The GOP's Immigration Dilemma

The Hill ^ | 5/15/2002 | Dick Morris

[hchutch]

For its political survival, the Republican Party must court the Hispanic vote. Totally shut out among black voters and badly defeated among Hispanics, the GOP is having a hard time finding enough white voters to overcome the deficit. With blacks and Hispanics casting one vote in four, a Republican must win two-thirds of the white vote to have a shot at 51 percent in the average election.

And the situation will only get worse for the Republican Party. The Hispanic population, which swelled from 7 percent to 12 percent of the U.S. population in the past 10 years, is forecast to grow to 18 percent by the end of the decade. If they continue to vote Democrat, the GOP will run out of white people — and face death as a political party.

Only by taking the bold and dramatic step of providing amnesty to illegal Mexican immigrants can the GOP, at a stroke, become competitive among Hispanic voters. This legislation, the equivalent for Hispanics of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for blacks, holds the potential to reposition an entire slice of the electorate and move Hispanics to the Republican Party.

But, at the same time, the Republican Party needs to hang on to its base of angry white men who largely oppose immigration — and illegal immigration most of all. They are the base that insisted on English-only initiatives in the 1980s and 1990s, battled to cutoff aid to illegal aliens, and demanded a halt to bilingual education.

How are Republicans to reach out to Hispanics while appeasing their truculent base?

President Bush has already taken the lead in pulling the Republican Party back from the issue precipices on which it was dancing. By stopping Republicans from opposing bilingual education or affirmative action, and by demoting English-only initiatives to the bottom of the party’s agenda, he has moved mightily to strengthen GOP outreach to Hispanics.

But it is his amnesty proposal for illegal Mexican immigrants that holds the real hope for his party to avert demographic extinction.

The key to resolving the Republican dilemma of having to choose between outreach to Hispanics and alienating its Anglo political base is to condition amnesty with good citizenship requirements.

Republicans should offer conditional amnesty to Mexican illegal immigrants. Here’s the deal: If you want to stay in the United States, you must enroll in a good-citizen program. The immigrant has to agree to become functionally literate in English within two years, work for six of the next eight quarters and pay taxes to FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) for each of these quarters — no off-the-books work — and avoid arrest for 24 months.

At the end of the two-year period, those who meet the requirements would become citizens in good standing, eligible to vote and participate in civic life. Those who refuse to enroll or who fail the meet the requirements would face deportation. If the program works, it can be expanded to other categories of illegal immigrants.

Polling shows that most voters, even among the GOP base, are willing to forgive the illegality of their arrival if these Mexican immigrants show a willingness to earn their legal status in America. The compromise has the contractual opportunity/responsibility formula that sold so many of Clinton’s programs and that lies at the core of the highly successful welfare reform program. By asking something in return for giving something, the resulting transaction acquires a moral impetus that it sorely needs to win national support.

At the same time as the Republicans offer the olive branch to illegal Hispanic immigrants, they must use this year’s review of immigration statutes to close down immigration from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists — including even such so-called allies as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. By closing one spigot as they open the other, Republicans can master the political hat trick of reaching out to Hispanics while appeasing their political base.

Otherwise, the GOP will go the way of the Liberal Party in Great Britain, to the political grave.

[hchutch]

If you want to run off and throw a temper-tantrum, fine. We'll manage without you. Just don't expect anything from us or expect any support from us. Next time you paleos push some candidate that we don't like, we'll stay home, too. Because I won't vote for anyone like Buchanan who proposes unworkable solutions like mass deportations of illegals.

Staying home and protest votes can work both ways. How is THAT for a dose of political reality?

[Poohbah]

Doesn't sound like the majority of the electorate thought it was a racist proposition.

That was in 1994. In 1996, 1998, and 2000, the Hispanic vote was much larger--and went to the Democrats.

[Fishrrman]

hchutch wrote:
Again, if it's such a good startegy to do it your way, please explain why the GOP got their clocks cleaned in California in 1996, 1998, and 2000.

The sad truth is, that -- in 50 years -- California isn't even going to BE part of America anymore. Unless we start to reverse the cultural deterioration and "Mexican regression" that is taking place there now.

How many long-time Calfornians in this forum -- who have seen the deterioration of the past 25-30 years -- would refute this?

- John

[hchutch]

If someone can lay out a realistic plan, I'm all ears. I'm all for tougher employer sanctions and all that, but we're facing a logistical nightmare if we try to deport 10-15 million illegals. The best bet is to combine something like Morris has proposed with some serious increases in the Border Patrol, INS, and with tougher employer sanctions and reforms in immigration.

Are there other options?

[Poohbah]

Wow, talk about revisionism. Speaking as a Los Angeleno, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Prop. 187 was one of the most popular ballot initiatives in the state's history.

