Sounds like Romney's willing to govern more as an immigration restrictionist as compared to Perry. Click thru and read some comparisons where Perry has taken more pro-immigration positions.
“Our country must do a better job of securing its borders, and as president, I will,” Romney told the Republican National Hispanic Assembly in Tampa, according to his prepared remarks. “That means completing construction of a high-tech fence, and investing in adequate manpower and resources.”
Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, added: “We must stop providing the incentives that promote illegal immigration. As governor, I vetoed legislation that would have provided in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants, and I strengthened the authority our state troopers had to enforce existing immigration laws.”
The Republican presidential nomination race matters a great deal because it looks like the unemployment rate will be quite high by November 2012 and therefore Obama is vulnerable. Hard for Obama to claim great governance skills when people will judge him on the economy:
In a statement, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) noted that the new report indicates the unemployment rate will remain above 8 percent throughout Obama’s first term in office — a level administration officials said in 2009 could be avoided by enacting an expensive economic stimulus package.
Peak Oil is going to make it hard for US Presidents to get re-elected, at least until the American public stops thinking any President can make the economy grow when it is held back by higher resource prices. As long as most people think Presidents can do much to improve the economy Presidents are going to be held responsible the electorate when they fail to do so. In the 2012 election the limits of economic growth might give us a better immigration policy.
The House had passed the bill, but on Saturday a Senate vote to cut off debate failed 55-41 on a largely party-line vote, essentially killing the legislation for this year. (Sixty votes were needed to end floor debate.) And with Republicans taking over the House and gaining seats in the Senate as a result of the recent midterm elections, prospects for the DREAM Act have dimmed considerably.
This is a great relief. The incoming Republicans are far less likely to let thru an immigration amnesty. So we dodged a bullet.
Massachusetts State Police will join a controversial federal program early next year to help the US government detect and deport illegal immigrants arrested for crimes, a sharp departure from Governor Deval Patrick’s 2007 decision barring troopers from enforcing immigration laws.
It says a lot (nothing good) about elite left-liberal views on immigration that a Governor of a very liberal state would actually oppose deportation of criminals.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is more masculine than Barack Obama. Barack just isn't sufficiently masculine to take on the illegal immigration problem.
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin said Sunday that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) has "the cojones" that President Obama "does not have" to take on illegal immigration.
Say what you will about Sarah Palin's IQ. She's got great political instincts knowing how to hit Obama where he's weak. The guy just does not come across as all that masculine. Surely I'm not the only person to notice this. There's something nerdish about Obama. It makes him vulnerable to attack from a woman calling him weak.
Palin thinks Obama should crack the whip against sanctuary cities.
Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Palin (R) blasted Obama for suing to block Arizona's controversial new law and attacked him in particular for not addressing "sanctuary cities" -- where local law enforcement is prohibited from asking people about their immigration status. Arizona's law bans sanctuary cities.
Michael McGough of the LA Times (or should I save "of what's left of the LA Times after so many white newspaper readers moved out of SoCal) says both sides of the immigration debate have official positions which are at odds with their private beliefs.
What (some) mainstream supporters of comprehensive immigration reform say: "We believe that illegal immigrants should pay a penalty and go to the back of the line of citizenship seekers." What they mean: "We don't really want to punish 'undocumented citizens' (as one activist put it in a Freudian slip), but we have to throw the yahoos a bone to in order to enact what we won't call amnesty."
I do not see a moral equivalency here. The amnesty crowd lie like mad and have been doing so for decades. From their dominant positions in the press, academia, and think tanks they vilify and marginalize immigration restrictionists. While the restrictionists debate with facts and logic the open borders amnesty crowd debates with mythology and character assassination.
On the other side is the mainstream anti-illegal-immigration mantra. What they say: "I have nothing against legal immigrants. America is a melting pot and rightly so." What they mean: "Why do I have to choose 'English' when I call my bank or make a deposit at the ATM? What has happened to my country?"
Don't expect people (or politicians) to fess up to these covert positions. But don't discount them.
Speaking for myself: There's not much difference between my public and private thoughts. I think immigration into the United States ought to be stopped entirely (except for hot model babes good looking enough to pull in at least a half mill a year). All illegal aliens should be deported. Muslim citizens ought to be paid to leave. Muslim non-citizens with permanent residency should have their residency rescinded. Babies of illegal aliens should not be entitled to citizenship. Babies born here to tourists should not be entitled to citizenship.
As for having to choose English at the ATM: I absolutely hate this. Though it is not the major reason I want to end immigration. I see immigration as lowering quality of life by many measures (quality of schools, population density, pollution, taxes, corruption in government, etc). I think the US government should serve its existing citizens first and foremost.
Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona that Barack Obama told him that Barack doesn't want to control the US border with Mexico because he wants to use the unsecured border as leverage to get immigration amnesty. "The president said the problem is if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform."
Bill Burton, a White House spokesman, said, "The president didn't say that. Senator Kyl knows the president didn't say that."
"But what everybody knows because the President has made it perfectly clear is that what we need to do is everything that we can to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," he added. "And that includes not just securing the border, but doing a lot of other things."
Oh come on Bill Burton, stop telling a blatant lie. "Comprehensive immigration reform" amounts to amnesty and a way for the people who cross illegally to instead cross legally. We've had amnesties in the past where the promise was after each amnesty then finally immigration law would be enforced. The promise of immigration law enforcement is the standard lie dangled in order to get support for amnesty.
If Obama wants to prove that it is Senator Kyl and not Barack who is lying then all Obama has to do is what he so far refuses to do: Build a massive multi-layer wall along the US border with Mexico and stop all illegal crossings. Then do vigorous interior enforcement of immigration law. He does not need "comprehensive immigration reform" to enforce the law.
Rahm Emanuel says the votes aren't there to pass an immigration amnesty. I would not think so. The US unemployment rate is probably over 10% and likely to hit 11% or maybe even 12%.
Just hours before President Obama hosted lawmakers for a discussion on immigration at the White House, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel conceded that Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill do not have the votes to pass a comprehensive reform bill.
"If the votes were there, you wouldn't need to have the meeting. You could go to a roll call," Emanuel told reporters during an hour-long breakfast.
Obama hopes conditions in 2010 will make immigration amnesty possible. But I'm predicting a jobless economic recovery next year.
But "after all the demagoguery, we've got a responsible set of leaders who want to get things done" for a possible immigration compromise next year, Obama said. He singled out former foe John McCain (R-Ariz.) as an ally.
Why do I expect a jobless recovery (and therefore continued deep opposition to immigration amnesty)? See the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank's report Jobless Recovery Redux? and also Calculated Risk points out that unemployment continued to rise for 15 months after the end of the 1990 recession and 19 months after the 2001 recession with weak jobs growth even after the latter 19 month period. Plus, Peak Oil is hitting.
Senator McCain insists any immigration deal have strong union-busting measures. I'm sure the large anti-union wing of the Democratic Party will agree.
"I can't support any proposal that doesn't have a legal temporary worker program and I would expect the president of the United States to put his influence on the unions in order to change their position," McCain said.
The biggest reason for this opposition to more low skilled immigration: the deepening recession. States can't afford the poor people they already have and the states are slashing budgets for health care, education, even jails and police. The unemployed and those who (quite rationally) fear unemployment do not want more competition for a limited supply of jobs.
"I'm committed to passing comprehensive immigration reform as president of the United States," Mr. Obama said at the Esperanza National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in Washington. "The American people believe in immigration."
Pressed on the issue at a briefing today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that “the plan has always been for the Senate to go first.”
The Senate passed immigration reform in 2006, but efforts bogged down in 2007 and 2008. House Democrats, who all face voters every two years, want to be assured that a plan can pass the Senate, before taking what is for many a tough vote.
While the elites who have firm control of our national government look for ways to pass another immigration amnesty down at the state and local levels the tide is running in the opposition direction. The states have been moving toward tougher immigration law enforcement for years. Arizona has a law in its legislature that will criminalize illegal aliens.
And, if approved, Arizona would become the only state to criminalize the presence of illegal immigrants through an expansion of its trespassing law.
Utah has a new law going into effect that will require prove of legal residence in order to get a driver's license or state ID card. The lawyers who make a living off of illegal aliens ar e not happy about this law.
Utah's new immigration law, SB81, takes effect July 1. But several attorneys who belong to the American Immigration Lawyers Association say they're not waiting.
They plan to file a lawsuit later this week challenging various portions of the law.
"There are a number of provisions we think are unconstitutional," said Hakeem Ishola, one of the attorneys filing the suit.
The "Jobs Americans won't do" chestnut is wearing thin in this recession. Coloradans are taking farm worker jobs. Tennesseans are working the night shift in Tyson chicken processing plants. After Swift meat packing plants were raided for illegal aliens Americans in Mississippi lined up to replace them. When plants get raided to clean out the illegals salaries go up. The Democratic Party wants to drive salaries down. The Democratic Party serves the employers while pretending to represent the working class.
Audacious Epigone shows that once again House Republicans who are members of the restrictionist Immigration Reform Caucus (IRC) experienced fewer electroal losses than Republicans who were not part of the IRC.
The ten seats given up thus constitute a 9.5% loss rate among Republican IRC members. They are:
How did their non-restrictionist counterparts fare? Of the 97 non-IRC Republicans, 15 gave up their seats this election cycle. That comes to a loss rate of 15.5%. The losers are:
This repeats the pattern of 2006 where 5.9% of restrictionists lost while 16.7% of non-restrictionists lost. As Audacious points out, the result is that the Republican Party is becoming more restrictionist in Congress.
For Barack Obama it isn't enough that McCain worked harder and longer to grant immigration amnesty to poorly educated, low skilled illegal immigrants. Oh no. Never mind that McCain was much more up front about it than Obama was before they started running for the Presidency of the United States. Obama questions McCain's commitment to immigration amnesty and emphasizes his own dedication to let in and legalize the Third World flood.
Now, I know Senator McCain used to buck his party on immigration by fighting for comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party's nomination, he abandoned his courageous stance, and said that he wouldn't even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote. Well, for eight long years, we've had a President who made all kinds of promises to Latinos on the campaign trail, but failed to live up to them in the White House, and we can't afford that anymore. We need a President who isn't going to walk away from something as important as comprehensive reform when it becomes politically unpopular. That's the commitment I'm making to you. I marched with you in the streets of Chicago to meet our immigration challenge. I fought with you in the Senate for comprehensive immigration reform. And I will make it a top priority in my first year as President -- not only because we have an obligation to secure our borders and get control of who comes in and out of our country. And not only because we have to crack down on employers who are abusing undocumented immigrants instead of hiring citizens. But because we have to finally bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. Yes, they broke the law. And they should have to pay a fine, and learn English, and go to the back of the line. That's how we'll put them on a pathway to citizenship. That's how we'll finally fix our broken immigration system and avoid creating a servant class in our midst. It's time to reconcile our values and principles as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. That's what this election is all about.
I'm not voting for either of these disasters.
On Obama's "and avoid creating a servant class in our midst": The only way to do that is to deport the illegals and to stop letting in anyone who isn't highly skilled and smart. But you can bet Obama isn't going to admit that any more than McCain will.
Plans for a Europe-wide clampdown on immigration that could see asylum-seekers forced to apply for refugee status in advance and more effective deportation measures, are to be at the heart of France’s European Union presidency.
Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, is proposing a co-ordinated crackdown on illegal immigration in government documents, seen by the Financial Times, which have been drawn up in preparation for France’s EU presidency, which starts in July.
But the idea that Europe needs immigrants for demographic reasons is deeply mistaken.
The document – a so-called “pact on immigration” – also calls for swift implementation of biometric visas and compulsory language lessons for all new arrivals. It acknowledges that the EU needs migrants for demographic and economic reasons but it adds: “Europe does not have the means to welcome with dignity all those who see an Eldorado in it.”
Europe is a densely populated place. What is wrong with letting its population decrease as a result of lower fertility? It will become a more livable place.
WASHINGTON -- With restaurants and resorts facing summer staff shortages, the Bush administration will announce federal regulations today to streamline the way foreign workers enter the country for seasonal jobs.
The Department of Labor is rewriting rules to help employers find and hire workers for temporary jobs as landscapers, waitresses and crab pickers more quickly and efficiently than current guidelines allow.
In one major change affecting industries such as construction and shipyards, the definition of "temporary" will be drastically expanded -- from the current 10 months to three years.
Will President Obama be even worse on immigration? Half Sigma says the Democrats are far worse on immigration.
I do NOT agree with the guy who says Republicans are equally blameful for high immigration. Go read Daily Kos and see how insanely pro-immigration they are. There's no Republican blog that's like that. I agree that there are Republican politicians who don't give a damn about what Republican voters think if they are receiving campaign contributions from pro-immigration businesses, but that's only so long as they are not losing votes because of it. It has primarily been the forces on the left, like the Daily Kos people, who have convinced the public to be pro-immigration and vote against their own interests.
If there is going be a serious reduction of immigration, it's NOT going to come from Democrats. That I guarantee.
McCain is so bad on immigration that who wins this Presidential election basically doesn't matter for immigration as near as I can tell.
Writing in the quite liberal New York Times Christopher Buckley, a former aide to George H.W. Bush and son of William F. Buckley, tries to defend John McCain against conservative criticisms by claiming that Hispanics are conservatives.
True, too, on immigration, Mr. McCain has allied himself with the Archfiend, Ted Kennedy. It’s also true — odd — that Mr. McCain is popular among Hispanic voters, who are themselves paradigms of cultural conservatism and without whose support any “conservative” candidate for president may be doomed to failure.
If Hispanics are conservatives then why can the Democrats rely on large majorities of Hispanics to almost always vote for Democrats? If Hispanics are conservatives then why do they have far higher rates of out-of-wedlock births? Just what makes establishment pseudo-conservatives like Christopher Buckley so eager to proclaim the myth of Hispanic conservatism?
Next Buckley seems to imply that anyone who has broken the law has lost the right to demand law enforcement.
(It would be interesting, by the way, to hear from Mr. Limbaugh, Ms. Coulter and Mr. Hannity as to whether they’ve ever availed themselves of the services of illegal immigrants. Answer carefully, now: that ambassadorship could be at stake!)
Mr. Buckley doesn't think laws should be enforced at midnight?
Is the “conservative” position on immigration that the only solution is a wall and midnight roundups by Border Patrol agents at Wal-Mart?
Is the pseudo-conservative position that open borders is the only solution?
