Posted on 06/04/2006 4:04:57 AM PDT by NYS_Eric
Defeat This Monstrosity
What Hill conservatives can do on immigration
JOHN O’SULLIVAN
Now that the U.S. Senate has made a strong argument for unicameral government by passing the “comprehensive” immigration monstrosity, attention turns to the House. It has already passed a sensible “enforcement only” bill. It should stand firm on that legislation, at most making it an “enforcement first” bill by promising to consider some of the Senate’s reasonable proposals in the next Congress, if any can be found. But the Bush-Democrat coalition has an almost mystical attachment to the Senate’s guest-worker and amnesty provisions. It will be faithful unto death in fighting for them. And since the most likely such death is that of the Republican-controlled House, a major struggle is in prospect this summer. House Republicans should stand firm and refuse all compromise. Here’s how:
1. Underline on every possible occasion that this is not a “bipartisan” moderate bill. It is an extremist “open borders” law being pushed by a coalition of George W. Bush and the Democrats. This Bush-Democrat coalition is a radical one; it is not moderate, and it is certainly not conservative. Majorities of Republicans in both chambers of Congress are strongly opposed to the bill. Only continued firm opposition by Republicans can prevent an amnesty, a guest-worker program, and many other costly absurdities from passing into law. Republicans should want to boast in the midterm-election campaign that only their strong opposition did prevent this monstrosity’s passing into law.
2. Inform Beltway-centric Republicans that the mood of about 70 percent of Americans is sulfurous on this issue. As some Republican moderates like Chris Shays have discovered, this anger is not confined to the party’s “base,” as the condescending media commentary has it. It is spread across the political spectrum. Some who have voted Republican tell you, unprompted, that they will never vote GOP again. Many voters will go passionately to the polls this November to ensure the defeat of the bill’s supporters. Republican strategists — there’s an oxymoron for you — whose great anxiety is that the GOP’s grassroots supporters will stay at home are raving optimists. It’s that bad.
3. Point out the absurdity of the Bush-Democrat coalition’s argument that voters want “something” done about immigration and will punish those who do “nothing.” (The dimmer bulbs and the media seem to have been impressed by this.) What the voters want is border security and sanctions on employers who break the rules; what they oppose is rewarding law-breaking with an amnesty. The proposed comprehensive law is therefore very much worse than “nothing.” The voters will punish those who support it and reward those who defeat it. Those lukewarm souls who pass it while saying it should be defeated they will spew out of their mouths. The Bush-Democrat argument — promoted by those Republican “strategists” again — amounts to saying that voters are too stupid to inquire into what the “something” called immigration reform actually contains. You wanna bet on that likelihood? Okay, strategist, make my day.
4. Think about why the Democrats don’t seem to be suffering equally from the unpopularity of the Senate bill. They probably would be if the Republicans had been united in opposition and the Democrats were seen as its main promoters. But Bush and his GOP Senate allies, especially McCain, Martinez, and Hagel, have confused that picture — though perhaps not beyond repair. Besides, voters expect Democrats to favor this kind of legislation and the big government that goes with it. They may not like it, but they reasonably feel it does not amount to a betrayal. Finally, the Democrats may be prepared to take this risk in order to bring onto the electoral rolls the low-paid illegal immigrants who will be a massive net addition to their voters, recruits for the ethnic lobbies in the liberal-Democrat coalition, and fodder for the labor unions increasingly shunned by native-born Americans.
5. Realize that a Republican party united around this policy will go down to a united defeat. A divided GOP will have mixed results: Those who oppose it clearly, loudly, and on principle are likely to win, ceteris paribus, against Democrats who go along with the party line. Memo to Republicans running against those Democrats who voted against the bill, notably Debbie Stabenow and Ben Nelson: Save your money and take a good vacation.
6. Pay attention to the advice from David Frum in his National Review Online diary: The House Republicans can save themselves by — and only by — coming out against the bill and the president in a front-page-news way: Refusing to go to conference on the bill. Standing united on the steps of the Capitol behind Dennis Hastert as they unanimously reject it. Signing a full-page Washington Post or New York Times advertisement shouting “Not In Our Name.” Of course, they may be too loyal, noble, and courageous to do such things. In which case: Sayonara, kamikazes.
7. Develop a Plan B in case the comprehensive bill is successfully euthanized. As games go, this will afford many hours of malicious fun. For instance, House Republicans should wait till September, introduce a new version of the current House bill offering “enforcement only” reform, pass it, send it to the Senate, and watch liberal Republicans and Democrats alike squirm as they have to decide between principle and reelection. Would Bush veto such a bill in those circumstances? Perhaps. But why is that a problem? If he allowed it to pass into law, then the House Republicans would have a bill that was a great deal better than “something” to show the voters in November. If he vetoed it, he would dramatize the independence of the House Republicans and their closeness to their constituents on this issue.
