Posted on 11/19/2006 4:43:19 PM PST by Reagan Man
The idea is spreading that this months Republican electoral defeat somehow represented voter rejection of the enforcement-first approach to immigration championed by the House Republican leadership, and meant, instead, voter endorsement of the Bush-McCain-Kennedy approach that would amnesty (or legalize) the illegal aliens already here and double or triple future legal immigration.
This notion is so colossally wrong only a senator could believe it.
Kyl Won, DeWine Lost
Sen. Mel Martinez (R.-Fla.), that is. The presumptive general chairman of the Republican National Committee is peddling this ludicrous pro-amnesty spin, joined by a number of other politicians and journalists. Martinez told the Washington Times: I think we have to understand that the election did speak to one issue, and that was that its not about bashing people, its about presenting a hopeful face. Border security only, enforcement only, harshness only is not the message that I believe America wants to convey.
Even before the election, the pro-amnesty crowd was preparing a full-blown disinformation campaign. Immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes blamed the then-coming Republican defeat in part on Congress failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration. But imagine, Barnes wrote, if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a comprehensiveMr. Bushs wordimmigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. Theyd be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.
Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria was practically quivering in anticipation: The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNNs Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.
Angry band of xenophobes? Nativist diehards? Thats you and me, folks.
After Election Day, the name-calling continued. Tamar Jacoby of the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute used her entrée at the Weekly Standard to denounce far-right groups she said were motivated by xenophobia and engaging in demagoguery over this wedge issue. She sounded an awful lot like a Democrat complaining about, say, the defense of traditional marriage. The Wall Street Journal, of course, cackled at Immigration Losers and warned against following immigration controllers down the garden path of defeat.
The open-borders crowd scavenged for results they hoped would confirm their pre-packaged conclusions. A favorite was the defeat of two Republican immigration hawks running for the House in Arizona, incumbent Rep. J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, who was seeking liberal Republican Rep. Jim Kolbes seat. The problem with pointing to these results as proof of the publics support for the Bush-McCain-Kennedy comprehensive amnesty plan is that the very same voters overwhelmingly approved four good ballot measures related to immigration: denying bail to illegals, barring illegals from winning punitive damages in civil suits, prohibiting illegals from receiving certain state subsidies for education and day care, and declaring English the states official language. Clearly, the actual policy issue of immigration control remained hugely popular and, while Hayworths opponent endorsed a guest-worker program, he explicitly said on his campaign website, Secure Our Border and Stop Illegal Immigration, Hold employers accountable for whom they hire, and, I oppose amnesty and will not support it. Hardly a Bush echo.
Searching elsewhere for some ammunition, amnesty proponents pointed to the defeats in Colorado of Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez and Republican House aspirant Rick ODonnell as proof that the public is with them. What they dont mention is that Colorado voters approved two tough initiatives: one to deny the tax deductibility of wages paid to illegals and another requiring the states attorney general to sue the federal government over non-enforcement of the immigration laws.
In the anti-Republican storm, both hawks and doves were affected. Immigration-control stalwarts such as Republican Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana were washed away, but so was Republican Senate amnesty co-sponsor Mike DeWine of Ohio. On the other hand, nationally known immigration hawks such as Republican Representatives Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin enjoyed easy re-election, as did Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, an immigration dove.
The pro-amnesty crowd has yet to explain why, if the public is with them, no candidates made a main part of their campaigns their support for legalizing illegal aliens and admitting millions of additional foreign workers. The only exception was Jim Pederson, the Democrat running against Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona. Pederson not only championed the Presidents amnesty/guest-worker plan, but lauded the 1986 amnesty disaster as well. Unsurprisingly, he was defeated.
Some smarterwinningDemocrats actually had very tough immigration positions, explicitly endorsing an enforcement-first approach. For instance, Brad Ellsworth (who defeated Hostettler in Indiana) said: We need to tighten our borders, enforce the laws we have and punish employers who break them. Sen.-elect Claire McCaskill of Missouri expressed similar views, as did Sen.-elect Jon Tester of Montana and Jason Altmire, who was elected to the House from Pennsylvania.