A Los Angeles garment maker, American Apparel, employs large numbers of Hispanics to make t-shirts and other apparel. American Apparel has come out and publically supported Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton because Obama supports drivers licenses for illegal aliens.
Four decades ago, the chairman of General Motors proclaimed: "What's good for GM is good for America." Today we're saying, "What's good for American Apparel is good for America."
American Apparel is another company that believes in socializing costs while privatizing profits. Bring in the workers who are cheap to employ and foist the cost of their education, health care, police, justice system, prisons, and other costs onto the net taxpayers.
We urge voters to consider Obama on the Democratic side.
We urge voters to consider McCain on the Republican side.
Why? Because of their honesty on the issue of immigration, the most significant civil rights concern the country has faced in 50 years.
Why Not Clinton?
We appreciate Senator Clinton's campaign on many fronts, but when it comes to the issue of immigration she has not shown the same strength and conviction as Obama. This was clear during last week's California debate. While he supports driver's licenses for undocumented workers, she is opposed "at this time." Tell that to a mother of three in East L.A. driving her children to school every day. Obama has also pledged to accomplish immigration reform in his first year; Clinton has not made such a commitment. Immigration is the most critical issue that faces the United States, California, and Los Angeles today-we appreciate the Obama campaign's clear voice on it. We also applaud his refusal to scapegoat immigrants for political gain, as some other candidates have.
Hillary opposes drivers licenses for illegal aliens in part because when New York liberal Democrat Governor Eliot Spitzer tried to implement drivers licenses for illegal aliens the opposition was so intense in liberal New York that he had to drop his proposal. I think Hillary got the message. Obama is to the rhetorical Left of Hillary on immigration.
Some immigration experts criticized the advertisement and said it amounted to an admission that American Apparel uses illegal immigrants.
“It is self-serving propaganda to perpetuate cheap labor policies that are in violation of American law,” said Vernon M. Briggs Jr., a professor emeritus at Cornell who specializes in immigration policy. “This is not ‘apartheid.’ This is simply law-breaking. ‘Apartheid’ is an emotional term that is designed to inflame the issue.”
American Apparel needs irrational reactions since rational analyses of personal interests would lead most people to oppose immigration of low skilled and low IQ workers.
Update: On immigration will Obama or Hillary do more to help Mexicans move to the United States? Contra American Apparel, most Latino voters prefer Hillary.
Last week's primaries were dubbed "Hispanic Super Tuesday," and indeed the Latino vote proved pivotal to Hillary Clinton's gains. She received an overwhelming majority of Latino votes despite Barack Obama's last-ditch efforts to differentiate his position on immigration.
The support Obama had enjoyed in Illinois' Latino communities even slipped significantly since the last time he ran for office.
Hispanics/Latinos feel less need to prove they aren't racist. Some of their voting probably reflects the dim view they hold of blacks.
The Boston Globe had to report on Mitt Romney's use of illegal immigrants for lawn care not once but twice to get him to stop it. It took the desire to appeal to the Republican base to turn Romney into an immigration restrictionist.
Standing on stage at a Republican debate on the Gulf Coast of Florida last week, Mitt Romney repeatedly lashed out at rival Rudy Giuliani for providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants in New York City.
Yet, the very next morning, on Thursday, at least two illegal immigrants stepped out of a hulking maroon pickup truck in the driveway of Romney's Belmont house, then proceeded to spend several hours raking leaves, clearing debris from Romney's tennis court, and loading the refuse back on to the truck.
In fact, their work was part of a regular pattern. Despite a Globe story in Dec. 2006 that highlighted Romney's use of illegal immigrants to tend to his lawn, Romney continued to employ the same landscaping company – until today. The landscaping company, in turn, continued to employ illegal immigrants.
Two of the workers confirmed in separate interviews with Globe reporters last week that they were in the country without documents. One said he had paid $7,000 to a smuggler to escort him across the desert into Arizona; the other said he had come to the country with a student visa that was now expired. Both were seen on the lawn by either Globe reporters or photographers over the last two months.
Romney, informed of this situation by the Globe reporters, finally cracked down.
He also released a copy of the short letter of termination he sent to Mr. Ricardo Saenz of Community Lawn Service.
"Given your company's disregard for the clear instructions provided on this issue last year, I am forced to terminate my contract with your company, effective immediately," the letter stated. "My family will no longer utilize your services and all scheduled visits are cancelled as of today. I am disappointed that our relationship must end on this note,
He's disappointed that this gardener service didn't put forth the effort needed to make it easier for him to win the Presidency. He's disappointed that running for President places constraints on who he can use as a servant.
but we simply cannot tolerate your inability to ensure that your employees are legally permitted to work in the United States."
Ricardo Saenz, of Community Lawn Service, told NewsCenter 5's Jorge Quiroga Tuesday, "I'm not the INS (Immigration & Naturalization Service). It's not my job to keep track of all that."
Illegal immigrants are not just a problem for the American southwest any more. They've spread far and wide. Now they've spread far enough to get Mormon Presidential candidates from Massachusetts in trouble.
Groups that support a crackdown on illegal aliens haven't settled on their champion in the race for the White House, but there's little doubt which Republican scares them most — former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
"He was an absolute disaster on immigration as governor," said Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, a group that played a major role in rallying the phone calls that helped defeat this year's Senate immigration bill. "Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of the illegal aliens."
Huckabee is making headway because Romney is a Mormon. Many Christians do not see Mormons as really one of them.
After Romney and Giuliani argued over immigration, Romney turned on Huckabee for a proposal he made as governor of Arkansas to give breaks in college tuition to the children of illegal immigrants. "Mike, that's not your money," he said. "That's the taxpayers' money. And the right thing here is to say to people that are here legally as citizens or legal aliens, we're going to help you. But if you're here illegally, you ought to be able to return home or get in line with everybody else, but illegals are not going to get taxpayer-funded breaks that are better than our own citizens." Huckabee responded: "In all due respect, we're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did. We're a better country than that." "I worked my way through college," Huckabee added. "I started work when I was 14, and I had to pay my own way through, and I know how hard it was to get that degree. I'm standing here tonight on this stage because I got an education. If I hadn't had the education, I wouldn't be standing on this stage. I might be picking lettuce. I might be a person who needed government support rather than who was giving so much money in taxes I want to get rid of the tax code that we've got and make it really different."
To back up its claims against Huckabee, the Arkansas Republican is quoted in the Romney mailer as saying last year that "what is good is a pathway to a legal status." In 2006, Huckabee supported the Senate's earned legalization plan over a House bill, which would have made illegal immigration a felony.
The mailer also quotes Huckabee as saying in 2005 that "illegal immigrants are actually financially supporting U.S. citizens."
Think that's an exaggeration of Huckabee's position? Nope. Huckabee told John Hawkins he wants the old path toward citizenship for illegals and this is just like George W. Bush.
Mike Huckabee: Well, I'm not as sure that leaving and then coming back is as important as it is to acknowledge that what they've done is illegal, pay a fine, and then get in line behind the people that are going through the process of being here legally. It's important that we have a legal process.
We can't just ignore our laws. We either change them or enforce them for clearly this land is a land that is dependent on more workers than we currently have for many of the jobs that Americans honestly don't want. So there is, I think, a reality that we shouldn't just sort of look the other way. I don't believe in amnesty. That's not a good idea, but creating a pathway where people can have a form of restitution to make things right, to understand that laws have to be obeyed or some consequences have to be applied.
The rest of the Republican field is so weak that Huckabee has a chance. Will fundamentalist Christians who oppose the Open Borders elites put Huckabee's positions on other issues ahead of immigration policy and vote for him in spite of his immigration positions?
Last month, the Senate gave up on the DREAM Act, after falling short of the votes needed to take up debate. The plan, which would have given children of illegal immigrants access to US colleges and universities and, eventually, to citizenship, was once viewed as one of the more likely immigration measures to pass Congress.
This week, another program with broad bipartisan support fell off the legislative agenda, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California said she was postponing plans to legalize the status of hundreds of thousands of migrant agricultural workers. She had urged her colleagues to add the guest-worker provisions in her AgJobs bill to the $283 billion farm bill now before the Senate. But she said in a statement Monday that the politics on the issue weren't promising: "When we took a clear-eyed assessment of the politics of the Farm bill and the defeat of the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform, it became clear that our support could not sustain these competing forces."
Millions of phone calls, letters, faxes, and emails have reached into fear centers of politicians who want to get reelected. People got mad enough about plans for amnesty that Congress got the message.
We still have work ahead of us. We need to defeat some of the biggest pro-immigration and pro-amnesty Congressmen and Senators who are running for reelection. If we can do that then Congress will go further down the path of immigration restriction.
Hillary Clinton -- and the other Democrats running for president -- couldn't possibly have assumed that they would forever skate around the issue of illegal immigration. That notion came to an end in the most recent debate, when the New York senator badly slipped over a question about her state's controversial plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Did she think no one would ask?
Democrats had better start dealing with this. Polls show a large majority of Americans, including Democrats, opposed to illegal immigration. They also find that most Americans favor some sort of amnesty for many illegals. Clinton apparently tried to finesse the two, while ignoring what's behind the numbers.
What many Democrats (and Republicans) don't "get" is that the support for amnesty is highly conditional. It rests on trust that any official pardon will be the last one.
People have been fooled too many times by past amnesties. I see no need for an amnesty. We can just deport all the illegals that are here.
I don't think the leading Democrats are capable of moving right on immigration to an appreciable extent. Hillary's recent obvious support for amnesty ("bring everybody out of the shadows") shows she's not going to come down hard on illegals.
I think it’s important to bring everybody out of the shadows. To do the background checks. To deport those who have outstanding warrants or have committed crimes in the United States, and then to say to those who wish to stay here, you have to pay back taxes, you have to pay a fine, you have to learn English, and you have to wait in line. And I hate to see any state being pushed to try to take this into their own hands, because the federal government has failed.
So I know exactly what Governor Spitzer’s trying to do and it makes a lot of sense, because he’s trying to get people out of the shadows. He’s trying to say, “O.K., come forward and we will give you this license.”
But without a federal policy in effect, people will come forward and they could get picked up by I.C.E. tomorrow. I mean, this can’t work state-by-state. It has to be looked at comprehensively. I agreed with President Bush and his efforts to try to approach this. He just didn’t have the political capital left by the time he actually got serious about it.
And it’s unfortunate that too many people are using this to demagogue the issue, instead of trying to solve it: you know, people in politics, people in the press, and there’s a kind of unholy alliance.
Let me translate "demagogue this issue": That means "demand that illegal aliens be deported and oppose amnesty". Hillary isn't saying that we should build a wall along the entire US-Mexico border. She's not calling for tough enforcement against employers who hire illegals. She's not calling for deportation of the sort that Ike Eisenhower carried out in the 1950s (I like Ike).
What the Democrats have going for them: 7 years of George W. Bush and counting. Rising oil prices. A real estate meltdown. A potential recession starting next year. An unpopular war in Iraq.
What the Democrats have going against them: They are even less willing than the Republicans to obey rising popular demands an end to illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration. They want more tax money to spend.
When then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy pushed tough limits on immigrants last year, the left called it an attack on France's African and Arab populations. In a country roiled by changing complexion and identity, and on the eve of national elections, Mr. Sarkozy's new "contract" set a high bar: Know the French language, embrace civic values, and show means of support.
Some 600 pro-immigrant groups hit Paris streets, protesting how quickly Europe and France were closing to the foreign-born and how aggressive the measures seemed to be. But the law passed.
Now, President Sarkozy has again upped the stakes. Not only will incoming families face a higher hurdle, but an amendment quietly introduced DNA testing as a way to prove biological ties among them. In addition, French embassies abroad will be newly empowered to conduct extensive background checks of prospective residents.
Sounds like people with the legal right to immigrate to France have been bringing in non-relatives as relatives.
"Immigration is the problem of the 21st century for Europe," argues Thierry Mariani, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) lawmaker and author of the DNA test bill. "If Denmark, Finland, Norway, Holland ... countries that have a tradition of respect for human rights have accepted for many years the DNA approach, it is because there is a real problem."
Similar trends and views are emerging throughout Europe. In Belgium, one of the few agreements between the Flemish and Wallonians is to create far stronger measures to limit migration and asylum, and to make deportations of illegal workers easier. Last week, Holland debated whether to stop funding the protection of former Dutch lawmaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somalian who lives under a death threat by radical Muslims.
France, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, and Switzerland have all witnessed the rise of a conservative discourse that has shifted the gravitational center of immigration politics. The formerly extreme views of nationalist voices like Jean-Marie Le Pen in France are today part of the mainstream discussion.
Yet as immigration expert Judith Sunderland of Human Rights Watch in Milan, Italy, points out, immigration politics now cut across the European political spectrum. "Most of the fights are no longer over whether to proceed with new laws and policies," she argues. "Immigration is seen as a crisis for both the left and the right."
In American the Europeans are generally seen as to the left of Americans on average. For example European politicians support a larger welfare state and more intervention in labor markets. Democrats tend to see Europe as a model for social policy they'd like to implement in America. But European leftist politicians are effectively to the "right" of American Democrat politicians on immigration.
So what are the Europeans afraid of? Islam.
Riva Kastoryano, an expert on immigration at Sciences Po in Paris, argues that the root of greater apprehension among mainstream Europeans is a fear of the spread of Islam. "Much of the old xenophobia about foreigners in Europe has been recast today as a perception of 'Islamophobia,' " she says.
The fear of Islam is rational though. Muslim minorities do not accept the cultures and values of the countries they immigrate to.
Hirsi Ali: We have to revert to the original meaning of the term tolerance. It meant you agreed to disagree without violence. It meant critical self-reflection. It meant not tolerating the intolerant. It also came to mean a very high level of personal freedom.
Then the Muslims arrived, and they hadn’t grown up with that understanding of tolerance. In short order, tolerance was now defined by multiculturalism, the idea that all cultures and religions are equal. Expectations were created among the Muslim population. They were told they could preserve their own culture, their own religion. The vocabulary was quickly established that if you criticize someone of color, you’re a racist, and if you criticize Islam, you’re an Islamophobe.
Reason: The international corollary to the word tolerance is probably respect. The alleged lack of respect has become a perennial sore spot in relations between the West and Islam. Salman Rushdie receiving a British knighthood supposedly signified such a lack of respect, as did the Danish cartoons last year, and many other things. Do you believe this is what Muslims genuinely crave—respect?
Hirsi Ali: It’s not about respect. It’s about power, and Islam is a political movement.
Reason: Uniquely so?