Yes, it was very popular with the electorate of 1994. The electorate in 1996-2000 was VERY different, thanks in part to Prop 187. The Democrats were able to register a bunch of previously apathetic people who (wrongly) felt that the GOP was dominated by a bunch of night-riders.

Also let us not forget that 187 had support in both the Hispanic and Black votting communities, about 51% of hispanic voters and over 60% of Black voters supported Prop 187 so stop with the disinformation campaign that it was a KKK plan to oppress minorities.

I didn't say it WAS a KKK plan. I said that the imagery used in some of the ads I saw in San Diego looked like it had been planned by David Duke and Tom Metzger. For someone who demands that English be the sole language spoken in the US, you have a really poor grasp of it. Maybe you should take some remedial reading courses.

[Brownie74]

If you want to run off and throw a temper-tantrum, fine.

Hold your horses here old son. I never said I was going anywhere to throw a temper-tantrum. In fact just the opposite. I enjoy sitting here chatting with you about your enthusiam over Dick Morris' plan to circumvent the laws and the Constitution of The United States. It's quite obvious you approve of it.

No need to flare up at me when I was seriously considering writing HCHutch on my ballot in 2004 instead of Barbra Streisand. Now be nice ya hear?

[RickyJ]

Dick Morris doesn't have a clue. Many Hispanics are against giving amnesty to illegal aliens too. If he keeps trying to pass 245i then he will lose more of the Hispanic vote than he will gain, not to mention many of his core voters, many of whom have already sworn to never vote for him again.

If Bush would have kept his core happy he would easily have 4 more years.

However, Bush still has some hope of getting reelected. Many LIBERALS I know are now in love with Bush.

[Be active]

Sounds like plea bargaining. If you tell me who hired you to kill that man, I'll reduce your life sentence to 5 years.

I'd rather see the GOP become a minority party then act like Democrats.

I'm another Republican not voting this year.

[Poohbah]

Good riddance. We can do without you summer soldiers and sunshine patriots.

[Tuor]

For its political survival, the Republican Party must court the Hispanic vote.

At first, I wondered who in the heck would write this sort of crap. Then I saw it was Dick Morris and the light bulb came on.

We *could* enforce our laws and strengthen our borders. That would quickly reduce the size of the problem, though it wouldn't eliminate it.

But let me see if I understand this: the Republicans (and Democrats) created this Hispanic problem by all but inviting them to illegally invade the country, and now they have to pander to them in order to remain viable? Is this the tail wagging the dog?

By violating our own laws, or giving a nod and a wink to those that do, the party which alledges it supports the rule of law would spell the end of the Republican party as a serious player much quicker than anything else.

Dick Morris...LOL.

Tuor

[ET(end tyranny)]

Any way to find out who the 'once illegals' voted for after previous amnesties?

[chachacha]

Wow! Thanks for the link.

[ET(end tyranny)]

We should have looked into 3rd party voting about 15 years ago. Then there might be one with large enough numbers to make a difference today. I'm still hoping that perhaps the Constitution Party can get their numbers up and make the difference we need.

[RickyJ]

The way things are going, the Hispanics will be the majority in America in 30-40 years. They will then take ALL the spoils of government. By allowing unlimited, massive immigration, both parties will become extinct. The country will be ruled by some Hispanic party whose primary goal will be to extract all wealth from non-Hispanic people, and then, when they are bled dry, they will be forced out.

Sounds like what is going on in Zimbabwe now.

I hope the USA can avoid a similar future.

[Be active]

I agree. Just for reference, the American Independent party is strongly against illegal immigration.

[hchutch]

My, aren't we willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

[ET(end tyranny)]

Does the American Independent Party have strong numbers. Might be worthwhile to try and promote certain 3rd parties as much as possible before the next Presidential election.

[hchutch]

And in the process, we'd lose a heck of a lot more. Go ahead, run off, go third party, and put a left-wingnut in the Oval Office for four or eight years.

Yeah, you'll show the Republicans... you'll show them you'll throw the baby out wiht the bathwater, and they'll just decide not to bother with folks who cannot understand political reality.

Look at the way the media's been blowing this whole 9/11 thing out of proportion. We've got one morning show person asking, "What did Bush know, and when did he know it?" HELLO!!! We're seeing the media's bias IN PLAIN SIGHT!!! Do you think that anything NOT properly packaged is going to escape a similar feeding frenzy?

If you believe that, then I've got a bridge in Chappaquiddick I'll sell real cheap.

[usadave]

The Hispanics' reaction to Prop.187 showed that they place helping their fellow Hispanics above the rule of law. As a Anglo-American, if I hear that someone from England or Canada or Australia is in the U.S. illegally, I say "throw them out!". But it seems that Hispanic-Americans are more apt to want to help an Hispanic illegal alien as opposed to saying "throw them out!". Prop.187 would have only denied benefits to illegal aliens, so any voter who was opposed to Prop.187 was in essense in favor of continuing to provide benefits to illegal aliens, the majority of whom were Hispanic.