Am I missing something or does this issue cross political lines? How did a bill pass in the Judiciary Committee? Oh yeah, it passed because some Republicans voted the same as Democrats in favor of the bill. Neither political party wants to anger the "Latino" vote because its an election year, but the funny thing is that I have communicated with many Latinos that are native-born, as well as LEGAL immigrants, and they are against ILLEGAL immigration as anyone else. So whose vote are the politicians afraid of losing ... the illegal immigrants that can't vote?
They're afraid of the latinos who can vote.
Yes, legal latinos don't want illegal immigration. But on the other hand they don't pay much attention to politics and are easily led as a "group". It's no coincidence that the Republican led prop 184 in Ca. resulted in significant losses for Republicans in the last 15 years simply because a republican governor supported it. It wasn't even passed by a Republican legislature, and the Gov. got just one vote on the matter just like everyone else. Nevertheless the Reps got the blame, and it will take another two generations to get that vote back.
This time we face the same situation in AZ, Texas, and in a bunch of other marginal purple states where a few thousand hispanic votes could give us Hillary! for Pres.
Bottom line, Bush will likely make his first veto a bill that has all teeth and no legal status. This was his No 1 issue when he got elected up till 9/11. Now he's back at it, and he's not letting go.
Similarly, the Senate will not pass an all teeth, no legalization bill. So give up on that.
And just like the 1980's, there's no way any teeth only laws will be enforced. There are innumerable ways to enforce border laws already on the books, and they're not being used, and no future laws will be used.
The only viable alternative is assimilation. And not even hard-core Americans are talking that talk, and that's a serious mistake. We don't need to fight illegals and their advocates on this issue. We need to fight liberals so we can get English into schools. Progress has been made on that front, but a little help on it would be appreciated.
Trying to close the border and send illegals back is a wasted effort.
Just watch and see.
Yeah. We got a big problem. Even Democrats can put aside politics for one instance and agree we've got to fix it.
Neither political party wants to anger the "Latino" vote because its an election year
Both parties recognize that the latino vote will soon be a huge plurality merely because of birthrates. And that's even if we send illegals home.
I have communicated with many Latinos that are native-born, as well as LEGAL immigrants, and they are against ILLEGAL immigration as anyone else.
Yeah. And when republicans got the blame in California for passing Prop 184 15 years ago, legal latinos that vote have locked Republicans out of power ever since. Just because latinos don't like illegal immigration doesn't mean they can't be successfully demagogued into counter attacking against the party they see as anti-latino.
So whose vote are the politicians afraid of losing ... the illegal immigrants that can't vote?
No. They're afraid of losing the votes of the American born children of these immigrants for the next 80 years. Just like the Black vote has been owned by the Democrats for 45 years merely from demagoguery alone, the Latino vote is now up for grabs for generations to come. If one party or the other can purchases this vote in total, they will be guaranteed power for decades, despite any other issue.
Interestingly enough, I'm studying this right now, and from what I can see, it appears that some politicians of both parties are choosing to heed the "scratch-your-back" strategy.
Simply put, "scratch-your-back" works like this: legislators in a system such as ours will trade favors to get their idea--be it legislation, pork, resolution, etc. expedited through Congress (or a state legislature). You vote for my bill, and I'll vote for yours.
This transcends most campaign promises (unless directly up for reelection), and often results in politicians breaking the lines, allegiances, philosophies, etc. of their party and going across the aisle.
While this action can help bolster the one party who's getting their package sent through--the gains are almost always short-term.
However, the end result from "scratch-your-back" is distrust in both parties and apathy at the polls--which in turn equates to a lowered number of voters. This difference can in turn be the "make or break" group in the election, which effectively can shift the power structure.
Putting this into the modern situation, the politicians (IIRC, of both parties) who "scratch-the-back" on this issue are going to meet sharp resistance and hesitancy among voters--something that more than a few cannot really afford.
It's a less-than-honorable and highly inefficient system of doing the government's business, but nonetheless it exists as a common practice among politicos.
Hope this helps!