Hirsi Ali: Well, it hasn’t been tamed like Christianity. See, the Christian powers have accepted the separation of the worldly and the divine. We don’t interfere with their religion, and they don’t interfere with the state. That hasn’t happened in Islam.
But I don’t even think that the trouble is Islam. The trouble is the West, because in the West there’s this notion that we are invincible and that everyone will modernize anyway, and that what we are seeing now in Muslim countries is a craving for respect. Or it’s poverty, or it’s caused by colonization.
The Western mind-set—that if we respect them, they’re going to respect us, that if we indulge and appease and condone and so on, the problem will go away—is delusional. The problem is not going to go away. Confront it, or it’s only going to get bigger.
I agree with Hirsi Ali on at least one point here. Westerners hold false beliefs that cause them to underestimate the demographic vulnerability of the West to Muslim immigrants. I suspect these false beliefs have their origin in the Cold War. During the Cold War the communists presented their ideology as the universal ideology suitable for all of the world. Western opponents of communism argued that communism wasn't suitable for the whole world and instead argued that Western beliefs held universal appeal. Too many Westerners came to believe this propaganda and came to believe that the triumph of Western beliefs was inevitable because no other credible belief system (secular or religious) competed with anything Western.
However, Hirsi Ali is making mistakes in how she describes the differences between Christianity and Islam. One of Hirsi Ali's mistakes is to paint Islam as somehow lagging behind Christianity in going through a process of accepting a division between religion and state. Christians were able to accept that separation in large part because the base texts of Christianity ("render unto Caesar that which is Caesar") are compatible with that separation. Jesus Christ never ruled a kingdom. He never led soldiers into battle. He never created a legal system. He never wiped out tribes that rejected his religion. By contrast Mohammed did all those things. The founder of Islam presented a model of the state that has no room for a separation of religion and state. Islam hasn't so much lagged behind as it has stayed true to its teachings while Christianity changed its relationship to the state because a change in that relationship wasn't incompatible with Christianity.
Also, Christians have not stopped bringing their religious beliefs into the voting booth. Their values still influence what they'll decide to be acceptable policy. But Christians in Western countries see less conflict between what they believe governments should do and what governments actually do because Christian values so heavily influence what Westerners (even secular Westerners) believe are appropriate values. By contrast, when Muslims come into the West they bring a different and much more incompatible set of values. The values disagreements between Christian and secular Westerners are small in comparison to the values disagreements between Western and Muslim values. Muslims do not see non-Muslims as their equals. Islam is therefore incompatible with Western notions of equality.
Belgium, divided between Dutch-speaking Flanders in the north and French-speaking Wallonia in the south, has spent 120 days since national elections without a new government. Political parties have been unable to agree on the country's direction, and fears are growing that Belgium will dissolve. Yet signs of a breakthrough in the coalition talks emerged Tuesday morning when the Christian Democrats and Liberals temporarily put aside their differences and agreed on a tough new approach to asylum policy and economic migration.
Despite this agreement, political analysts stressed that the crisis was far from over with the important issue of how to grant more autonomy to Flanders and Wallonia still hanging in the balance. They underlined, however, that the deal illustrated how immigration had become a unifying issue in a country where the prime minister-in-waiting recently publicly fumbled the words of the national anthem and where the unifying force for Belgians of all linguistic stripes is a love of the country's 400 kinds of beer.
The Vlaams Belang party wants to deport the Muslims. The populace as a whole is reasonably worried about the alien and hostile Muslim parallel society in their midst.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen finds that in the aftermath of the massive immigration fight that self identification of people as Republicans has risen.
During the month of June, the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans increased and the number of Democrats was little changed. That’s the first time in 2007 that the number of Republicans has increased. (see history). The gap between the parties the smallest it has been since last July.
It’s interesting to note that the number of Republicans increased during the same month that the President’s Job Approval fell to another all-time low.
Bush isn't seen by Republicans as very Republican. Bush allied with Ted Kennedy and other Democrats to try to push through a massive immigration amnesty that the overwhelming majority of the American people opposed. A majority of Republicans in Congress opposed this and the upshot is that more people identify themselves as Republicans.
Fewer identify as Democrats.
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 15,000 adults in June found that just 32.0% now say they’re Republicans. That’s up more than a full percentage point from a month ago and is within a tenth-of-a-point of the GOP’s best showing in ten months.
The survey also found that the number of people identifying themselves as Democrats fell two-tenths of a point to 36.1% in June. Only once since January 2004 has the number of Democrats in the country been lower (35.9% in December 2005). Democrats gained about two percentage points of support during 2006 and peaked at 38.0% in December of last year. Since actually taking control of Congress, Democrats have given back all of those gains.
Republican candidates who run on platforms arguing for big reductions in immigration can win and can pull more people into the Republican party.
The shift toward identification as Republicans came in spite of Bush polling as the second most unpopular US President in history.
The highest unfavorable rating for any President is earned by Richard Nixon. Sixty percent (60%) of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the only President to resign from office. Thirty-two percent (32%) have a favorable opinion of the man who famously went to China.
Close on Nixon’s heels for most unpopular is the current President, George W. Bush. Fifty-nine percent (59%) have an unfavorable opinion of him. Lyndon Johnson (42%), Bill Clinton (41%), and the first President Bush (41%) are the only other Presidents viewed unfavorably by at least 40% of Americans.
59% view Bush unfavorably. Can Bush come up with more bad policies and push his disapproval rating past Nixon? Bush has a very competitive streak. Maybe he'll view this as a challenge. Become the most reviled President. He's so convinced of his rightness that he might figure the public is sufficiently wrong that the measure of the public's disapproval is a measure of how much he's making the correct decisions.
WASHINGTON — The Senate on June 28 drove a stake through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.
The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to undocumented immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.
Keep in mind that some of the Senators who voted against this version of amnesty happily voted for other previous amnesties and can not be trusted. Dozens of Senators need defeat in their next primary campaigns for reelection.
Pete Domenici, an Albuquerque Republican, supported the initial compromise version of the bill but said it is now "neither workable or realistic" and is likely "dead on arrival" in the House.
Jeff Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat who voted for last year's immigration-reform bill, said he could not support this one.
But on the bright side Bingaman and Domenici were willing to back out of support for this bill when popular outrage became loud enough. The amnesty supporters we should most want to defeat for reelection are those who knew about the intensity of the opposition to amnesty and yet voted for cloture anyway.
How effective was popular outrage toward this bill? Almost one third of Senate Democrats voted against cloture.
Only 33 Democrats, 12 Republicans and one independent voted to advance the bill, while 15 Democrats joined 37 Republicans and one independent to block it.
Five of the six senators running for president voted in favour of the overhaul: Republican John McCain and Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd and Joe Biden.
Hillary Clinton voted for this monstrous bill and therefore is unfit for the Presidency. Ditto Obama and McCain. Next time you hear someone say that McCain is a courageous independent Republican remind them that McCain voted for an immigration amnesty bill that would change the demographics of America for the worse.
So at least one dozen Republican Senators should be targeted for defeat in primaries when they next run for reelection. Ditto the Democrats who voted for it.
Only 13 percent of those in a CBS News Survey taken earlier this week said they supported passage of the bill. Almost three times that number, 35 percent, opposed it. Even more, 51 percent, said they did not know enough about the immigration legislation to say whether they supported passage.
See these post comments for lists of who voted for and against cloture (which is effectively for and against immigration amnesty). Note that some Senators who voted against cloture really wanted this bill to pass but jumped ship once they saw it was going down.
"Enforcement first," or even "enforcement only," is how opponents of the Senate bill describe their alternative to immigration reform. That is, enforce the laws already on the books, and life in the US will become uncomfortable enough that many of the 12 million illegal immigrants now here will leave of their own volition. Beef up the border, and fewer will make it into the US in the first place.
"What we'd like to see is [government officials] enforce the laws that currently exist, which they have never done," says Ira Mehlman of The Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in Washington. "Most Americans fundamentally find objectionable that to even consider enforcing our laws we have to first make a deal with the people who break the laws."
Mickey Kaus says we need to create proto-campaigns against pro-immigration amnesty politicians to scare them to switch positions (and ParaPundit adds that we should defeat some of them too)
What They Understand: Hot Air has a video plan of action for Republicans who want to do something more than phone or email their Senators. It's simple but could be high-impact. ...
P.S.: The ad says,
"Money seems to be the one thing our politicians understand."
That's a good shot at the pro-comprehensive business lobbyists. But actually, the prospect of political defeat is the thing politicians most understand. (The money helps them avoid the defeat.) That means the most effective thing that could be done to pressure pro-comprehensive Senators is to start organizing actual campaigns against them--primary challenges, but also general election challenges to Republicans from anti-comprehensive Dems, and vice-versa. It's easy to organize on the Web, and by organizing now you might get your Senator to change his or her vote. Once the vote is cast it's too late. ...
P.P.S.: According to WaPo, Sen. Lindsey Graham now insists he won't vote for an immigration bill that doesn't add a (phony) "touchback" provision forcing illegals to leave the country briefly in order to get their Z visas.** This is a hilariously fresh get-tough posture for Graham, whose precious Grand Bargain somehow failed to include this essential element. But it's also a sign of fear. What's he scared of? Maybe this. ...
Update: Mark Krikorian suggested I'm skeptical of the Hot Air plan (to demand refunds of RNC contributions). I'm not. It's a good idea. It's legitimate--but it could really screw them up! I just think the politician's ur-fear--fear of losing office--could also be triggered quickly by relatively easy, Web-based proto-campaigns. If Graham's worried, others can be made to worry. ...
I think Mickey is right. A search on Lindsey Graham on YouTube ought to turn up a bunch of anti-Graham amateur ads excoriating him for his position on immigration. Well, some YouTube entries for Lindsey Graham immigration look promising. MIckey points to this anti-Graham ad.
Which immigration amnesty proponents in the Imperial Senate are up for reelection in 2008? We need to start targeting them now.
We need to take back control of the Senate. It has fallen into enemy hands. The United States Senate is not run for the American people. It is run by and for a clubby elite. John Hawkins at Right Wing News has an insightful account of how really only the cloture vote matters for the next round of the immigration amnesty fight.
First off, it does look like the Senate immigration bill is coming back. The conventional wisdom seems to be that it's going to be brought up right before the July 4th break, so that the Senate Republican leadership can try to use that as leverage to get votes (In other words, "vote for the bill or we'll have to waste your vacation time until you do").
This is despite the fact that the conservative leaders of the anti-amnesty movement are refusing to cooperate, and won't give Mitch McConnell a list of amendments that they want considered. My source tells me that the reason for this is that the game has now been rigged. McConnell is essentially promising to bring the amendments up in exchange for cloture votes, but Trent Lott is publicly saying that they will strip any problematic amendments out in committee.
The amendment game won't matter. Some Senators will vote for some of the amendments counting on those amendments to get stripped out in a House-Senate committee meeting to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the amnesty bill.
In other words, if the bill gets through the Senate and the House, the Democrats and the open borders Republicans will work together when the bills have to be reconciled in committee to strip out any amendments that the "grand bargainers" don't like. Therefore, at this point, it doesn't matter what amendments pass, because any tough enforcement provisions that slip through will be rendered toothless when the bills are reconciled.
Some "moderate" Senators who favor amnesty are going to be allowed to vote against the bill by Senate leaders because they are up for election in 2008 in close elections. So those Senators also need to be targeted for defeat in the next primaries and next election along with all the Senators that vote to end cloture.
Immigration restriction comes down to winning elections. We need to defeat some of the bad apples. Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell should be targeted with primary challengers. Any other Banana Republican who has voted for cloture who will vote for cloture in the next attempt to pass S.1348 needs to get defeated. The immigration restrictionists need to build up a national movement to defeat sitting members of Congress. In spite of intense pressure by constituents far too many US Senators of both parties are in contempt of the will of the electorate. We have a big problem with these people.
What I want to know: Will the right wingers who are disgusted with Bush and who see the Republican Party as broken join a movement and work to take back control of Congress? Or will their anger fade once this latest battle over amnesty is decided?
The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”
At some point, Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in “younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the bill.”
The majority of Republican Senators should vote to remove Lott and McConnell from leadership positions. The majority of Republican voters should vote to replace these yahoos in Republican primaries.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Key Republican and Democratic senators are reaching for a deal to resurrect their stalled immigration compromise by requiring that some $4 billion be spent on border security and workplace enforcement.
The mandatory security funding is part of a plan to attract more Republican support for the measure, which grants legal status to millions of unlawful immigrants.
In private meetings Wednesday, the bipartisan group that crafted the delicate compromise was hammering out a plan to allow votes on a limited set of Republican- and Democratic-sought changes in exchange for a commitment from GOP holdouts that they will back moving ahead with the bill.
Republican architects of the measure, which grants legal status to millions of unlawful immigrants, expressed confidence that such an agreement was possible as early as Thursday.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) says S.1348 would reduce the rate at which people enter and stay illegally by only 13%.
Everyone becomes legal at once under this bill and stays there, no matter what happens. But even the new reforms in it take place — according to the Congressional Budget Office, we would only have about a 13 percent reduction in illegality. So that's just not sufficient. I mean, I think most American people think we'd have a dramatic improvement in reducing the flow of illegality if we have, as this bill does, a substantial increase in legal immigration.
Meaning that you think there will still be illegal immigrants coming across the border?
Oh, absolutely ... They predicted that we'd have a 25 percent reduction in illegality at the border. But we would have a substantial increase in visa over-stays, because we have a lot more people coming to the country on temporary visas.
13%. What a joke. It is an even bigger joke when we look at just how much worse the illegal immigration problem has gotten since George W. Bush took office. Ed Rubenstein has the facts:
But Steve Sailer says the masses have one big thing going for them in their battle with the elites on immigration: the internet lets us communicate and learn about whatever the Washington folks try to do outside of our sight.
Fifth, the Achilles heel of the Axis of Amnesty’s putsch was that the bill had to be posted on the Internet.
The legislation was written in secret. Committee hearings on it were blocked. It was far too long for many busy Senators and their staffers to read.
But networks of highly intelligent citizens examined it carefully and emailed each other with what they found. For example, Thursday's VDARE.com article, Ten Reasons The Amnesty/Immigration Surge Bill Is Appalling, by 'An Economist,' grew out of an email list utilized by a brilliant economist-turned-highly successful businessman, who has been devoting a lot of his extraordinary energy to immigration.
Contact your Senators and tell them to stop illegal immigration and slash legal immigration.
Instead of “comprehensive” reform, Bush should choose a second option: consecutive reform.