Regardless of the facts, if the amnesty mandate myth takes root, the consequences could be dire. Were already seeing its effects, with President Bushs saying the day after the election that immigration is an area where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats. Martinezs selection as RNC chairman is particularly disturbing in this context, because he didnt just vote for the Senate amnesty, he actually wrote the final version. His Hagel-Martinez bill (S 2611) passed in May, despite the opposition of a majority of his fellow Republicans in the Senateand it was dismissed out of hand by virtually all House Republicans.
Preventing the acceptance of the open-border crowds fairy-tale version of the election is imperativeboth to stymie next years Bush/Democrat efforts to pass the amnesty and to preserving opportunities for future Congresses and Presidents to actually address this pressing issue in a constructive fashion.
No party wins by saying they aren't as bad as the other guys, Dane.
Please proceed promptly to your next strawman so we can get this nonsense over with by my bedtime.
The accidentally ignorant are curable.
The deliberately ignorant are not.
I think that will be because the Democrats now run the House.
Most people around here voted straight Republican, so get upset with those that didn't bother to vote. Swing voters didn't help us this year and Independents voted against Republicans.
Huh the democrats did.
Bingo!
They didn't win. We lost. The party in power has to give a reason why they should remain in such a position. To the average voter, a party that preaches limited government while simultaneously busting the budget has very little credibility.
OK, please put up the next strawman. I wanna be in bed by 10 pm eastern. That should give you time to put up five or six more before I hit the hay.
None of that caused this as much as those demos. They fired up the Pro-illegals and undermined the GOP support.
No other reason a party defending the nation and growing the economy would have been rejected by rational people. The Hysteria here was incredible as you well know since you were fanning the flames with both hands.
And the legislation will be proposed and pushed by nancy pelosi.
You all could have gotten on board with the Kyl/Cornyn, but you decided bashing hispanics was a better route, and you paid the price, a nancy pelosi house.
I have a clear conscience in that I did not aid in pelosi's ascendency, unlike others on FR who gave her a proxy vote by sitting out the election, or a direct vote by voting for these so-called new "conservative" democrats.
Defending the nation? The GOP talked about the War on Terrorism while failing to secure our borders.
Growing the economy? The GOP grew the federal budget like it hasn't been grown before. Anyone can live large on a credit card. But sooner or later, the bill comes due.
I am aghast that the Dems are in power. But the GOP, quite frankly, pissed away their moral standing to stay in power by running up earmark after earmark while simultaneously borrowing money to wage war in Iraq. If they were truly serious about the responsibility of their power, they would have refrained from such.
And you will get all warm and squishy about it, Dane.
Ok, Dane, stop right there. That is not true and you know it. BUT, it's what the Dems made the Hispanics think. No one here is anti-Hispanic. We are anti-illegal immigrant. I guess the Dem ploy worked with you too?
What's to hide?
By the way, what makes Nancy Pelosi's stand of illegal immigration any different fromk that of the liberal Democrats that voted her to that post?
I never heard it mentioned by her or the MSM in the run-up>
I can see the headlines now "NANCY PELOSI TO BECOME SPEAKER BECAUSE SHE FAVORS AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS".
Most of us grownups knew that the outcome of the speaker of the house vote was a forgone conclusion. Her views on amnesty were not much different than those of just about every other Democrat congressman that gave her that vote.
From this, you conclude that it was her stand on amnesty for illegals that put her in.
Uh no I won't. I was for Kyl/Cornyn, but it was your ilk who trashed them relelentlessly, but you got your just desserts with nancy pelosi.
J.D. Heyworth here in AZ5 didn't talk about anything but border fences for the last year. He lost.
The bottom line, the congress passed a border fence, but did *not* pass "amnesty", and the Repubs lost. Either the swing voters were mad because they think a fence is a simpleton answer to a complex question, or they wanted a more comprehensive approach and didn't get it. Either way, the enforcement only option is a loser.
"I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive."
Ronald Reagan
Oh pkease all one has to do is look at the disgusting remarks towards Mel Martinez on FR, a person who has the same ACU rating as Tom Tancredo, 100%.
Dane, any immigration bill will have to be signed by Bush. At the end of the day, he is responsible for what will happen.
I am opposed to a guest worker program for damn good reason, given the European problems from their such programs. If we truly need more people here, bring them in as full-status immigrants. Otherwise, stuff it.
For a while I was stupid enough to take you seriously.
That's a mistake I shall not repeat.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
And second, the ACU ratings blithely ignore the Senate shamnesty bill. Which means they are not serious about rating conservatives.
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.