Posted on 07/07/2007 3:53:56 PM PDT by neverdem
Now that the immigration bill has finally died its slow and much-deserved death, it's an appropriate time to consider what lessons can be learned and what the episode portends for a Republican Party in disarray.
Above all, the defeat of the Senate's immigration bill-a de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants that did virtually nothing to address the threats to our national security that our porous borders have created-was a victory for average Americans over the Washington, D.C. establishment.
The details of the bill's collapse are telling. Between Tuesday and Thursday of last week, 14 senators changed their minds and voted for cloture, voting in effect to kill the legislation.
How did things unravel so quickly?
Perhaps New Mexico Republican Pete Domenici, one of the fourtee n who originally supported the bill but ended up voting against it, put it best when he said, "I was getting hammered here at home" over his support for the bill. Even more poignantly, Ohio Senator George Voinovich, who had previously defiantly promised that he wouldn't let "those people" -his constituents-intimidate him into opposing the legislation, fell in line and voted "no" in the end.
But the bill's demise was hardly partisan. Few Democrats were excited about the bill, and, as the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes has pointed out, all five Democrats running for reelection in red states in 2008 voted against it.
It seems the D.C. establishment woke up last Thursday morning reminded that it governs only with the people's consent. Polls showed that the more people knew about the bill, the more likely they were to oppose it. The opposition of average Americans to the bill was so intense that it shut down the Senate's Internet server and flooded the phone system beyond its capacity. Senators were astonished by the volume and intensity of the reaction, and, in the end, they voted accordingly.
Though public resistance to the quasi-amnesty bill came from all sides of the political spectrum (pollster Stanley Greenberg reported strong opposition amongst Republicans and Independents, and ambivalence among Democrats), the media used the bill's demise to declare electoral suicide for the GOP amongst the nation's fastest growing demographic. A New York Times headline proclaimed, "After Bill's Fall, G.O.P May Pay in Latino Votes." Even some conservatives got into the act. Columnist Linda Chavez predicted, "...Republicans who believe this is going to help them at the polls in 2008 may well find themselves sitting on the back benches for years to come."
But such claims are dubious. The GOP will never be able to outflank the Democrats on immigration. Despite President Bush's more than generous immigration reform proposal, his approval ratings amongst Hispanics languished at or below those amongst the general public.
Republicans would do better to remain true to their values of abiding by the law and assimilation, while emphasizing their support for legal immigration. This might actually help Republicans gain the support of many Hispanics. Polls show majority support among American Hispanics for a variety of conservative immigration reforms, including requiring immigrants to be proficient in English as a condition for remaining in the United States. An August 2005 Time poll of Hispanics revealed 61 percent considered illegal immigration either an "extremely serious" or "very serious" problem, and 41 percent thought the U.S. was not doing enough to secure its bor ders against illegal immigration, while 19 percent felt it was doing "too much." More recently, a June Gallup poll found an overwhelming majority of Hispanic Americans (71 percent) feel immigration levels should stay at current levels or decrease.
Furthermore, polls reveal that conservative stances on issues like abortion, marriage and the war on terror receive widespread support amongst most immigrant groups, particularly Hispanics. I am hopeful that Republican allegiance to conservative positions on family issues and foreign policy will attract Hispanic voters, even though, admittedly, no Republican presidential nominee has ever won a majority of the Hispanic vote.
Clearly, however, while some seem to believe that the Republican Party must sell out their core principles and become "Democrat-lite" on immigration in order to have a shot at securing the support of Hispanic voters, clear-sighted a nalysis reveals that fidelity to conservative values could prove a powerful force over time.
I also feel compelled to address what became a chief criticism by the Left and many in the mainstream media of those who were skeptical of the immigration legislation: that opposition to the bill was fueled by "nativism" (read: racism), ignorance and prejudice.
But, the missing link to understanding Americans' anxiety over the issue is not an underlying racism but the reality that our nation is failing to build a citizenry that loves America first. A poll conducted by Investor's Business Daily found that 64 percent of Hispanics in America considered themselves "mostly Hispanic," but that only 15 percent saw themselves as "mostly American," while 69 percent of respondents said they lived in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods. Even worse, 27 percent of the survey sample had lived in the US A for more than 25 years, while only 15 percent lived here less than six years.
Many Americans witness immigration marches where foreign flags are flown; they see little attempt at assimilation in our schools and government bureaucracies; they notice immigrants who spend decades in America but do not attempt to learn English. The truth is, much of the opposition to this bill stemmed from the fact that it did little to encourage immigrant assimilation.