This advocacy of "consecutive reform" amounts to the editors of the National Review advising Bush on how he can eventually arrive at a point where it becomes politically possible to institute an amnesty and guest worker program. These editors are not using the term consecutive to mean "first control the border and then start deporting the illegals". No, no. They are providing counsel to George W. Bush, enemy of the conservative base, on how he can eventually get his wishes over the strongly held beliefs of said conservative base which the National Review's writers claim to see as their own base.
During this debate, both the comprehensivists and their opponents have stressed the critical need to control the border and to give employers a reliable system to verify the legal status of their workers. There is no reason that either imperative should wait on resolution of the amnesty or guest-worker questions. The administration has often said that enforcement cannot work without an amnesty or guest-worker program; but it has refuted that claim by pointing out that its border-enforcement measures have brought the number of illegal crossings down.
Good point on the enforceability of border controls. This Bush administration improvement in border enforcement that they speak of was a cynical attempt by Bush to pretend to the public that he was finally going to stop illegal immigration and he was doing that only in order to convert the same level of illegal flow into an even larger legal flow of the same people. Why try to give strategic advice to someone so dishonest?
But they do not even go far enough in describing what is obviously true. Not only is enforcement possible, but role-back of the illegal horde is possible as well. Republican President Dwight "I like Ike" Eisenhower showed with Operation Wetback it was possible for a small group of immigration enforcement agents to round up and deport tens of thousands of illegal aliens and, by doing so, to spur hundreds of thousands to leave.
The National Review editors are merely "skeptical" about the wisdom of so-called "temporary" worker programs or amnesty.
When Americans are confident that the government is committed to enforcing any immigration laws, they will be more open to changes to those laws. We are skeptical about the need for a guest-worker program or a sweeping amnesty. But we would be willing to debate these policies in a few years’ time. They are not even worth debating, however, until we know that we are not merely legalizing millions of illegal immigrants while inviting millions more to be legalized in some future round of “reform.”
So what are they opposed to here? Are they only opposed to the invitation for millions more to come? Or are they also opposed to amnesty for the ones already here?
Still have doubts about whether the NR folks are wobbly? Well, consider some issue which evokes firmer reactions. How about gay marriage? Here's what you'll never see them write:
We remain skeptical about gay marriage. We believe that first we should strengthen the bonds of traditional marriage. Once we've done that we would be willing to debate gay marriage in a few years time.
They are far less ambivalent about where they stand on gay marriage than they are about Third World immigration, the expanded lower class it brings, and the inevitable shift leftward that it produces.
This NR ambivalence on immigration finds no equivalent among the mass of conservatives who overwhelmingly want less immigration period. The NR's editors are not taking their wobbly position on immigration due to some reflexively ambivalent approach to issues in general. By contrast, most of them are absolutely certain that neoconservative Lewis "Scooter" Libby should get pardoned for perjury and obstruction of justice. Check out here and here and here and even William F. Buckley here.. Though a couple of NR writers are less than nutty on Libby: Andy McCarthy and John Derbyshire (Derb again). While the recent attempt by US Senators to pass an immigration amnesty riled up conservatives (and quite a lot of moderates and liberals as well) to a level of anger not seen in many years Daniel Larison points out that what motivates the (at least supposedly) conservative elites is Lewis Libby. If only the NR crowd could get sustainably worked up about immigration restriction the way they do about Libby the nation would be much better off.
The NR crowd and other prominent (supposed) conservatives make recurring mistakes in their thinking. First off, they simply do not think enough about real evidence. They live in the realm of arguments and wordsmithing rather than in the realm of scientific evidence. Second, part of their failure to use evidence stems from accepting the boundaries of acceptable discussion that their supposed enemies the liberals set for them. Third, they trumpet narrow elite interests (e.g. Scooter Libby as compared to those two Border Patrol agents Compean and Ramos as candidates for pardon) over mass interests. Fourth, they put partisan politics (e.g. reflexive unthinking support for Bush as pack leader) ahead of positions arrived at through thinking. As a result, their priorities are consistently wrong and their positions are too often wrong.
Since the Republican National Committee is following Bush's lead on immigration and since so many Senate Republicans are for open borders Republican donors are giving their money to state rather than national Republican organizations.
Tina Benkiser, chairwoman of the Republican Party in the president's home state of Texas, says raising money has been successful "in large part to our principled stance against illegal immigration." Since the beginning of 2006, when substantial immigration debate began, she says, "the Republican Party of Texas has experienced an exponential increase in direct-mail donations from supporters statewide."
Both phone and direct-mail fundraising remain strong for the party in Michigan, says state Chairman Saul Anuzis.
"In Michigan, seven out of nine congressional Republicans oppose the bill, our activists are publicly opposing amnesty, and we are also re-establishing our brand image by fighting a Democrat attempt to increase taxes," Mr. Anuzis says. "These issues are keeping our people engaged, where otherwise we could feel a [donations] drop-off."
Similar reports from other state Republican officials in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa and Delaware suggest that opposition to any form of amnesty for illegal aliens is a fundraising winner.
Meanwhile, Republican National Committee donations are tanking.
In the first three months of this year, the committee collected $24.6 million, down from $35 million in the comparable period last year, $32.3 million in the first quarter of 2005 and $46 million in the first quarter of 2004.
Also, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is raising half as much as its Democratic Party counterpart. Read the full article. State parties calling up for donations are pitching against the S1348 bill by calling it the Bush-Kennedy bill and getting big donations. Yes, they are pitching against a sitting Republican incumbent President and the fund raising pitch is working. The Republican base has moved on. Bush's approval rating has sunk to Jimmy Carter's level and that approval rating was measured before details of the immigration proposal Bush negotiated with US Senators became public knowledge.
The Republicans can do much better if they diistance themselves from Bush and adopt positions on immigration that align with both the conservative base and even with the majority of independents and Democrats.
Republicans, you are headed toward massive defeat in 2008. Change your foreign and domestic policies.
A poll of 600 likely Republican and 600 like Democratic Iowa caucus attendees (where they decide who to support as party nominees for President) were asked their views on continuing the war in Iraq. Bush has lost the Iraq war in Iowa.
5. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
8. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Democrats Only)
The numbers on Bush compared to Reagan are even more damning for Bush and his war. Congressional Republicans should get a clue and turn against the war. Ditto for Republican Presidential candidates. The top 3 stories with highest interest with the American public at the moment are gasoline prices, Iraq, and immigration. The Republicans need to improve their policies on all of them.
In reaction to Peggy Noonan's column arguing Bush has betrayed and abandoned conservatives on immigration and other topics and they should treat him likewise, Rod Dreher points out that conservatives (at least those who supported Bush for years) bear a lot of responsibility for the failed Presidency of George W. Bush. I gotta agree.
I've got no strong objection to Noonan's analysis, and indeed I'm thrilled to see it. But it seems to me that we conservatives need to avoid falling into a historical revisionism that allows us to portray ourselves as passive victims of a feckless president. Not saying she does this, but I think as the last wheel comes off this presidency, and the GOP comes to grips with what this presidency has meant for the Republican Party and the conservative movement, there will be a strong temptation to resist owning up to our own complicity. Success has a thousand fathers, after all, and failure is an orphan. This failure is not President Bush's alone. The Republican Party owns it. The conservative movement, with some exceptions, owns it.
Bush supporters should take a hard look at themselves and how they came to support him for so long.
If we're looking to blame someone for the failure of Republican government and the conservative crack-up, look to the White House, yes, and look to the late, unlamented Republican Congress. But also look to the conservative talk show hosts, the conservative columnists, and finally, in the mirror. The only way we're going to rebuild after the present and coming political shattering is through honest reckoning, and taking responsibility for what we've done. It is tempting to blame Bush for everything. But it's not fair, and it's not honest. Bush is today who he always was. The difference is we conservatives pretty much loved the guy -- when he was a winner.
My one mistake with Bush was not to oppose the Iraq invasion before it happened. As soon as the looting started I started thinking the people like Eric Shinseki were right about needed troop levels. Then I started thinking that Greg Cochran's interpretation of the supposed WMD evidence was correct. I already disagree with Bush on immigration, border security, energy policy, the Medicare drug benefit, No Child Left Behind (which I call No Lie Left Behind), the nature of Islam, the prospects for democracy in Iraq (I never saw any such prospects), and many other topics.
Note that the exception Dreher links to is The American Conservative. Yes, the AmCon guys definitely did not drink the Bush Kool-Aid. Whereas the National Review folks drank it in large quantities and cried for more. The list of conservative commentators who supported Bush through thick and thin is quite long. I'm going to discount many of their views in the future. Though I can't say I spend much time reading commentary anyway, preferring mostly to read rawer sources of information with which to do my own analyses.
At this point I'd like to know: Who called Bush correctly early on? Who on the Right quickly figured out Bush's weaknesses and came to see his Presidency in a negative light? These are the people to pay attention to on other subjects. They have better track records in figuring out what really is. Of course, you can find people on the Left who saw Bush as terrible. But most of them would have done so regardless just based on a President's being a Republican. It is more useful to look at which commentators see someone clearly when they do not have partisan motives. So who saw Bush clearly? I'm thinking Greg Cochran, Lawrence Auster, Steve Sailer and some of the VDare writers.
Daniel Larison observes that the rhetoric that the Bush Administration is using against conservative opponents of immigration amnesty is very similar to the rhetoric Bush has used for years against liberals and anti-war conservatives.
In fact, this tendency in casting political disagreement as the result of the moral deficiency of the opponent dates back to the beginning of Mr. Bush’s first presidential campaign when he accused Congress of “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.” The tendentiousness, the dishonesty, and the preference for liberal rhetorical tropes (”racist,” “sexist,” “elitist” are some of the favoured terms of abuse hurled by the administration and its lackeys) were all there from the start. They re-emerged on a regular basis: those who were against democratisation in Iraq were racists who believed Arabs were not fully human, or something of the sort; those against the appallingly bad Harriet Miers nomination were sexist elitist chauvinist pigs, and so on. In smearing antiwar conservatives, of course, Mr. Bush had, still has, many willing helpers in the movement. Then there were all those in positions of some influence who saw what was happening, knew it was wrong and said nothing. The betrayals and compromises of the previous five years were no less horrible, no less significant and no less damaging in their different ways to this country than this amnesty bill, but those things were all bearable so long as they greased the wheels and kept the GOP in power in Congress. That seems to be the thinking of more than a few pundits who are now outraged at the treatment of Bush’s immigration critics. Now, having lost Congress, there is a sudden discovery among Republicans that Mr. Bush and his loyalists are dishonest, obnoxious and buffoonish. It took them long enough to admit this.
So the conservatives who only now are finally outraged at Bush didn't object to those tactics until those tactics were directed at them. Well, we are lucky that Bush has so mistreated them. Else they'd still be defending him and we need their support against this immigration amnesty monstrosity.
As myriad liberals have been pointing out this week as conservative complaints about the rough treatment Bush and his allies have meted out to opponents of the amnesty bill, there is absolutely nothing new in the methods that the administration is using. Mr. Bush has a long record of attacking his enemies by disparaging their patriotism, decency and common sense. He has learned well from the example of the masters of deceit and chutzpah–Wilson, FDR, Clinton–who were always sure to accuse their political opponents of the very things of which they were far more likely to be guilty. Opponents of amnesty on the right, who have mostly been more tolerant of Mr. Bush’s other projects (and some of whom have actively joined in with Mr. Bush in his past attacks or have made the attacks on his behalf), have now discovered that vilifying political opponents, denigrating their good faith and intimating that they are possessed of hateful prejudices are undesirable and unacceptable methods of debating policy.
Again, I sympathise in this case, since I also find the amnesty bill appalling. A great many conservatives, be they enforcement-first or restrictionist or some mix of the two, are finally in agreement that the administration has gone mad. Of course, he has been intent on doing this since 2001. There are no surprises here. From the day Mr. Bush signed No Child Left Behind, he had declared his hostility to the beliefs and interests of large numbers of people in his coalition. Everything that followed was merely a continuation of this. Now Mr. Bush and his allies in the GOP leadership declare their own constituents bigots, and apparently, finally, those constituents have started losing patience with these frauds. It’s about time.
It was as if the conservatives didn't want to believe that a tough sounding hawkish fundamentalist Christian Texas Republican could possibly be their enemy. He sure fooled them.
Both Dreher's and Larison's posts are worth reading in full.
The Republican National Committee, hit by a grass-roots donors' rebellion over President Bush's immigration policy, has fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors, The Washington Times has learned.
Faced with an estimated 40 percent falloff in small-donor contributions and aging phone-bank equipment that the RNC said would cost too much to update, Anne Hathaway, the committee's chief of staff, summoned the solicitations staff and told them they were out of work, effective immediately, fired staff members told The Times.
Several of the solicitors fired at the May 24 meeting reported declining contributions and a donor backlash against the immigration proposals now being pushed by Mr. Bush and Senate Republicans.
"Every donor in 50 states we reached has been angry, especially in the last month and a half, and for 99 percent of them immigration is the No. 1 issue," said a fired phone bank employee who said the severance pay the RNC agreed to pay him was contingent on his not criticizing the national committee.
But Bush hears what he wants to hear and his people filter out the rest.
"We have not heard anyone in our donor calls who supported the president on immigration," said a fired phone solicitor, who described himself as a Republican activist.
"We write these comments up from each call, and give them to a supervisor who passes them on to the finance director or the national chairman," he said. "But when I talked with the White House, the people there told me they got nothing but positive comments on the president's immigration stand."
So where are the Republican Presidential candidates on immigration? As for McCain, let me put it this way: the only way Senator John McCain could get elected President is if he switches to the Democratic Party.
"There's a part of the Republican base that feels very emotional and very strongly about this issue. I understand that," McCain said during a brief stop in Memphis. "But the majority of... ...Republicans and majority of the American people support this approach."
The Arizona senator described himself as the only Republican seeking the presidency who supports the plan, and he called on the others to come up with something better.
McCain is going down on the immigration issue. His career is over.
By contrast, former Senator and former TV show prosecutor Fred Thompson strongly opposes the immigration amnesty bill S.1348.
RICHMOND, Va., June 2 — In a preview of the themes he is likely to emphasize in a presidential campaign, Fred D. Thompson tossed some red meat to Republicans here Saturday night, assailing the immigration bill in Congress and warning of a mushroom cloud he said radicals around the world were waiting to see rise over the United States.