8. Realize that the White House and its congressional lobbyists are very skilled at prizing allies out of opposition groups and neutering them. For instance, some of the most repellent and idiotic provisions in the comprehensive bill have been put in there for the precise purpose of taking them out again in response to the complaints of the House Republicans. It looks to me that Senator Specter’s last-minute insertion of an amendment to make building a border defense conditional upon consultations with the Mexican government was just such a provision. The calculation is that when such provisions bite the dust, the House can claim to have reformed the bill and made it acceptable. But it will still be an amnesty-and-guest-worker bill, in other words spinach. Say to hell with it.
9. Similarly, beware of House conservatives bearing gifts — such as respectable “compromises” that might satisfy the White House, soften the Senate Republican minority, and “unite” the GOP. Anything that does the first two of these things will not be a compromise but a surrender. Mike Pence, the Indiana congressman, is a sound fellow in general but his proposed “compromise” is an utter absurdity. It is the Senate’s same old comprehensive litany of guest-worker, amnesty, etc., with private-sector enforcement thrown in as a sop to the economic prejudices (which I share) of economic conservatives. As veteran econometrics writer Ed Rubenstein has shown, it could not possibly work. Private-sector employment agencies do not exist of the size and numbers that would be needed to process the tens of millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, that this legislation would admit to the U.S. If they did, their economic incentives would probably mean that they would pass over Mexican workers in favor of much cheaper Africans and Asians. Of course, the Mexicans would then move back into the illegal sector, and in time the Africans and Asians would follow them as regulation made them too pricey for employers and taxation made their legal jobs less financially attractive. In sum, it is probably a good thing that such a proposal is unworkable, since, if it could work, it would make matters much worse.
10. Ignore any “compromise” proposals from congressmen who have recently traveled on Air Force One.
11. Ask conservative and neoconservative writers who have strongly supported the Senate bill the following question: As the bill progresses, it acquires more and more provisions that should be detestable to all conservatives: the tax provisions that allow illegal immigrants a 40 percent exemption on back taxes that the IRS would grant no American; the Social Security changes that give illegals credit for payments made on false identities; the transformation of the guest-worker program so that “temporary” status becomes permanent residence in a few easy steps; the provisions that give guest workers protections that U.S. workers don’t enjoy; and the outright lies about such “safeguards” as that illegals must learn English to “earn citizenship” and that even then they will go to the back of the line, behind legal applicants. Why then do you raise little or no protest over these effects of the legislation or over the wider socialization of the U.S. economy they would inevitably impose?
12. Regard hatchet jobs of the “mainstream media” on conservative opponents of the Bush-Democrat compromise as badges of honor. Conservative Washington should give a public dinner in honor of Sen. Jeff Sessions, an amiable, soft-spoken lawyer, following his attempted assassination by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post. The tender-hearted Milbank called Sessions a “country tough” with big ears who nastily impugned the motives of his opponents with “typical ferocity.” How exactly? Well, he suggested that some Senate advocates of border reforms favor them only “as long as they don’t really work.” That apparently counts as sheer brutality in today’s Washington Post newsroom. It must be a very charming place to work. Still, Milbank’s piece did raise some disturbing questions, such as: Don’t they have editors at the Post these days? And are good manners making a comeback?
13. When colleagues look like they’re going wobbly, quote the ad George Bush ran (in Spanish only) in his Texas gubernatorial race that said, “Vote Bush — so what if he’s not a Democrat?” Walk away saying “Hmm . . .”
14. Finally, show some backbone. You don’t have to pass this bill. You don’t have to go to conference. You can reject Kevorkian politics and the whole engine of party suicide. Well, what’s stopping you? What are you? Thistledown?
No other way to explain it.
Starting off an otherwise decent analysis with the wrong premise.
The U.S. Senate has NOT made a 'strong arguement'. They have stabbed 90% of the nation in the back while making very weak argument based on political posturing rather than on reality and their Constitutional duties.
The U.S. Senate has NOT made a 'strong arguement'. They have stabbed 90% of the nation in the back while making very weak argument based on political posturing rather than on reality and their Constitutional duties.
Ditto
Good article!
I propose a theme for all Republicans who vote against the Senate monstrosity and are up for re-election this fall:
YOU CAN THANK (insert candidate's name here) FOR....keeping millions of illegal aliens from swarming into your neighborhood(picture of dozens being marched out of a "safe house" in suburbia), taking over your schools (picture of illegals at San Jose High School in CA putting up the Mexican flag over the US flag), bringing in crime (real headlines of illegals murdering US citizens), exhausting your hospitals (picture of ER closed for lack of funds)and taking jobs from Americans (show the Mohawk Carpet Co. in GA, Tyson meatpacking plants). If you want to fight what's happening to America, vote REPUBLICAN!
