on.
How about this one???:
Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001. Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.
The bio I read on this "female" said something like she was a beacon of debate in a foggy light. Her thinking does seem very foggy and she seems to be itching for a chance to jump up and argue.
I get the impression that the legal immigration processing is hopelessly slow and complicated. Comprehensive reform may not really be comprehensive enough. I see progress in the implementing of passports and biometrics and I was very encouraged when they realized those 10 Egyptian students had gone awol and found them.
It is illogical to deny the elections were a huge win for the illegal immigration lobby.
Excellent post. Those who love open borders should read these two threads posted today. I had a close friend involved in an accident yesterday with an illegal driving with a revoked license. Fortunately, she was not injured. He ran into her while she was at a traffic light.
Study: 1 million Sex Crimes by Illegals
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745570/posts
Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745034/posts
Ping!
ping
Think maybe part of the reason is the millions that cross illegally and deman to be made legal from inside the country?
I understand there are still folks being processed from the 1986 Amnesty. How about when Clinton told INS to rush the process for millions of applicants so they could vote RAT in time for the elections. Al Gore was in charge of expediting that. All while the ones who did things the right way waited.
No one seems to give a damn about those who try to do things the right way. It's becoming a theme of modern American life.
Regards
She didn't call names. She said that "(it) perpetuate(s) the myths already taking hold that R stands for “restrictionist”"
She's actually refuting a name that others are calling, not calling a name.
Youre under the impression that CIR will help legal immigrants? Show me a bill thusfar that helps in any substantial numbers any immigrant from outside of the Americas and Ill support that bill. It hasnt been written yet. When you support CIR you are supporting an immigration preference for Mexico first and secondly latin america. The rest of the worlds immigrants will be kept out in greater numbers by this "reform".
Tamar, clean your own darn house. It's great for the character.
Tamar Jacoby's analysis is correct.
Oh, God! Pragmatism over soveriegnty. Some will stoop to the lowest levels of rhetoric to further "la Raza".
What? Susan Estrich hasn't called you yet?
She did. I had to turn her down.
Get back to me when 2 GOP cnadidates Randy Graf and J.D. Hayworth in the border state of Arizona and who made hardline immigration their main campaign topics are speaking from the well of the House floor.
They won't be in the 110th Congress, since they lost.
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.