Romney, in outlining his immigration position, advocates three broad principles. He says he wants to secure the borders, establish a fraud-proof employee verification system, and offer no special residency or citizenship privileges to the estimated 12 million immigrants in the United States illegally. He objects to a provision in the current bill that would create a special "Z visa" allowing undocumented workers to remain in the United States and work legally.
A Republican can not win the Republican nomination if he supports immigration amnesty. It is as simple as that. He won't be able to raise funds. People in primaries won't vote for him - unless Democrats vote in Republican primaries.
If Republicans want to win elections in 2008 they need to do two things:
The Republicans need to put distance between themselves and the failed Presidency of George W. Bush. Otherwise they face electoral defeat.
Regardless of which political party you belong to tell your elected representatives what you think of the Iraq war and immigration amnesty. Here's the US Senate contact list and the US House of Representatives contact list. Give a call, send an email, send a fax. Phone calls count the most.
I am amazed and surprised by the events of the last week in conservative circles. After years of watching conservatives offer very partisan defenses of Bush as a supposed fellow conservative I honestly did not expect them to reconsider. Bush's support for the Senate immigration amnesty bill S.1348 and his insulting defense of it is serving as some kind of final straw that broke the back of support for Bush from mainstream Republican commentators. Whoever thought that the mainstream sorta-conservatives would finally rebel at the latest revision of a plan for Electing a New People? Yet the split is now looking pretty deep. The New York Times has noticed what is happening in the right wing blogosphere and with right wing columnists.
WASHINGTON, June 2 — President Bush’s advocacy of an immigration overhaul and his attacks on critics of the plan are provoking an unusually intense backlash from conservatives who form the bulwark of his remaining support, splintering his base and laying bare divisions within a party whose unity has been the envy of Democrats.
It has pitted some of Mr. Bush’s most stalwart Congressional and grass-roots backers against him, inciting a vitriol that has at times exceeded anything seen yet between Mr. Bush and his supporters, who have generally stood with him through the toughest patches of his presidency. Those supporters now view him as pursuing amnesty for foreign law breakers when he should be focusing on border security.
Conservatives feel offended that not only do they oppose what Bush is for but Bush is insulting them.
This week, after Mr. Bush’s suggestion that those opposing the Congressional plan “don’t want to do what’s right for America” inflamed conservative passions, Rush Limbaugh told listeners, “I just wish he hadn’t done it because he’s not going to lose me on Iraq, and he’s not going to lose me on national security.” He added, “But he might lose some of you.”
Note to Rush: You are one slow learner. Bush lost me years ago.
Such sentiments have reverberated through talk radio, conservative publications like National Review and Fox News. They have also appeared on Web sites including RedState.com and FreeRepublic.com, where postings reflect a feeling that Mr. Bush is smiting his own coalition in pursuit of a badly needed domestic accomplishment, and working in league with the likes of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a co-author of the legislation.
Yes, right-wingers, Bush is smiting you. Try to remember this after the fight over S.1348 is over. He doesn't respect you. He is using you. He is a bad President of the United States.
Former Ronald Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan has taken a very firm position in opposition to the immigration bill cooked up by Bush and some US Senators. Noonan calls the bill a lie.
Naturally I hope the new immigration bill fails. It is less a bill than a big dirty ball of mischief, malfeasance and mendacity, with a touch of class malice, and it's being pushed by a White House that is at once cynical and inept. The bill's Capitol Hill supporters have a great vain popinjay's pride in their own higher compassion. They are inclusive and you're not, you cur, you gun-totin' truckdriver's-hat-wearin' yahoo. It's all so complex, and you'd understand this if you weren't sort of dumb.
What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker--"At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.
The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.
For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome.
To the Bush supporters who feel like battered wives I say: stop torturing yourselves. Admit your mistake for having supported Bush in the first place. We all make mistakes.
Noonan has been developing her doubts about Bush for over 2 years and Noonan's critique is devastating.
The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.
What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.
She sure has his number. Well Peggy, welcome to the ranks of the disaffected. You might want to take the time to read people who figured out Bush's character flaws years ago. Lawrence Auster had Bush pegged in 2000.
The most interesting development on the immigration issue comes from neoconservative disagreements with Bush. Many of the Jewish neocons have taken immigration positions more like those of Jewish liberals. But David Frum and Charles Krauthammer are part of a growing list of neocons attacking Bush on immigration.
But the campaign for legalization does not stop at stupidity and farce. It adds mendacity as well — such as the front-page story in last Friday’s New York Times claiming that “a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status.”
Sounds unbelievable. And it is. A Rasmussen poll had shown that 72 percent of Americans thought border enforcement and reducing illegal immigration to be very important. Only 29 percent thought legalization to be very important. Indeed, when a different question in the Times poll — one that did not make the front page — asked respondents if they wanted to see illegal immigrants prosecuted and deported, 69 percent said yes.
I guess it's legacy time over at the White House. The president is imitating Arnold Schwarzenegger now. Does the president have any conservative domestic initiatives that he's actively pursuing? If so, I'd like to know what they are. Richard Nixon tried this when his ratings were low. It didn't work.
Mr. President, the Left hated you the day you walked into the Oval Office, if not before. Their hate for you is frozen in time. If you actually believe in what you are doing, then I and many others misjudged you. You expanded the federal role in education, and we held our nose because of the war. You signed McCain-Feingold in the dead of night, and we held our nose because of the war. You expanded Medicare by adding prescription drugs, and we held our nose because of the war. You increased farm subsidies, and we held our nose because of the war.
So glad I didn't have to hold my nose due to support for the war. Bush was wrong on the war and the extent of his wrongness gets deeper with every passing day.
Levin does not like the feeling he gets when a Republican President attacks him.
Today you disparage us for opposing a massive amnesty program that endangers our economy and national security. Today you even embrace the religion of global warming, a stunning shift from prior policy (your administration even went to the Supreme Court and argued correctly that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant).
What's a conservative to do?
Mark, try dumping your remaining loyalty to the Republican President (assuming you have any) and put your loyalty to the United States of America first.
An amazingly large fraction of the National Review writers have begun taking positions on immigration like you find here, at View From The Right, and among VDare writers. For example, Mark Levin clearly understands many of the problems with illegal immigration and open borders:
Open borders do not promote free markets here or in Mexico. They promote big government here and corruption in Mexico. Nor do open borders promote limited government, sound fiscal policy, the rule of law, and a host of other fundamental conservative principles for which the Wall Street Journal editorial page once stood. Milton Friedman understood this. Tom Sowell understands it. And most Americans do as well.
I wish Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok would let themselves understand this.
Right wing commentator Laura Ingraham recently went on a tirade against Bush calling him a "neoliberal" (MP3 - worth a listen). Okay, yes, Bush is not a conservative. He's some sort of fundamentalist Christian neoliberal hawk - a rare hybrid which confuses everyone. But Laura, what took you so long? Though I guess I shouldn't be harsh on her. Better late than never.
The depth of Laura Ingraham's anger comes over clearly when she describes how opponents of the immigration amnesty feel about Bush's statements and position on immigration:
Is he kidding me with this? Here' s what I don't understand: This president will go out of his way to not question the motives of the Democrats who cut funding off from our troops. What does he always say? I'm not questioning your patriotism. What was that? If you ask me that was an implicit criticism of the patriotism of all the Americans out there who want our border enforced. They want the laws enforced. They want what's right for America Mr. President. I can tell you that. And they don't much like a President of the United States that they hit the pavement for and were ridiculed for supporting to turn his back on them. And not just turn his back on them, but throw, kick them to the curb. Oh you're just too stupid to understand this. That's what's underneath all this.
Bush's exact label on some ideological scale is less important than Peggy Noonan's remark: Bush lacks wisdom. One can be a conservative and be much wiser than Bush. One can be a liberal and be much wiser than Bush. The guy is unwise. He is uncurious. He's self righteous and convinced that he follows the will of God. Yet when he prays he obviously only listens to himself. He's a bad President.
I sense that Bush has overreached so far and has so insulted conservatives that we've crossed a Rubicon of sorts. But will their shock cause a permanent rupture between them and Bush? Have they learned a lasting deep lesson? Will the major mainstream conservative commentators stay disaffected toward Bush? Guesses anyone?
Ok, so Ingraham now understands that Bush is harder on his own Republican loyalists than he is on the Democrats. But I don't think she yet gets what that really means--that Bush at bottom respects liberals and despises conservatives, because Bush's own deepest orientation is to the left, not the right.
I agree with Larry about Bush's own deepest orientation. But I suspect Ingraham might also as well when she calls Bush a "neoliberal". Still, Ingraham has a long way to go to fully understand what recent events have revealed to her.
What's more telling about the history of conservative commentary since the late 1990s? The commentators put too much value on group loyalty and loyalty to leaders and do not try hard enough to understand what is true in reality.
In yet another low of his presidency, George W. Bush attacks the conservative base that overwhelmingly opposes his immigration amnesty
GLYNCO, Ga., May 29 — President Bush took on parts of his conservative base on Tuesday by accusing opponents of his proposed immigration measure of fear-mongering to defeat its passage in Congress.
“If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill,” Mr. Bush said at a training center for customs protection agents and other federal agents here in southeastern Georgia. “That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens.”
He is lying. Converting illegals into legals is amnesty.
an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.
Then he had to go lie again:
“If you want to kill the bill,” he said, “if you don’t want to do what’s right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it. You can use it to frighten people.”
What is little about converting 12 million illegal aliens into legals and then allowing them to bring family members in as legals? That's huge.
Bush keeps widening the gap between what is good for the nation and what he tries to implement as policy.
Over at The Corner Andy McCarthy asks a basic question about the Bush Administration's position on immigration: why should we go out of our way to urgently help illegal aliens gain legal status?
And, not to beat a dead horse, but Mr. Thompson's response does not address my main point: Why is the illegal status of people who've chosen that status by knowingly and wilfully violating U.S. law our problem? I don't see how that, as opposed to enforcement, is a crisis. It's understandably a matter of great importance to the illegal aliens, but why should the rest of us regard it as a problem, much less a priority? And if it were, for argument's sake, a crisis, then the first question ought to be: How and why did we let such a crisis happen?
Note to Andy: You let the crisis happen by letting some groups push government policies in directions against the national interest. These groups include corporate interests seeking cheap labor, Hispanic lobbyists, and Democrat operatives looking for votes
We can solve the illegal immigration crisis with real and sustained enforcement of US immigration laws. The Bush Administration's move toward greater enforcement has been slow and tentative. Bush clearly does not have his heart in greater enforcement. Well, that's what the American people want. Why should we cater to the elites and the illegals? Clearly the elites should cater to us and the illegals should leave. Stop breaking our laws. Get out of our country.
Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, and open borders advocate, has decided to run for President and Richardson wants to make sure all Hispanics know the last name of his mother is Lopez.
"I am saying 'It's Bill Richardson Lopez and I am one of you and I would like you to consider me, not because I am Hispanic but because I have the best program for the country'," he told Reuters in an interview late on Monday.
He wants Hispanics to vote for him because he's Hispanic (or at least half Hispanic). But he doesn't want to admit this.
But he figures he has a good chance because he can do well the states with lots of Hispanics since Hispanics will prefer to vote for one of their own.
"If I am able to make a dent in states like California, Texas and Florida with large Latino populations, I am going to be a factor in this race," he said.
This is racial politics early in the 21st century. It is going to get a lot worse. The racial groups will vote for members of their tribes. They'll do this for two reasons. First, they'll feel more trust and affection toward members of their race. Second, members of their race will pursue policies that are more appealing to members of their race than to members of other races.
This is Balkanization. Some day will another country station peace keeping troops in America the same way the United States stations troops in the Balkans?
One of the most noteworthy aspects of the Congressional rush to pass a massive immigration amnesty is George W. Bush's deal with Senate Democrats on immigration and on Bush's total and absolute willingness to shaft and defy the Republican base on this issue. Steve Sailer asks why is Bush so incredibly willing to just totally ignore the wishes of the Republicans who elected him?
Still, you would think that the fact that a few of the ideas of immigration skeptics like me made it into Kennedy-Bush bill (although I'm sure they were put in by Senate Republicans like Sen. Kyl, not the Administration) would have been used by the Bush Administration in an attempt to butter up the immigration skeptic wing to not be so immediately hostile to the bill. That's straight out of Lobbying 101 -- appeal to the ego of potential critics. Tell us we are helping make this a better country through some of our brilliant ideas.
I certainly am not surprised I didn't get a get a phone call from Karl Rove before last Thursday, trying to get me excited about bits of the upcoming package, but, what about, say, Hugh Hewitt or the National Review boys? They've been good soldiers in the Bush Army, except on immigration. So, why didn't they get a call?
The simplest answer seems to be that the Bush Administration is deeply emotional about immigration, trumping even Iraq. On Invade the World, Invite the World, the latter comes first in George W. Bush's heart. They'll deal happily with Ted Kennedy, but if you don't toe the Bush line on the borders, you are a bad, bad person.
The immigration issue, even more than Iraq, demonstrates how deep down Bush is not a conservative. He's a radical liberal who wants to remake the world. There's nothing conservative about his support for a massive demographic remaking of America.
The National Review gang have to be feeling betrayed at this point. No, Bush is not one of them. No, he does not heed their advice on the issue that works up the Republican base more than just about any other issue. I have a question for the National Review folks: Can you bring your selves to break with Bush, to totally withdraw your support from Bush? Can you bring yourselves to denounce George W. Bush and admit that he's been a disaster for the Republican Party, a disaster that looks set to scale up the damage he's done even higher? Can you bring yourselves to admit that Bushie wants to make a move that will make the Republican Party a permanent minority party?
One of the polemically talented defenders of the Bush Administration has been columnist Mark Steyn. I wish I could weave prose half as good as he can. Now Steyn is shocked by Bush's immigration stand and seems to have undergone a Damascene conversion on immigration policy. This is the same Mark Steyn that not that long ago managed to see three options for reducing the threat of Muslim terrorism, none of which was an end to Muslim immigration. Mark, has reality finally slapped you upside the head hard enough? Have you waken from the dream into the reality of the nightmare? Pretty grim reality, eh?
I remember when commentators on the Right used to claim that Hillary Clinton was an enabler for Bill's philandering. Well, Bush defenders, you are Bush's enablers. How does it feel to be George's bitches?
If you aren't George's bitch then get the phone numbers for both your Senators from the US Senate contact list. Make a call to tell them you oppose immigration amnesty. Do it first thing in the morning. Put the needed phone numbers in your pocket now. Here is the US House of Representatives contact list.. Also, check out this combined directory and Senate and House contact numbers that includes both district office numbers and Washington DC office numbers. You can also call the U.S. Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121. Plus, you can call the U.S. House switchboard: 202-225-3121. Make the calls before work in the morning. Or take a break during the day and make some cell phone calls.
