Grass roots, politicians differ on immigration

Arizona Republic ^ | February 14, 2002 | Jerry Kammer

[AzJohn]

WASHINGTON - Roy Beck does immigration by the numbers. He produces charts to show that if newcomers keep arriving at the pace of the past decade, more than 1 million legal and illegal newcomers annually, the population of the United States will grow by 300 million by the end of the century. Almost all the increase will be because of immigrants and their offspring.

[bwteim]

Torie,
With all due respect, I think the issue is not so much point of origin but one of quantity vs. quality of character and contribution to our nation...
--bw

[Love America or move to ......]

"Politicians pay more attention to elections than they do to polls."
Perhaps politicians will pay a little attention to the recent non-election of Sen. Spencer Abraham. Part of the problem is that a lot of Americans are unaware of the scope and ramifications of the mass immigration America is currently experiencing. And if Americans don't live in an area that is receiving high immigration they don't see the problem with their own eyes. Americans who live in areas that are being overrun with foreigners simply decide to move out of the area or state when immigration changes their lifestyle more than they can stomach. (So. Cal. for example) People who recognize the situation we are confronting viv a vis mass immigration must get involved and come together in organizations. Americans need to be informed, they need organizations that will carry the fight for them, they must contribute time and or money.
The immigration reduction movement wields more influence than Nordquist would have people believe.

[Travis McGee]

bttt

[Shermy]

Bttt.

[AzJohn]

Because these elements don't represent the elite viewpoint or have their power. All they have is democratic fairness and equality...

For the most part, I don't think the pro-immigrant groups are doing anything improper (except for those that assist in illegal voting by immigrants). They are wrong, but they have a right to advocate their point of view. The big problem is just that there are so many more organized groups pushing immigration--Hispanic organizations, lefty organizations sympathetic to the immigrants, pro-business organizations, trade associations etc.

[AzJohn]

So the organizational elite certainly subsidizes immigration preferentially. You could argue that in a democratic society the opponents have an equal opportunity to organize in opposition, and if not, its their fault. Well its not their fault when the opposition uses subversive and undemocratic means to prevent their organization or atack their legitimacy, such as attacking any groups that oppose immigration as "hate" groups, as immigrationists like Spencer Abraham did in his (losing) senetorial campaign.

I don't think of this as "subversive" unless they are doing something like rigging elections by assisting illegal immigrants in voting. But you are correct that pro-immigration advocates often attempt to demonize the other side. Sometimes they sincerely believe that immigration reform advocates are motivated by racism (some of the pro-immigration folks are lefties, after all). But some of them are just cynically trying to smear their opponent so they don't have to debate the issues.

There was a good example in the news Thursday. Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth was speaking in favor of a CFR amendment that would bar political contributions from legal immigrants. He was attacked as being "xenophobic" and being against Hispanics, even though his remarks had to do with the Chinese contributions to Clinton-Gore.

There's no remedy for this except to keep pointing out where such statements are unfair, and at times, absurd and hateful. And I'm an optimist in that I think in the long run such rhetoric by pro-immigration speakers backfires on them. The American public eventually sees through stuff like this when it is pointed out.

[Love America or move to ......]

The American public eventually sees through stuff like this when it is pointed out.
The problem is that Americans may see but they usually don't act, at least as far as the issue of mass immigration goes. Most Americans are uninformed about mass immigration or are too intimidated by the "politically correct elite" to act or speak out about the issue.

[AzJohn]

Most Americans are uninformed about mass immigration or are too intimidated by the "politically correct elite" to act or speak out about the issue.

No question that there is some intimidation that is taking place. If you saw the thread on Hayworth's remarks, you can see how arrogant some pro-immigration groups are concerning this.

I think public opinion will eventually have an effect, but due to the factors you mention it will take several years. If you look at similar social issues like crime or welfare, it took many years from the time a public consensus formed until we took some action--building more prisons, starting to cut back on welfare and so forth. (Not to say I'm totally happy in those areas, either, but eventually we did do something.)

[Love America or move to ......]