I'll guarantee you, that would get attention....and it's all true.
As has been noted elsewhere, the "border protection" agenda should have been presented as two separate bills, one addressing the physical containment of the border between US and Mexico, and a second concerning the status of those who are already here. The first is a matter of restricting the entry points to a few easily watched and controlled localities, and applying the legal mechanisms (patchwork though they may be) to the maintenance of entry in an orderly manner.
The second part, dealing with the undocumented aliens already here, begins by first locating them. One quick way is to look at law enforcement, and find those who have committed some infraction of the law, and are already in police custody. The second is to proceed to reconcile employment records with legal residents and/or citizens, and those who are neither citizens nor here on a valid work permit, are selected out of the employment pool, and given a one-way ticket home.
Of course, there should be expanded efforts to locate and detain those who may have entered legally, but have chosen to become "lost", and clarify their situation. These are the true "loose cannons" in our society.
It does not matter what legislation comes out of Congress anyway. When it becomes inconvenient to enforce the provisions, any law resulting from that legislation shall be ignored as well.
The House should follow this advice.
It has certainly been posted before, but can someone once again list the Senators who voted in favor of this destructive bill.
Bullseye.Since the MSM, purposely, has not expended any effort to explain the details of the Senate bill, they will gleefully champion the removal of the "poison pill" provisions as a "compromise," and pat House Republicans on the back for drinking the Kool-aid.
They certainly will lose faithful conservative hearts, and votes, if they don't do something.
I've avoided posting about this issue because my outrage would be bad manners at Jim Robinson's table. To put it mildly, I now classify every politician who supports the absorption of illegals into America, in the same category as the "quote Republican" perpetrator of the First Amendment chiller CFR. I can't say freepublicly just what I think of him, either.
I've been dismayed in the past when the House seems to fold in the face of White House and Senate pressure.
I believe the passage of CAFTA was like this.
What is the difference between George Bush and John McCain? Not a darned thing. They are both East Coast Rockefeller Republican elitists and carpetbaggers who call the West their home.
| DEMOCRATIC SENATORS: 14 up for re-election |
REPUBLICAN SENATORS: 14 up for re-election |
OPEN SEATS: 5 |
| Daniel Akaka (HI) | George Allen (VA) | Democratic (MD) |
| Jeff Bingaman (NM) | Conrad Burns (MT) | Democratic (MN) |
| Robert Byrd (WV) | Lincoln Chafee (RI) | Democratic (NJ) |
| Maria Cantwell (WA) | Mike DeWine (OH) | Republican (TN) |
| Thomas Carper (DE) | John Ensign (NV) | Independent (VT) |
| Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) | Orrin Hatch (UT) | |
| Kent Conrad (ND) | Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) | |
| Dianne Feinstein (CA) | Jon Kyl (AZ) | |
| Edward Kennedy (MA) | Trent Lott (MS) | |
| Herb Kohl (WI) | Richard Lugar (IN) | |
| Joe Lieberman (CT) | Rick Santorum (PA) | |
| Ben Nelson (NE) | Olympia Snowe (ME) | |
| Bill Nelson (FL) | James Talent (MO) | |
| Debbie Stabenow (MI) | Craig Thomas (WY) |
It is not yet clear which seats will have the most competitive races. Incumbent senators have a high rate of re-election, even when their party affiliation is at odds with the political trends of their state. The most competitive races tend to be those where the incumbent has retired, and those races in which the incumbent has served only one term are frequently competitive.
Additional special elections that are held due to the death or resignation of Senators in the interim would change the party balances listed above.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00157
Regards . . . Penny
And why would anyone thing the Executive would enforce this new punishment when they refuse to enforce the ones on the books?
No other way to explain it.
Unfortunately, there is. It's not a "mystical attachment" at all, it's a "diabolical determination".
Starting off an otherwise decent analysis with the wrong premise.
The U.S. Senate has NOT made a 'strong argument'.
You guys misread the comment and missed the sarcasm. He said "Now that the U.S. Senate has made a strong argument for unicameral government".
We currently have a "bicameral" legislature, i.e., two branches, the House and the Senate. His crack about going to a unicameral system was just a sarcastic way of stating that the Senate is making a strong case that it has become irrelevant and dangerous and should be abolished. Thus, we would be left with only the House, i.e. a "unicameral" legislature.
Generally a good set of ideas. The basic, quiet way to comb the illegals out is to identify them and remove them at every point where they interact with either law enforcement of social services. For example, if they appear at a hospital emergency room, provide them care but also inform ICE and have them deported. Rigorously do the same with things like welfare, drivers' licenses, etc. Such a policy would directly remove a lot of illegals, deter others from coming or staying, and significantly reduce the burden on heavily impacted social services, like hospital emergency rooms.
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---62
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---36
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Not Voting - 2
Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO)
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.