On CAFTA, Dems must choose unions or Hispanics

JWR ^ | 5-13-05 | Dick Morris

[lOKKI]

Manufacturing has been over in the United States for twenty-five years. It's almost over in Japan, and in Germany. China would essentially finish U.S. manufacturing even if CAFTA and NAFTA didn't exist.

The brief period of time between 1955 and 1975 during which American and German union workers could make as management was a fluke of the post-war situation. It's a freak situation that won't come again in our lifetimes, and probably will never come again.

Service jobs are already following this trend - once you're talking on the telephone, does it matter how far away the other end of the line is? I think not.

The moral of this story is to beat your kids until they study hard enough to go to college as that's they only way they're going to be able to earn a decent living - if then.

[bpjam]

Hispanics cannot give them hundreds of millions each election cycle and provide them with tens of thousands of paid 'volunteers' for their campaigns... so I'm thinking the dim's are gonna go with the union thugs on this one.

[jaydubya2]

My fear is that we will become strictly a service industry country and we will lose our manufacturing base to 3rd world countries. I don't believe there are enough service jobs to go around. We can't all be Doctors, janitors, fast food workers, lawyers and politicians. I agree that competition is a good thing, but you got to admit these countries are paying their workers next to nothing and have little or no laws protecting the enviorment as we do. I like having a solid manufacturing base in the US. It also provides American workers with decent salaries to spend on the US economy. I don't want taxpayers to subsidize failing companies (like what has been down with the airline industry), but I think we should take a more cautious approach to the free trade philosophy, not just jump in with both feet.

[shuckmaster]

Why build a factory in Guatemala and pay tariffs to import your products to the United States when you can build it next door in Mexico and import without levies or duties?

This is complete BS written by an idiot who either doesn't have a clue at what he's talking about or is just flat out lying!!!

The tariffs are not on imports from Guatemala. The tariffs are on exports from the U.S. to Guatamala. This is causing a trade imbalance leading to Guatamala and other Central American countries collecting U.S. dollars & spending them in other countries where they can avoid the ridiculous tariffs. Republicans are trying to have the tariffs removed so U.S. companies can sell more products to Central America transported on the same ships that are bringing the imports in. The Demorats are blocking it & misguided RINO's are cheering them on.

[Rockingham]

The 2004 election was dominated by the Iraq War, with illegal immigration suppressed as an issue due to both Presidential candidates having the same position. The public is some 60 to 80 per cent against the current wave of illegal immigration and increasingly upset about it.

Issue salience and votes quickly develop when candidates take opposite positions and the false consensus of bipartisan complicity is broken. In 2004, David Drier in California had a surprisingly close general election against a nominal opponent due to the immigration issue, which was stirred up by a couple of radio personalities. There were several other elections in which the anti-immigration side prevailed.

In 2006 and 2008, illegal immigration will be a major issue in Congressional races and in the Presidential election. There will be losing candidates and consultants who go home mumbling that "Gee, it didn't seem like a big issue in the benchmark polling last year."

I have a recurring nightmare about the fall of 2008 in which, trailing in the polls, Hillary or whomever is the Democratic candidate suddenly comes out forcefully against illegal immigration, with the de facto acquiescence of the AFL-CIO and the Left. If so, they and the Democrats win.

Would Hillary and the Democrats betray a position and constituency for the sake of winning national power? In an instant -- and without a trace of regret.

[Sam the Sham]

Bush very sensibly backed off from his pro-illegal position until after the election was won. His base had little choice because the specter of Jean-Jacques Kerry in the White House was so repugnant. Grownups don't vote for fun. They vote for results.

Illegal immigration has become a major problem for the GOP. And this point about unions vs Hispanics ignores the fact that illegal immigration hurts ALL low wage American citizens, many of whom are Hispanic.

And since when is it our responsibility to export American jobs to stem illegal immigration ? The prosperity of Mexico and Central America is not our responsibility.

[Sam the Sham]

Then welcome to a society awash in pervasive unemployment for that half of the workforce that is not college material. Expect a society awash in uncivilized young men.

[Sam the Sham]

Bush's increased share of the Hispanic vote and the Black vote was not due to his open borders policies. It was because of the alienation of deeply religious minority voters from the militantly secular latte liberal tone of the Kerry campaign.

[Rockingham]

True. Much of the GOP fear of the illegal immigration issue is due to reverses that the California party suffered when they opposed it. But the wrong lesson was drawn because electoral defeat, Pete Wilson's opportunism, and GOP factionalism were more the cause of decline than a supposed backlash from Hispanics on the illegal immigration issue.