The heyday of immigration reduction was in the 80's. Laws were enacted in 1986(?) that required employers to request IDs, greencards or employment authorizations from job applicants or be subject to sanctions also border security was to have received more funding and be improved.Other immigration control initiatives were part of that legislation. These laws were coupled with the infamous amnesty of 1986. At that point in time Americans were concerned and involved with immigration reduction. In the years since, and due in no small part to Bubba's administration, most provisions of those laws went unenforced (except for the amnesty) or unfunded or ignored (including border control). The Republican convention in 1996 included Pat Buchanan speaking out against illegal and mass immigration. By 2002 the Latino population has grown to surpass the Black vote in political importance. The Latin vote is a swing vote to be wooed and courted by all aspiring politicians. After the next amnesty and fifteen years thence what do you think the demographics will look like and how do you think politicians will react to the issue of immigration reduction? President "TexMex" Bush seeks to discriminate mightily in favor of Mexicans by granting them a special amnesty. What kind of favoritism will Latinos receive in fifteen years when their percentage of the electorate has grown ? My point is that time is working against immigration reduction not in favor of it. As time proceeds politicians will be more reluctant to champion IR. Since the 80's, Americans have not been intrested in IR.Will that change? We'll see. But only a groundswell of grassroots will substantially change this nations immigration reality.

[sneakypete]

"An America with 300 million more people would be unrecognizable by just about every measure of quality of life," said Beck,

He's wrong about this. Thanks to the sheer numbers and the fact that the new immigrants are overwhealmingly Catholics who don't use birth control,the entire USA will look like Mexico City.

[sneakypete]

. Here's my question: why isn't a coalition of cultural conservatives and blue-collar Democrats just as powerful, if not more, on this issue?

Because we only have one political party,and the elites in both brances who run this party see personal profits and power coming from the invasion of immigrants. They don't give a damn what the sheeple who vote for them think.

[sneakypete]

AFL-CIO captured by the guilt-lefty complex. Actually support increased immigration which will lower union members wages.

They don't care about US workers having lower wages,what they are looking at are millions of new dues-paying union members. These people will make the unions themselves richer and more powerful,even if wages go down.

[sneakypete]

. I know most pro-immigration types spend huge sums of money avoiding the immigrants they love so dearly.

Not true! They seek them out for groundskeepers at their golf courses,garderners,nanny's,maids,cooks,laborers,etc,etc,etc. They just make damn sure none of them stick around after dark.

[sneakypete]

Well, it's funny, for I believe that some governments have hired illegal aliens for construction work. It's kind of odd when you see country roadwork being done a crew that is half-Mexican in an area that is only 7% Mexican.

The thing I can't figure out is that the last time I drove through the Nofolk/Hampton area in Virginia,I saw two city street department crews ENTIRELY made up of Mexicans,with the exception of black supervisors. They were cutting grass and edging along the roads. What was strange about this is that I honestly don't remember seeing ANY Mexicans around there before,and here are two 6+ man crews with city civil service jobs. I have a VERY hard time believing there were no black or white citizens of these cities who wanted those jobs.

[sneakypete]

President "TexMex" Bush seeks to discriminate mightily in favor of Mexicans by granting them a special amnesty.

I don't understand why so many people seem to be puzzled by this. Has everybody forgotten the youngest George Bush? The one they call the "Mexican" or "Latin" Bush who is the nephew of the current president? Most of the talk so far about him I have heard is how handsome and charming he is. In MY opinion,Bubba Bush is doing all this to prepare the ground for the election of his nephew as the first president of the new "North American Union",which will be compromised of Canada,the USA,and Mexico. The "New World Order" arrangement that president Bush-1 boasted about. Just think,THREE George Bushes who end up being presidents! What other candidate would stand a chance against him? His uncle gave America to Mexico,he is half-Mexican himself,and he speaks the language!

[AzJohn]

My point is that time is working against immigration reduction not in favor of it.

You have a very good point about the changing demographics. It certainly makes the job of immigration reform advocates more challenging. Although it is becoming more difficult I hope and believe it will still be possible to make some changes.

The Hispanic vote is not monolithic on this issue, either. There is a Hispanic minority voting for conservatives and Republicans and this number will increase as more Hispanics move into the middle class. I think more Hispanics will be attracted to Republican/conservative causes naturally, not as a result of mistakes like amnesty. Hopefully because of that and because of the country as a whole becoming concerned about immigration, as you suggest, we will be able to implement better policies on this.