WASHINGTON: A comprehensive immigration bill cleared its first hurdle this afternoon as the Senate voted to start work on the legislation, which would offer legal status to most of the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants.
The vote to invoke cloture, meaning to move to consideration of the bill itself, carried by 69 to 23. Sixty "yes" votes were required. Nearly a score of Republicans voted "yes," while just a few Democrats voted "no."
The 69 Senators demonstrate how totally corrupt our ruling class has become. You need to stop being complacent about the United States government. It has become arrayed against the American people. We are in very bad shape.
“Many Senators are telling staffers and other Senators that they are inclined to vote for the giant Kennedy/Bush amnesty bill (S. 1348) next week [i.e. the week of 5/21] because they say they have been surprised at how few phone calls of protest they’ve gotten during the last two months of highly-publicized negotiations to create the amnesty.
“They are concluding that the citizens of their states just aren’t all that worked up about granting an amnesty. And they’re interpreting that as a green light to give corporations the huge new supplies of legal foreign labor they desire.”
They haven't gotten that many phone calls because they conducted negotiations in secrecy. Time to wake up. Time to tell your friends about what is going on in Washington DC and how disastrous the outcome will be for current and future generations of Americans. You can get the phone numbers for both your Senators from the US Senate contact list. Here is the US House of Representatives contact list.. Also, check out this combined directory and Senate and House contact numbers that includes both district office numbers and Washington DC office numbers. You can also call the U.S. Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121. Plus, you can call the U.S. House switchboard: 202-225-3121. Make the calls before work in the morning. Or take a break during the day and make some cell phone calls.
A recent poll by the Center for Immigration Studies shows the American people want the opposite of what our elites want.
B. When Presented with the Facts, Voters Say they Want Less, Not More, Immigration.
When given details about the number of immigrants (both legal and illegal) already in America and the number entering each year, 68 percent of likely voters thought the number of immigrants (regardless of legal status) crossing our borders was "too high," while just 21 percent said it was "about right," and 2 percent believed it was "too low." It didn’t take fancy turns of phrase or inflated figures to lead them to this conclusion. This would seem to contradict those who argue that the only concern of voters with respect to immigration is illegality, rather than the sheer number of immigrants in the country.
The public doesn't want what is going on.
D. Very Little Support for Increasing Legal Immigration.
There appears to be minimal support for the kind of large increase in legal immigration found in the bill passed recently by the U.S. Senate (S2611). Across the political spectrum voters felt legal immigration levels were either too high or just right. When asked specifically about legal immigration, only 8 percent said it was too low.
In fact, 70 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supported doubling legal immigration, compared to just 21 percent who said they would be more likely to vote for such a candidate (a warning to Senators who support S2611 which would just that). And the intensity of opposition was overwhelming, with 48 percent saying they would be much less likely to vote for a candidate that wants to double immigration, compared to only 7 percent who said they would be much more likely to vote for such a candidate.
Again, get the phone numbers for both your Senators from the US Senate contact list. Make a call first thing in the morning. Put the needed phone numbers in your pocket now. Here is the US House of Representatives contact list.. Also, check out this combined directory and Senate and House contact numbers that includes both district office numbers and Washington DC office numbers. You can also call the U.S. Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121. Plus, you can call the U.S. House switchboard: 202-225-3121. Make the calls before work in the morning. Or take a break during the day and make some cell phone calls.
An article in the National Review outlines the evidence that Bush is showing utter contempt for the desires of the Republican base.
Third, the Bush/Rove plan divides Republicans. Not just congressional Republicans like Tom Tancredo and Jim Sensenbrenner on one side and McCain and Specter along with the Bushies on the other. But real rank and file Republicans absolutely hate this bill’s amnesty provisions. By a margin of 58 to 10 percent, Republicans think that legal immigration should be reduced (never mind illegal immigration)! Furthermore, by an 87-1 percent (!) margin, Republicans said the federal government was “not doing enough” versus “doing too much” to keep illegal immigrants from crossing the border. And those polls are backed up by real election results: Nearly 90 percent of ordinary Republicans voted for initiatives restricting illegal immigration in California and Arizona. Republicans were already vulnerable due to Iraq, Scooter Libby’s indictment, corruption, Jack Abramoff, high gas-prices, massive deficits, Homeland Security employees arrested on child porn charges, the loss of good jobs, and the generic Second Term Blues faced by most presidents. Did they really need to also fight amongst themselves with this? The more time conservatives spend fighting each other, the less chance they have to do damage to us. Can you say Speaker Pelosi for the next 20 years? Who said Rove wasn’t a genius!
Does this sound like good news to the Democrats among my readership? If you are an elected Democrat it might be good news. But if you are rank and file workers then how do you feel about immigrants who drive down your wages? How about immigrants who will support the welfare state because they need tax increases on you to pay for their needs? How about their additional demand for housing and how that will raise land prices? Want your kids to be able to afford to buy a house? Might want to start planning a move to North Dakota.
Americans should very loudly reject what the US Imperial Senate is trying to get away with. Here is the US Senate contact list. Here is the US House of Representatives contact list. Start clicking, typing, and faxing. Time is short. Hours count.
Patrick Cleburne points to an excellent post at Dow Blog on the economics of low priced but high cost immigrant labor.
The economics are relatively simple. Low-skilled immigrants are admitted in huge numbers driving down the wages of blue-collar workers. Certain groups of professionals (doctors, engineers, and computer programmers for example) will also see their wages decrease…Meanwhile, the social costs associated with education, health care and welfare expenditures will explode and be largely socialized.
The primary beneficiaries will be social, economic, and political elites who manage to reap the benefits of mass immigration while insulating themselves and their families from the consequences…(They) don’t have their livelihoods, not to mention their children’s education, threatened by mass immigration, but they will acquire the cheapest pool cleaners, house-keepers, and roofers in the Western world.
Socialize costs. Privatize profits. That's how our elites operate these days.
Americans should very loudly reject what the US Imperial Senate is trying to get away with. Here is the US Senate contact list. Here is the US House of Representatives contact list. Start clicking, typing, and faxing. Time is short. Hours count. If you are a blogger then write a blog post that calls on your readers do contact their Congress reps on immigration to make their views known.
The moral of the story is that we no longer live in a country governed by its people. What the elites want, they will get. Open borders, "free trade," never ending war and interventionism, the melding of America into globalist political institutions and a "global economy" and the destruction of our laws, culture, and people.
That is what you will get, ladies and gentleman, by continuing to vote for men like McCain, Graham and Bush.
Democracy's been oversold in terms of its beneficial effects - both in the Middle East and the United States. Democracy is not a substitute for virtue.
Senators from both parties and senior White House officials are hurrying to negotiate a deal that would give illegal immigrants a path to legal status after clearing criminal checks and paying fines. The plan would beef up border security and put new emphasis on enforcing workplace rules. Democratic leaders have given them until tomorrow to produce legislation before forcing another vote on the McCain-Kennedy bill that failed last year.
In the meantime, the leading Republican candidates for president are distancing themselves from the plan.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who just a year ago characterized the bipartisan efforts as "reasonable proposals," now derides the plans being negotiated in Congress as "amnesty" for illegal immigration.
Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, whose record is filled with pro-immigrant speeches and actions, has been largely silent on the debate. And Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, another GOP contender, was a key McCain ally on immigration a year ago but recently renounced his support for the approach.
"When the public opinion matters most is during elections," said Steven Camarota, the research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, whose group advocates a harder line on illegal immigration. "That's why all the candidates tend to move toward enforcement and not talk so much about legalization."
Immigration is the issue where the masses and the elites disagree the most. Elite preferences got a big boost due to the Iraq war. The unpopularity of the Iraq war helped get more pro-immigration Democrats get elected. The Democrats see low performing immigrant groups as reliable Democratic Party voters. True enough. Poor people tend to want stuff from the government and vote for Robin Hood politicians to get it for them.
Republican elites see immigrants as cheap labor. Capital owners see larger supplies of unskilled labor in terms of lower labor costs. But their position can be summed up as the privatization of profits and the socialization of costs. Business owners can make profits from workers who earn little and who pay little in taxes. But then the rest of us pay more in taxes to support these poor folks and in crime, crowding, and higher housing costs.
The deal-makers in the US Senate basically have contempt for popular will. So does George W. Bush. Will the populace shout loud enough and become angry enough about the immigrant hordes to force the elected officials to bow to popular will? Or will we get a massive immigrant amnesty?
Forthwith, the details of the case: A Mexican drug smuggler with 743 pounds of marijuana in a van confronted and assaulted a border Patrol agent in February 2005. The agents shot the suspect in the buttocks as he fled across the Rio Grande. The Homeland Security Department ordered an investigation and, after locating the suspect, presented him with an offer of immunity. Yes, immunity. In exchange, all the suspect, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, had to do was testify against the two agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. The agents, 10- and five-year veterans, respectively, of the Border Patrol, were sentenced in October to a combined 23 years in prison. The drug smuggler was not charged.
Think about the prosecutors and investigators who were used in this prosecution. They could have been, say, tracking down known felon illegals to deport them. Doing that would protect us. Doing this above makes us less safe. But the Bush Administration doesn't want tough border control.
A previous post showed Numbers USA figures on how immigration restrictionist Republicans won reelection at higher rates than House Republicans as a whole. This led to the question of what rate did House Republicans who were not in Tom Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus (IRC) win reelection. On the Audacious Epigone blog crush41 has crunched the numbers more carefully than the Numbers USA folks and found while only 5.9% of Republican IRC members lost 16.7% of non-IRC Republicans lost.
Transferring the caucus status of seats thrown up for grabs due to a would-be incumbent not running for re-election to the Republican candidate trying to fill the seat (with the would-be incumbent followed by the candidate who ran to fill his spot), Republican members of the IRC suffered a loss rate of 5.9% as a group (six of 101) . The victims were:
Republican Congressional members not party to the caucus suffered a loss rate of 16.7% as a group (22 of 132).
JD Hayworth's loss has been pointed to by Open Borders supporters as proof that immigration restriction harms election prospects. But all 4 measures aimed against illegal aliens on the Arizona ballot won by overwhelming majorities.
Arizona voters have approved four ballot measures affecting illegal immigration by about a 3-to-1 advantage.
The four Legislature-referred ballot propositions related to illegal immigration are said by supporters to be necessary protections for Arizona’s taxpayers. But opponents have characterized them as bad policy at best and mean-spirited at worst.
More on those landslide votes here.
Renember: Republicans ate it in this election primarily because of Bush's handling of Iraq. Ethical problems also contributed to Republican losses. I also suspect a rising backlash to the effects of outsourcing, rising imports, and other pressures on the lower classes are pushing lower class whites back toward the Democrats. Populists are not driven more by economic than moral issues.
Numbers USA has crunched the numbers to look at how Republicans in Congress did in the recent election based on their positions on immigration. The immigration restrictionists did better than other Republicans in getting reelected.
Where an A means the strongest voting record for immigration restriction the ones with F grades fared the worst.
Loss of Election by Republicans Based on Their Immigration-Reduction Grade of This Congress
- 9.6% with an A grade lost;
- 25.0% with an F grade lost;
- 9.2% with a B grade lost;
- 6.4% with a C grade lost;
- 9.5% with a D grade lost.
Exit polling failed to show any sign that voters disliked the immigration-reduction positions of the Republicans they were turning out of office. Rather, the polling found they were voting primarily on the basis of scandals and the war.
One has to consider the factors that cause Republican reps to take more or less restrictionist positions may also increase and reduce their chances of getting reelected for other reasons. For example, a district that is majority Democrat that is represented by a Republican probably has a more moderate or left-leaning Republican. So one would need to take these numbers and then look at the districts where candidates lost and see what other characteristics these districts share. For example, Republicans do well in districts that have higher white populations and higher percentages of married couples with children.
Courtesy of Numbers USA you can send a free fax to both your US Senators and Congress Rep in support of immigration restriction and against amnesty and against a temporary workers program.
Immigration is the one major issue on which President Bush is likely to fare better next year if Democrats win control of Congress.
The issue is unfinished business to which all sides promise to return, after House Republicans this year prevented Mr. Bush from winning both a guest-worker program and citizenship rights for most illegal aliens.
Bush's Iraq debacle may deliver to him a left-leaning Congress that is far closer to him on immigration. That'll make both him and Open Borders neocons very happy.
This year's immigration restrictionist victory to build a fence on part of the US-Mexico border could be reversed as Democratic majorities in Congress block funding for border barrier construction.
Neither House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, likely to be the speaker of the House if Democrats win that chamber, nor Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the Democrats' Senate leader, would commit this week to funding the fencing if they gain control of Congress.
"What Leader Pelosi has said in the past is that we need to do comprehensive reform, and the fence could be part of that reform," said the California Democrat's spokeswoman, Jennifer Crider.
The phrase "comprehensive immigration reform" is code in Washington DC which means amnesty, a guest worker program, and a higher rate of legal immigration in exchange for which the politicians want to play us for Rubes by pretending to crack down on illegal immigration. Future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will happily ally with Bush to push through such legislation.
The term "comprehensive" is the tip-off. When they mean comprehensive they mean it has to comprehensively cater to all the groups who want cheap labor, more of their own co-ethnics, and more people who, since they are low-skilled and poor, will vote for Democrats. In the Senate the term "comprehensive" gets put on legislation designed to carry out the goals of the Open Borders alliance. A House controlled by the Democrats would be much more welcoming to the Senate Hagel-Martinez Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) which would have increased immigration by tens of millions of people.
Back to the original article above, the majority of House Republicans are the only line of defense against the passage of a bill like CIRA:
Spending aside, Congress still faces the four major immigration questions that it punted on this year -- how to secure the border, how to boost workplace enforcement, whether to create a new program for future foreign workers in addition to the existing work programs that hundreds of thousands of people already use; and what to do about the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens now in the country.
Mr. Bush, joined by almost all Democrats and some Republicans, wants action on all of those issues, and the Senate passed such a bill this year.
But Bush and the Democrats do not want to boost workplace enforcement. Plus, if they manage to implement a huge guest worker program more people will come in by that than by the current illegal border crossings. Bush's own guest worker proposal will increase both illegal and legal immigration.