In the end, the question remains: How did a bill that had the support of the White House, the leadership of both parties in Congress and most of the so-called mainstream media manage to fail? The answer is that this absurd bill awakened a silent majority fed up with the perpetuation of policies that reward lawlessness, discourage assimilation and ignore potentially grave threats to our national security.
If the Washington elite on bot h sides of the aisle learn these lessonsand begin to listen to their constituents, then perhaps some good can come out of this mess.
Mr. Bauer, a 2000 candidate for president, is chairman of Campaign for Working Families and president of American Values.
That she is.
Bush/Kennedy loved the illegals... that's about it.
this bill taight me that most Hispanic leaders identify with their own group as latinos over other political ideology
scary
the notion that only “whites” should not defend group identity and that many whites willingly accpet that as just is one of history’s weakest moments
Agreed.
18 states have introduced resolutions calling on their federal representatives to halt work on the North American Union (they include Virginia and South Carolina). Three of these states (Idaho, Montana and Oklahoma) have passed their resolutions.
When news of this comes out, it will be impeachment time, then MUCHO prison time (after the tar and feathers) for all the traitors who would destroy America's sovereignty.
I pray for that day!
Thanks for the kind words.
Have you considered relocating? (Only kidding!)
Stay put and do your best to get rid of those two.
Be safe...
No kidding, I have more than considered. It will be done, lol!
It’s not possible to get rid of these jerks; as soon as they’re gone, their replacement pods will be sent in.
Good post!
Thanks for the link.
While I agree with much of what she says, I don't agree with her labeling most of those who opposed the immigration bill as racists.
For example, while I agree with amnesty for many who've been here for years on end...I also support building a wall on the border as an issue of national security. Not because I hate Mexicans.
Spare us the spin, Linda. I emailed Townhall to have your columns removed. You're a disgrace to conservatism.
Lessons from the Immigration Victory.
There. Fixed it.
#1 lesson that needs to be learned by this:
immigration amnesty is political poison.
#2 lesson that need to be learned by this:
there is a great need for American employers for jobs that Maricans won’t do.
I’m totally against amnesty, but I AM in favor of increaing the immigration of those that are willing to do the jobs that Americans won’t do. Our economy and way of life is totally dependent upon these people.
I want to hear your objections if you are a farmer that hasn’t had to plow their crop under because they couldn’t get “wetbacks” to harvest crops, or those that don’t want to work knee deep in chicken doo-doo. I want to hear your replies if you are an American that works in a rendering plant.
I really don’t care to hear from you if you are an American working in a UAW, AFL/CIO manufacturing plant; its all too clear where that’s going.
What I have issues with are employees being exploited, e.g. Nigeria, China, Philipines, Malaysia, et ali.
We all understand why people work in those places for $0.25/day; American Labor Law lawyers haven’t been exported to thoe locations yet.
On the other hand, there is an INTENSE demand for works on American farms (for example).
The argument goes like this: pay American workers enough money to do the job, they’ll do it. I know full well that Wisconcin dairy farmers are paying their imported Mexican workers $32k/annually. The reason that they’re paying imported employees is because otherwise they’d be labor-short.
Its also interesting to hear what the American employer has to say about the work ethic of their foriegn labor pool.
That there are disgusting jobs that no American will do at ANY price is beyond ANY dispute.
What I AM opposed to though is the putrefactant process of EXCLUDING American citizen candidates for American jobs. There is some heinous crap going on with that.
That’s absolutely correct: call those phone numbers and let YOUR voice be heard.
This is what I believe: There are many people who would support some sort of amnesty (not necessarily for criminals and gang members), if our government would do a better job controlling the borders, enforcing expired visas, and busting employers of illegal aliens. I don’t think that will happen while Bush is POTUS.
It should be obvious as only white devils ever committed all the evil in this world. /s
Two of the better examples for an amendement for term limits in Congress.
Thanks for the ping.>p>Excellent suggestion - Martinez and Nelson are my congress critters - I would enjoy a round or two with both.
However, if one state does term limits, they ALL should. I’ve had long discussions about this. The determining factor on who heads up committees is length of time in office. Committee heads have a lot of power. They can bury good bills, never bring them up for discussion. Also, length of time in office brings you to membership of more important committees. Therefore, if many states do not have term limits, and only some do, only these states which do will be penalized.
There’s no way to make this a blanket decision to all states as to limiting terms, unless, I think, an amendment’s passed. And that’s just not going to happen, of course.
Very good suggestion. And, of course, you'd have to be well prepared! Hope you can do it at some point (soon).
What about McCain’s prediction that the illegals would riot if amnesty didn’t pass? It has been pretty quiet so far. Has the defeat of the amnesty bill demoralized the amnesty crowd, or is this the quiet before the storm?
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.