The GOP's Immigration Dilemma

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.

If Americans hated illegals, there would be no (or very few) illegals in America.

Every poll that I've seen lately shows that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to illegal immigration.
But American citizens don't have the authority to enforce our country's immigration laws, and that's why the
millions of illegal aliens are still in the U.S.

40% of Hispanics voted for 187.

True, but incomplete.

Let's rewrite it to be strictly accurate:

40% of Hispanics who voted in 1994 voted for 187.

Now, after the 187 ad campaign and the Democrats' subsequent demagougery over 187, we got a LOT more Hispanics registered--and convinced that the GOP hated Hispanics.

187 was ready-made for demagougery on both sides. Ol' Pete (who never gave a damn about illegals when he was Mayor of San Diego, or Senator, or during his first term as Governor) used it in his campaign in 1994. The Democrats used it in 1996, 1998, and 2000...and got a LOT more votes out of it than we ever did.

Every poll that I've seen lately shows that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to illegal immigration.

When you get to specifics, though, you discover that the vast majority of that vast majority oppose illegal immigration in the same way that many people oppose sin and favor motherhood. When you start outlining specific responses needed, the public suddenly starts saying "I'm not going there."

When you get to specifics

The specifics do make it harder. I think they need to quit letting in every criminal or welfare seeker that feels like coming in ---but when it comes down to how we get rid of the illegals who are already here I think there are some problems. I doubt many of us want door-to-door searches and when it comes to having kids removed from their homes and schools you can hesitate. I think Bush should quit promising amnesty which only encourages more to come over illegally, just leave them as illegals ---which was their decision in the first place. Then deport them for any crimes ----shoplifting, B&E, truancy, drunk driving, etc ---they choose to commit.

I agree. Something like Project Exile. A cop comes across an illegal immigrant in the process of committing a crime. BAM!! Give the INS guys a call, and start the deportation ball rolling on that guy.

And ADVERTISE that you are doing that. It'll be a lot less trouble, and it's pretty hard for the Left and the media to demagouge.

The problem is that some of the proposals from the FR anti-immigration wing are either going to be woefully ineffective (placing a token military force on the border) or are completely unrealistic--how many Americans do you think would support planting a very dense minefield on BOTH borders? THAT idea has actually been mooted more than once.

The biggest problem that we have is that Mexico is an extremely poor country. In part, that is because it has suited US politico-military interests to ensure that Mexico does not get enough economic power to become a significant military power in North America. We tolerate a much wealthier Canada because it has a small population, and thus has no military pool.

The United States then becomes an attractive nuisance for Mexicans trying to get out of poverty.

My idea would consist of ending welfare benefits to non-citizens, tighter labor law enforcement, cross-checking Social Security and IRS records to weed out the ones using someone else's SSN to work, implementing a bracero program for nonresident guest workers (time spent in the bracero program would not count for citizenship residency requirements), and tightening up border enforcement by transferring officers from other federal law enforcement agencies to the Border Patrol. The bracero program would require the worker to apply in Mexico on a seasonal basis. Braceros would not be allowed to work in licensed trades.

If we were to do this, there would probably be a heavy flow of people crossing into Mexico from the US to get into the bracero program. Leave those folks alone and concentrate on people heading into the US.

Pete Wilson won, but the GOP sure as hell lost!

Yes, when led by the Appeasers of Illegals you genuflect to: Lundgren, Campbell, Kemp, Dole, Gingrich, Bennett, and now, apparently, President Bush.
You folks think it's a good idea to kick off campaigns playing prevent defense, and then scratch your heads in wonder at loss after loss. Then the light bulb flickers dimly over your head, and you think, "Wait! We need MORE prevent defense... More Appeasement."
You operate like the Leftst mavens of the welfare state, who insist that with just a few trillion more, we'll get America's social problems licked.
Like them, you are not the solution, you are the source of the very problem you complain about.

Now, after the 187 ad campaign and the Democrats' subsequent demagougery over 187, we got a LOT more Hispanics registered--and convinced that the GOP hated Hispanics.

Only because the GOP leadership bent over and took it. You prefer more of the same.
If the Dems and the media and demagoguery are so invincible, how does Ward Connerly roll up victory after victory in California?
Hint: he doesn't share your fear, he rolls up his sleeves and wins.

We have to quit promising rewards to them, encourage only legal immigration, also stop the practice of having anchor babies by giving citizenship and then welfare to every unwed mother making it across the border just in time. I know of a couple who came over at age 15, moved in with an aunt (3 families living in a 2 bedroom trailer), they had the baby free at the county hospital and now get a welfare check. They're 17 now, never have worked here, never came here to work in the first place.

