I think you're wrong.
Ask around.
Heck, look around... any time Americans have a chance to express their unhappiness over Illegals at the polls, they do so big-time.
I think the critical mass on this is building.
Posted on 05/16/2002 12:24:37 PM PDT by 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.
Dude, you really have to stop re-writting history to make your argument. The electorate wasn't different in 1996. What happened in the 1996 election was that selfish Bob Dole picked Jack "Big Tent" Kemp to run as his VP. Kemp put the word out that the Republican party would not support 187 or any other "anti-immigrant" elements in the platform.
So there you have it, Republicans and independents in California were livid that Judge Felzer stopped 187 and were longing for her decision to be overturned. 187 and 209 were the rage for years, but the Republican leadership sold out their most popular issues to curry favor to a group that will never vote for them.
By the way, no charge for the history lesson you so richly needed.
Of course not. They should be deported, but as long as they are needed they will remain.
You saying Americans hate illegals is either wrong or proof that Americans are cowards.
I think you're wrong.
What did Jesus say about compassion, and the meek?
If you really think Hillary as President for 8 years would help this Nation, you are certifiable.
I was kidding about the banning, and heartily favor the right of others to stay stupid things.
#209 was really stupid and you agree. Fair enough.
The Founding Fathers were the elite. And they were not stupid.
Ask around.
Heck, look around... any time Americans have a chance to express their unhappiness over Illegals at the polls, they do so big-time.
I think the critical mass on this is building.
Nothing personal.
For right or wrong, they symbolize cowardice.
La Raza...Atzlan...KKK...Blank Panthers...Moonies... all the same.
If they tried to actually become a real force, real Americans would squish them.
All groups have radical fringes.
Best to leave them alone to their backslapping and fantasies.
Sounds like a typical FR fringe immigrant thread, eh?
Huh? A handful of moderate DemocRATs may have voted against (i)245 , but the majority of them clearly supported it. To say they "stopped" amnesty is like saying the Democrats stopped gun-control because a whooping 5-10% of them happen to pro-gun.
The 'RAT LEADERS like Dasshole and Kennedy have pushed this sort of garbage. Where have you been? The DemocRATs have always been big fans of "expediated" citzenship, which is one of the reasons Clinton rushed a bunch of people through the lines during the 1996 election.
Meanwhile, most Republicans voted against it. They always do and this is nothing new. The GOP has pledged itself against open borders for at least 120 years. The vast majority of Republicans have never supported rewarding illegals, reguardless of what the President wants. Where have you been?
U.S. Democrats push for extension of immigrant bill (Amnesty)
Senate Democrats propose amnesty for some illegals
Sessions says many [Republicans] oppose amnesty plan
Border Bill in House Minus Amnesty(Republicans Demands Bush Enforce Immigration Laws)
"The restriction of immigration is a Republican policy. Our party formulated and enacted into law the quota system, which for the first time has made possible an adequate control of foreign immigration."
-- 1932 Republican Party platform, adopted in Chicago
(And the REST of the party platforms have pretty much mirrored the same statement)
The illegals are still here. Big-time.
Perhaps they are not "hated" by Americans, but tolerated as a neccesity.
If what you say was true, Pat would be in his third term and there would be no illegal alien problem.
Small groups can be very organized and loud, but do not represent "all" or "America".
Much like on FR.
Time will tell and I am optimistic and presently enjoying my Los Angeles life.
Well said.
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.