Nancy Pelosi has the most Open Borders voting record in Congress. While many are going to vote against Republicans due to the war in Iraq the result is going to be a further shafting of the masses on immigration. More than any other issue there an Elite Populace Gap On Immigration Issues. A Democratic majority in the US House of Representatives will allow the elites to do what they want on immigration and to ignore the desires of the majority.
Immigraton is more important in the long run than Iraq. As bad as Iraq has been for US interests a huge demographic change in the US population that is dumbing down the average IQ in America just as it has in Calfiornia. More crowding, more crime, higher housing costs, more pollution, displacement of American workers from the workforce, and a worsening in the quality of life may turn out to be the biggest legacy of the Iraq war. But the one ray of hope is that the results of a huge immigration amnesty could be so bad that the public will vote in 2008 for politicians who will undo the damage that is being done.
New York, NY (October 5, 2006) -- Last night violent protestors at one of the nation's elite universities forced the evacuation of authors Jim Gilchrist and Jerome R. Corsi, who were at Columbia University to speak about their new book "Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders".
Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project, was speaking on the topic of illegal immigration at an event organized by the Columbia University Young Republicans when protestors stormed the stage and lunged toward him, forcing security personnel to hastily evacuate both authors. The event was abruptly cancelled due to security concerns before Dr. Corsi, who co-wrote the 2004 bestseller "Unfit for Command," could deliver his remarks.
Members of the International Socialist Organization were among those who rushed the stage.
Just as Mr. Gilchrist was talking about “2,000 Mexicans on the border,” several people holding aloft a banner that read “No One Is Illegal” in several languages, hopped on the stage. Almost instantly, they were joined by a couple of dozen others protesting the speech, according to videotape of the events taken by news agencies and others. From then on, the forum turned into a raucous gathering of young people shouting slogans against Mr. Gilchrist.
Loud voices began chanting in Spanish "Si se pudo" -- "Yes, it could be done" -- drowning out any possibility of discussion.
Multiculturalism is really a code phrase meaning the suppression of a culture that the multiculturalists do not like.
"We were aware that there was going to be a sign and we were going to occupy the stage," said a protestor who was on stage and asked to remain anonymous. "I don't feel like we need to apologize or anything. It was fundamentally a part of free speech. ... The Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration."
Andy, I’m late to the party on the outrage caught on tape at Columbia University the other day, but I agree that this is a big deal and should not be allowed to disappear. I just viewed the video via Powerline, which has more good coverage. (The beginning and the end of the video are the key parts.) And thanks to David French at Phi Beta Cons for alerting me to this.
Europe is churning out one scary story after another about problems flowing from poorly controlled immigration and failed assimilation. Unfortunately, this tape makes it clear that America is vulnerable as well. Yes, I’ve been open to a (House side-leaning) compromise on immigration, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the very serious problems. Americans concerned about uncontrolled immigration and the substitution of multiculturalism for assimilation should look at this video and recognize that someday their own freedom will be directly threatened by the sort of outrage now confined to campuses like Columbia. And for people who don’t believe that conservative views are suppressed on college campuses, just have a look at the video.
I'm not open to the least bit of a compromise between House immigration law enforcement bills and the Senate CIRA amnesty and guest worker program bill. That's like compromising between whether to take medicine or poison.
GENEVA, Sept. 24 -- Swiss voters ratified new asylum and immigration laws Sunday that make it more difficult for refugees to receive assistance and effectively block non-European unskilled workers from entering the country.
More than 67 percent voted in favor of the stricter asylum rules, originally approved by the Swiss government in December. The proposal was overwhelmingly accepted in all of Switzerland's 26 cantons, according to results released by the federal government.
The Republican groundswell of demand for tougher immigration policies and immigration cut-back is not an isolated phenomenon. Immigration restriction is on the rise in Europe and multiculturalism is looking pretty discredited.
When Spain's justice minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar recently asked the European Union for money to pay the costs of Spain's immigration amnesty and weak immigration law enforcement Europe's other states roundly critised Spain for allowing the problem to develop.
However, he got short shrift from Germany, Austria and the Netherlands who criticised both the request for money and a decision by Madrid in 2005 to legalise the status of around 600,000 illegal immigrants already in Spain.
"Those who want to solve problems must stop asking for the money of others," German interior minister Wolfgang Schauble is quoted as saying in German newspapers.
Austria's Karin Gastinger said "It's no solution to legalize people, as was done by Spain, because it gives some kind of pull factor to the people in Africa, as we unfortunately saw in the last months," she said. "It sends the wrong signal."
She was backed up by the Dutch Rita Verdonk saying "the traffickers, the smugglers, see very well what is happening: they won't miss an opportunity to send illegal immigrants."
Rita Verdonk has much more sense than George W. Bush or Ted Kennedy.
Denmark has now drifted to the right - as has neighbouring Sweden, which last week booted out its Social Democrat government. The chill hand of pragmatism has even arrived in Christiania, the Danish capital's hippy commune, as the government announced last week it intended to charge the hairy denizens rent.
At the moment the assimilationists - who insist immigrants should become more Danish - are in the ascendant. The government is considering Danish language tests for foreigners applying for a passport. If anything, the cartoon row has forced Europeans to reconsider what it is that makes them European.
"It provoked a debate here in Denmark about what are we really and what is our identity," Hans-Henrik Holm, a professor of international relations at Denmark's College of Journalism at Aarhus University said. "A lot of Danes know more today about Islam and religion. We have to wake up to the fact that we don't live in a Hans Christian Andersen quiet provincial country any more."
The Danes would be better off if they paid all their Muslim residents to leave.
STOCKHOLM, Sweden A small anti-immigration party doubled its support in Sweden's elections and won dozens of seats on local councils but failed to break the 4 percent barrier to enter Parliament, official results showed Wednesday.
The rise of the far-right Sweden Democrats has raised concerns that the anti-immigration tide seen in much of Europe has spilled over into Sweden, where about 12 percent of residents are foreign-born.
Muslims have become a big enough problem in many European countries that the nature of the threat they pose is undeniable.
The prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has pledged to devote more resources to shoring up the European Union's southern frontier, reported daily newspaper Politiken.
Taking up the fight against illegal immigrants, the Cabinet resolved on 23 April to boost the capacity of the foreign police and double the cells at deportation centres to about 3,000.
Rental contracts can be dissolved if inquiries indicate that landlords have rented homes out to illegal immigrants. In the case of illegal subletting, the official tenant might also lose his or her home.
Employers will be threatened with stiffer fines if they employ illegal workers. The average fine of EUR 980 will be increased to EUR 3,500 per illegal worker.
More raids will thus be carried out and employers will also be forced to pay retrospective social security premiums and taxes if the illegal immigrant has worked there for six months. That bill could reportedly amount to EUR 6,000.
The US Senate's 80-19 vote for a dual fence barrier on the US-Mexico border is in step with a larger trend in Western countries: Keep out the non-Western lower classes and keep out the Muslims.
Especially worrisome for members of Congress is that the proportion of Americans who approve of their own representative's performance has fallen sharply. Traditionally, voters may express disapproval of Congress as a whole but still vote for their own member, even from the majority party. But 55 percent now approve of their lawmaker, a seven-percentage-point drop over three months and the lowest such finding since 1994, the last time control of the House switched parties.
"That's dramatic," said Republican consultant Ed Rollins, who was White House political director under President Ronald Reagan.
Steve Sailer has summed up the foreign and domestic policies of Bush and the neoconservatives as Invade the world! Invite the world!. Bush's failed "Invade the world" policies in Iraq may cause a loss of Republican control of the House of Representatives. That will bring Open Borders Democrats in control of that part of Congress and remove the House as a brake on efforts to pass a huge amnesty for illegal aliens. So "Invade the world" will lead to "Invite the world".
Washington lobbying firms, trade associations and corporate offices are moving to hire more well-connected Democrats in response to rising prospects that the opposition party will wrest control of at least one chamber of Congress from Republicans in the November elections.
In what lobbyists are calling a harbinger of possible upheaval on Capitol Hill, many who make a living influencing government have gone from mostly shunning Democrats to aggressively recruiting them as lobbyists over the past six months or so.
Immigration restrictionists would be better off if the US Senate fell into the hands of Democrats. The Senators of both parties are already so far gone toward treason against the American people on the National Quest that it doesn't matter much which party controls the Senate. But the majority of House Republicans are taking restrictionist positions on immigration because they fear the wrath of their voters. That majority of Republicans (and not a majority of the total House) is what stands in the way of the ruling class's attempt to replace the American citizenry with a new populace of malleable clients to corrupt upper class patrons.
Fredo Arias-King explains how the ruling class in America see a replacement of the white majority with a Hispanic majority as a way to undermine the restraint that citizens have on the governing class.
Of a handful of motivations, one of the main ones (even if unconscious) of many of these legislators can be found in what the U.S. Founding Fathers called "usurpation." Madison, Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and others devised a system and embedded the Constitution with mechanisms to thwart the "natural" tendency of the political class to usurp power—to become a permanent elite lording over pauperized subjects, as was the norm in Europe at the time. However, the Founding Fathers seem to have based the logic of their entire model on the independent character of the American folk. After reviewing the different mechanisms and how they would work in theory, they wrote in the Federalist Papers that in the end, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America …"4 With all his emphasis on reason and civic virtue as the basis of a functioning and decentralized democratic polity, Jefferson speculated whether Latin American societies could be governed thus.5
While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.
Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.
Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also "unfairly" take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the "natural progress" of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.
Because of the immigration issue I no longer see the ruling class of America as morally legitimate. They are at war with the character of our nation and seek to change it in ways quite hostile the interests and loyalties of the vast majority of Americans.
The Washington Post says the US Senate's Republicans are talking about passing an immigration bill that contains only enforcement provisions. Mind you, the Senators are hoping that if the House would enter negotiations then the Senate could manage to slip in some stealth amnesty provisions.
House leaders appeared to be winning the standoff. They announced this month that they would hold field hearings on immigration throughout the summer, all but guaranteeing that a bill could not be completed until after the election.
But in recent days, senators and the White House have dropped hints that they are willing to move closer to the House's position -- perhaps by agreeing to a two-phase plan that would begin with construction of triple-layer walls, deployment of surveillance aircraft and other means of tightening the border with Mexico.
It is time for the House Republicans to pass a bill that calls for a complete wall along the entire US border with Mexico. The Senators are feeling the pressure on immigration. Therefore it is time for the immigration restrictionsts in the House to move the center of the debate even further in the restrictionist direction.
No bill should contain provisions for a second phase where any restrictionist measures get undone. You can't trust the Congress to do real enforcement. Too many of them will wait till attention shifts away from immigration so that they can start undermining enforcement.
Democrats like Senator Charles Schumer of New York claim that the Republicans are at fault for the collapse in immigration law enforcement.
For instance, according to statistics cited by the Democrats, the number of border apprehensions has declined by 31 percent since Bush took office, to an average of 1.05 million cases per year between 2001 and 2004, from an average 1.52 million cases per year during the late 1990s. The number of illegal immigrants caught each year inside the United States also declined by about a third, to about 25,901 on average between 2001 and 2004, from an annual average of 40,193 in the late 1990s.
"That is a joke," Schumer said. "It's also a political billboard."
Schumer helped to create the joke which passes as US immigration law enforcement. In their attempt to blame Republicans on the collapse of immigration law enforcement the Democrat in Washington DC are lying. Congress critters and Presidential Administrations of both parties presided over the collapse in interior immigration law enforcement. Edward Rubinstein published the details in a table showing the frequencies of a few categories of immigration law enforcement from 1992 to 2005 The peak of "Notices of intent to fine" employers for hiring illegals was under Bush Senior in 1992 at 1461 and by the last year of the Democrat Clinton's Administration the "Notices of intent to fine" had declined to 178. This trend continued under Bush Jr collapsing even further to 3 in 2004. Worksite arrests peaked at 17,554 in 1997 and declined under Clinton to 953 in 2000 and further under Bush to 159 in 2004. Again, the two parties both scaled back immigration law enforcement.
US Senators are a deceitful bunch. Do not trust any claims they might make about their intentions on immigration. We need a border barrier wall and vigorous interior enforcement of immigration laws. I expect many Senators to try to build support for the Pence Plan which pretends to be a reasonable compromise between House and Senate immigration bills. The House shouldn't give an inch. The majority of the public wants immigration restriction, not amnesty.
It is hard to unseat a sitting member of Congress. Congressional representatives rarely lose in reelection attempts and even more rarely lose in primaries. But that might happen in Utah and if it does the public demand for tougher immigration policies will be the cause. If you are in the Utah district of House Representative Chris Cannon you can strike a blow for immigration control by voting for John Jacob and against Cannon in the primary on June 27, 2006.
The survey of 400 likely voters, conducted Monday through Thursday, found Eagle Mountain businessman Jacob and five-term congressman Cannon in a dead heat with 44 percent of voters favoring Cannon to 41 percent for Jacob, leaving enough voters on the fence to throw the race either way.
Among those who insist they are "definite" about turning out Tuesday to vote, Jacob holds a slight edge: 45 percent to 44 percent. And among voters in Utah County, the conservative heart of the district that stretches from Salt Lake County to Beaver County, the lead is even more pronounced, with Jacob at 45 percent to Cannon's 40 percent.
A defeat of Cannon would be a huge victory against George W. Bush's immigration amnesty plans and stiffen the spines of the House opponents of the Senate's plan to drastically increase immigration.
In the last poll, two weeks ago, Cannon had a 48-28 lead, but 25% said they are undecided.
Jacob has closed almost all that gap in a short period of time.
"There's no question (the national attention on immigration) helps me, and for the nation it's a one-issue race," Jacob said. "But for Utahns, there are many issues."
He listed education, energy, the Second Amendment and fighting pornography as issues that interest 3rd District voters, based on poll results, but illegal immigration led the list — with 25 percent saying it is the most important issue. And Jacob acknowledged the possible national fallout should he upset Cannon in the June 27 primary.
"There's no question this is bigger than Chris Cannon and John Jacob," Jacob said. "This race could go a long way toward determining whether we have illegal immigration and amnesty or whether we'll send (illegal immigrants) back or invite them to go back and secure our borders."
Congress critters who see opposition to border control and opposition to immigration law enforcement as political liabilities are Congress critters who are a lot more likely to listen to demands from constituents.
Joe Guzzardi says the American Immigration Lawyers Association are the big force behind Senate bill S.2611 (which would add 66+ million immigrants in 20 years) and he points to an AILA email claiming that immigration restrictionists overwhelmingly outnumber open borders folks in calls to Congress.