The biggest problem that we have is that Mexico is an extremely poor country. In part, that is because it has suited US politico-military interests to ensure that Mexico does not get enough economic power to become a significant military power in North America. We tolerate a much wealthier Canada because it has a small population, and thus has no military pool.

Nice bit of tinfoil, that.
Mexico is poor because it's been looted for decades by a corrupt oligarchy the inhibits economic growth, despite rich natural resources and a wealth of American investment capital wiating to be utilized just north of them.
Or are you saying that the US Gov secretly wanted Mexico to nationalize its oil industry and seize American assets back in the 30s?

I see all kinds of illegals, some are lazy and some aren't. I could see having a temporary guest worker program for certain types who really are here to work jobs that many don't want to do --I know of some who are out there working the fields at 3 am and most of the day in the hot sun, they didn't bring their kids over and aren't using our schools, they work to save their little ranches and farms and families because the Mexican government cut off their water and isn't helping them in any way. It'd be a little hard seeing them dragged off the fields they're working. I think the Mexican government should be required to change things and stop trying to call the shots in our country.

I'd also include luck in there. Besides, it's pretty hard to demonize him as racist. The reason he wins is because he's smart.

Only your third sentence is correct.
Connerly isn't lucky, he's right and courageous, despite the demonization of him as an Uncle Tom. He's been savaged over and over again, yet you pretend otherwise.
Your Agenda for Appeasement is showing.

He also doesn't go off half-cocked. THAT guy uses his BRAIN and DOESN'T go off on every political suicide charge at the drop of a hat.

True, he doesn't follow every RINO loser that throws his hat in the ring, as you're so eager to do.

Sorry, I do not know how Eisenhower did it, please enlighten me. My observation, which probably does not need to be stated, is that America was a very, very different place in the 50's.

There are several problems with the “let’s deport them all now” strategy. First, it seems this plays right into the enemy’s hands, the “you racists” card. Second, it is not practical to round up 10M Mexicans and send them back, the police and the infrastructure does not exist. Third, do you want a police state, because that is what will result from this effort. Fourth, until you fix the border access, they are just going to come back.

Are they here illegal, yes. Is it wrong, yes. Have we made a terrific error, absolutely. By letting the Demos use their power, they have made a mess of it for their own political gains, no one argues about that.

So what do we do, the status quo is clearly unworkable. But the problem is not immigration, the problem is integration. Where we have failed is in insisting these folks integrate into the culture, learn English, get educated, stay off welfare, stay out of trouble.(and these issues are not unique to the Hispanics) This liberal idea of "multi-culturalism" has been a disaster. But, until we fix the border access and insist on the above, deporting them leads to nowhere.

Really?

I see someone who has picked his fights carefully and taken the time to figure out how to SELL his agenda. It's pretty damn brilliant. I wish more folks were like him. He's taken on the spin right away, and he certainly took great pains to do so in such a manner that it was a lot HARDER for them to demonize him.

He also had the advantage of the fact we had NOTHING TO LOSE with the black vote. We could afford it there. The political terrain was much more advantageous, due to something called Adarand v. Pena.

There were significant differences in the planning and THINKING that went between Prop 187 and Prop 209. One hurt us, the other didn't.

Mexico is poor because it's been looted for decades by a corrupt oligarchy the inhibits economic growth, despite rich natural resources and a wealth of American investment capital wiating to be utilized just north of them.

Actually, that corrupt oligarchy dates back to before the Mexican-American War, not mere "decades." And we have tolerated that corrupt oligarchy's behaviors since 1848, despite the large problems doing so has caused us, precisely because a Mexico with anything approaching the per capita GNP of the US might decide to go for a rematch. Better from a US national security perspective to have a Mexico too poor to pose a significant military threat than to have a Mexico that COULD start feeling froggy enough to take us on.

Actually, that corrupt oligarchy dates back to before the Mexican-American War, not mere "decades."

I never suggested otherwise, I was pointing out one of the key turning points in the 20th Century that has led to Mexican impoverishment.

And we have tolerated that corrupt oligarchy's behaviors since 1848, despite the large problems doing so has caused us, precisely because a Mexico with anything approaching the per capita GNP of the US might decide to go for a rematch.

Why would we fear a rematch of a war that brought us so much territory?
You're projecting.

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.