Restrictionists are flooding Congressional phone lines and email inboxes with angry demands that their Senators and Representatives vote against any legislation that provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Their calls for an enforcement-only immigration policy are louder and more aggressive than ever and there are 400 of them for every 1 call from us.
The 400 to 1 intensity of the opposition to comprehensive immigration reform is expected to crescendo into the November elections, making it a likely voting issue at the polls. We cannot stop fighting now. We cannot let the restrictionists hijack this national debate by painting the Senate compromise as amnesty. We cannot be silent while they scream.
If that intensity of support for immigration restriction tosses an open borders Republican Congressman out of office in the Utah primary then S.2611 will be dead.
WASHINGTON -- In a move that could sound the death knell for immigration-reform legislation in Congress this year, House Republican leaders said Tuesday they plan to hold numerous hearings on the issue this summer and only then start talks with the Senate that might lead to a final bill.
The delay raises the likelihood that Congress will end the year without passing major immigration legislation that President Bush has supported. That would be a signal defeat for the president, who has urged Congress to approve comprehensive legislation along the lines of the Senate-passed bill, which included a path to citizenship for many of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. and the creation of a guest-worker program.
A defeat for Bush on immigration would be a great victory for the American people.
House leaders insisted Tuesday that they still hope to negotiate with the Senate. But the schedule for the hearings, set for July and August, make it unlikely that the two chambers can reach a final agreement before the November elections. When Congress reconvenes in September, most lawmakers will be preoccupied with their campaigns; traditionally, little important business is done at that point.
Failure to produce a bill would be a huge setback for Bush, who has prodded lawmakers to pass immigration legislation that -- like the Senate legislation -- would toughen border enforcement but also create a guest worker program and offer millions of illegal immigrants a way to gain legal status.
Democrats on Tuesday interpreted the House decision to hold town-hall style meetings as an effort to stop the Senate legislation altogether.
"The Republican House wants to defeat the immigration bill," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "This is a stall."
House Republicans want to barnstorm the country to pick apart the moderate Senate plan that Bush supports.
Letting in 66+ million people in just 20 years, substantially increasing welfare costs, and radically altering the political make-up of the United States is moderate? The mainstream media does not hesitate to lie repeatedly about immigration.
Not only does immigration increase the welfare state it also makes the welfare state even less beneficial per dollar spent. The amount of money spent on benefits for non-citizen elderly is growing rapidly. Why should Americans pay retirement benefits for foreigners?
ouse leaders and senior staff members said the hearings will be aimed specifically at eliciting public reaction to the Senate bill, which emerged from legislation originally proposed by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. Committee chairmen will also use the forums to reinforce House Republicans' call for strong border security, said Bonjean.
``We want to have a very clear idea of what is in the Senate bill and what people think of some of the provisions in the Senate bill,'' said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Asked if he realistically believes that Congress can pass a bill before the November elections, Boehner replied, ``Maybe.''
The vast bulk of calls to Congress critters are against an increase in immigration and against the current high levels of legal and illegal immigration. So if Congress members go around holding hearings they are going to hear great anger at Congress's failure to crack down. Taking the time to shine a lot of light on the Senate S.2611 CIRA bill will work against the provisions in that bill. The public will oppose amnesty and a large increase in legal immigration combined with an increase in illegal immigration as well.
To understand why a so-called "guest" worker program will not decrease illegal immigration see my post Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal.
Bush does not want to give in to his (former) base on immigration. So how to help the Republicans retain control of both houses of Congress? Make a big deal about gay marriage in hopes that the Rubes can be fooled again.
With just five months to go before the midterm elections, President Bush, whose once-faithful base has abandoned him in droves, is turning to the same conservative hot-button issues that won him re-election in 2004 -- homosexual "marriage" and judicial nominees.
The president, now fully aware that his plummeting approval ratings could cost the Republicans control of one or both congressional chambers in November, will use his radio address today and a speech Monday to push a constitutional amendment banning same-sex "marriage," just as the Senate prepares to vote on the issue.
Bush wants to combine homosexual marriage and nomination of conservative judges into a single election issue.
The crux of his argument is simple: A majority of Americans support the idea that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman, and activist judges across the country are thwarting the will of the people. While 45 states have either a state constitutional amendment or a statute defining marriage as heterosexual, judges in Washington state, California, Maryland, New York and Nebraska have overturned those laws.
Thus, there is a White House strategy to move swiftly to nominate more conservative judicial nominees, which political guru and top Bush political strategist Karl Rove sees as a decisive issue in elections -- an issue Mr. Bush effectively exploited in 2002 and 2004.
He could win back a big chunk of his base by calling for internal enforcement of immigration laws (which he's systematically undermined) and construction of a border wall. But he doesn't want his party to win elections as much as he wants to turn the United States into Latin America. So that's not going to happen. Hence the attempt to use a symbolic issue important to Christians to manipulate them to vote in spite of their dissatisfaction with him on other issues.
WASHINGTON -- President Bush pressed a passionately divided Congress on Thursday to reach election-year compromise on immigration legislation that provides a chance at citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already in the country.
With his speech before business leaders and members of a government-sponsored civilian volunteer group, Bush hoped to build momentum for Senate and House negotiators to resolve difficult disputes. The two houses have passed sharply different versions of the legislation. To achieve one of his top domestic priorities of the year, Bush will have to bring around conservatives in his own party.
Republicans are overwhelmingly against Bush's position on immigration. If he was going to put the Republican party first in order to mobilize Republican voters he would not right now be pressuring Republican Congressmen to vote for something that will reduce their reelection chances.
Bush is pushing House Republicans to support immigration policy changes that would endanger their reelection. As Joe Guzzardi reports calls to House members are overwhelmingly against amnesty and guest workers.
News reports repeatedly emphasize that House Republicans are bombarded with irate calls demanding a border security approach only…no amnesty, no guest workers. [Immigration Deal At Risk As House GOP Looks To Voters, Jim VandeHei and Zachary A. Goldfarb, Washington Post, May 26, 2006]
A Congressional aide representing a border state told me that over 90% of the calls his office receives are adamantly opposed to amnesty. According to the aide, so that at least some non-immigration related work would be done during the day, his staff will only accept phone messages from his district’s residents
Contact your US House Representative and tell your rep you expect his or her strenuous opposition to the US Senate's massive immigration amnesty and guest workers program, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611).
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's insistence that major legislation reach the House floor only if it appears to be backed by a "majority of the majority" could throw a high hurdle in front of efforts to reach a House-Senate compromise on immigration later this year, lawmakers said. Hastert (R-Ill.) has invoked the policy in blocking bills that appeared likely to win approval from more than half of the House's 435 members but less than half of its 231 Republicans.
Some Republicans, rightly disgusted by Bush and also by the Senate Republicans, say it is not worth bothering to vote in the fall 2006 elections. But if Democrats had control of the House right now the Senate Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be sailing toward Bush's signature. CIRA would bring somewhere between 66 and 93 million immigrants into the United States in the next 20 years. Republican control of the House may be the only thing that stops that bill. If the Democrats win control of the House in November 2006 then in 2007 CIRA will come up again and pass both houses of Congress.
Contact your US House Representative and tell your rep you expect his or her strenuous opposition to the Senate CIRA bill. Also, contact both your US Senators and voice your strong opposition to CIRA. Also, tell El Presidente Jorge W. Bush that you oppose his planned replacement of the United States of America with the United States of Latin America. Yelling at House reps is the most important out of the 3 main avenues of complaint.
Letters to the editors of newspapers could also help. Also, tell your friends to also send mail or email to their Congresscritters.
Update: The outcome is by no means assured. Bush is heavily lobbying House Republicans to get them to go wobbly and support an amnesty and immigration expansion.
A senior Bush adviser noted that House conservatives are themselves divided, pointing to Thursday's trip to Arizona as an illustration. Aboard Air Force One, conservative Reps. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and John Shadegg (Ariz.) suggested to Bush that they are prepared to back a plan that would offer many illegal immigrants a new route to citizenship, according to the official. But Bush's biggest obstacle is the House GOP leadership team, including Majority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), who are cool to the Bush plan. "The ice ain't going to break overnight, we know," the Bush adviser said.
Send those snail mails, emails, and faxes. Call up your Congressional representative's offices and make your views known on immigration.
US Senator Jeff Sessions (R Alabama) has made a very important speech about the nightmare immigration legislation now pending before the US Senate. That legislation, the Hagel-Martinez Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611), would, even in its current amended form, increase the rate of legal immigration by a factor of 4 or 5! Go read the full speech:
Then perhaps the most significant amendment that was adopted was a Bingaman amendment. It would reduce the incredible escalating number under the new H-2C visa foreign worker program. Under the original bill, the numbers were unbelievable. The amendment reduced the total number of immigrants that would have come into the United States if that bill became law from 78 to 217 million to a lower 73 million to 93 million. That was a strong vote for that provision and we make progress in reducing the numbers.
However, this bill, S. 2611, still enacts a four- to fivefold increase over the current levels of legal immigration into America over 20 years. Current law would bring in 18.9 million over 20 years. Did you get that? This bill, if passed today, even after the Bingaman amendment passed by a substantial majority, would still bring into our country three, four, five times–at least four times, I suggest–the number of people who can come into our country legally today.
That is a huge number and will lead us at the end of 20 years to have the highest percentage of foreign-born Americans this Nation has ever had in its history, including the great migration period between 1880 and 1925. It is a colossal bill still in terms of those numbers.
The American middle class is just not good enough for our elites. We do not satisfy them. They prefer a much larger and dumber lower class over which they can rule. More maids. More gardeners. More nannies. More roofers to enhance their mansions. They want servants, not citizens.
Sessions is only sane by US Senate standards. He still likes large scale immigration.
But Sessions reveals the CIRA legislation contains a very automated way for so-called temporary workers to rapidly convert themselves into permanent residents and citizens. The idea that the illegals are getting to sent "to the back of the line" is a huge lie by Jorge W. Bush and company.
The section we were trying to change was the section that is as bogus as any part of the bill. It is the section that is captioned in big print: temporary guest worker. That is what the President has been saying he favors. He told me that personally a couple of days ago. He told me, when he flew to Alabama, that he believed in temporary workers. But it is not so that this bill creates a temporary worker program. I challenge any one last night to tell me that what I am saying is not true.
Under this bill, under that rubric of big print language, “Nonimmigrant Visa Reform, Subsection A, Temporary Guest Workers'’–what it really says is if you come into this country under this work visa you get to convert your status to a green card holder–a legal permanent resident that can then become a citizen. Somebody said last night: Why are people afraid to discuss this issue? I say to the supporters of the bill: Why are you afraid to tell the truth about your bill? Why do you title the section one thing and then write it to actually do another?
Why are you putting in here “temporary guest workers'’ when there is nothing “temporary'’ or “guest'’ about them. Why? Are they afraid the American people will find out what is really in that provision which would have brought in, had it not been amended by Senator Bingaman, perhaps 130 million new people into the country permanently? What kind of temporary program is that?
How does it work? This is the way it works: You come in, get a job; you come in under this guest worker proposal, and within the first day you arrive, your employer can seek a green card for you. If you qualify–and most will–then that green card will be issued, and you are then a legal permanent resident. You are a legal permanent resident within weeks or months of entry into the country, and within 5 years of being a legal permanent resident and having a green card, you can apply for citizenship. If you know a little English and don’t get arrested and convicted of a felony, you will be made a citizen by right under that provision. So it is not a temporary guest worker program. We need one in the bill. It is not there. That is what the President says he supports.
The American people don’t think we ought to huddle up, have some groups come in and meet with a few Senators and have them foist on the American people an immigration bill that ignores their concerns about legality and their legitimate concerns over the depressing of the wages of American citizens. That is not a myth. The law of supply and demand has not been abrogated with regard to wages and labor.
In terms of lawfulness, decency, morality, and the national interest, the American people are head and shoulders above the Members of Congress who are asserting and pushing this flawed legislation. A huge majority of the American people have been right on this issue for decades. It is the executive branch and the Congress that have been derelict in their most solemn duties. If the American people had been listened to and not been stiff-armed by an arrogant elitist bureaucracy and political class, we wouldn’t have 11 million to 20 million people in our country illegally today.
Again, read the whole thing.
Patrick Cleburne asks: Time for President Sessions (R- AL)? I'd almost think so but for one passage in his speech about increasing legal immigration. Vice President Jeff Bingaman (R NM) would probably make a good match to a President Sessions. Though President Tom Tancredo (R CO) would much more closely represent the views of the majority of the American public. We need far less immigration, both legal and illegal.
My guess would be that a small inner circle of lobbyists and staffers constructed this nightmare bill knowing reasonably well what it entailed. Everybody else went along with it without asking what it would do because, as everybody who is anybody knows, only shallow people think deeply about immigration. An insouciant attitude about radical demographic change shows that you are so high up the social ladder that you don't have to worry about how things like lower wages, increased crime, and crummier public schools will affect you and your family.
The big benefit of what the US Senate has done comes from the scale of what they propose. That such a huge rapid demographic transformation of America could be produced by this legislation is shocking a lot of people out of their complacency over immigration. Over on View From the Right One of Larry Auster's readers comments that the American middle class finally is starting to feel its world is threatened by the Open Borders crowd.
Things are changing. I recently have had conversations with two middle-of–the-road white women who would previously never have dared have a non-PC thought enter their heads suddenly discussing this “immense problem of America’s being swamped by S. American immigrants.”
Do you remember that once I told you that the dominant American thought was that “there would always be enough”? I meant that most middle class, muddle-class Americans thought they could always keep giving it away, but that their world would never change. They are in the beginning of the wake up stage.
Larry responds to his reader and argues that modern liberals have been preaching from a position where they incorrectly believed in the invulnerability of their society and world view.
Yes, they had to feel it before they could see it. (Who would have thought that the single most accurate and concise explanation of American attitudes toward mass non-Western immigration in the 21st century would come from George Washington?)
What you say is true. Modern liberalism is based on the assumption that “we” are invulnerable, that nothing that we do for the Other can ever cause any existential threat to ourselves. Therefore we can just keep giving and accommodating and celebrating and diversifying and nonjudgmentalizing and tolerating and including and surrendering forever.
The liberal (and libertarian) noblesse oblige toward the lower IQ brown people that underlies their Open Borders position is based on a big error. They think they can always maintain power, maintain their neighborhoods, maintain their control over the heights of academia, the media, and government. But a huge Hispanic influx will ultimately lead to the displacement of white liberals from many of their positions of power.
Update: If you want to contact your US Senators to express your displeasure at their plan to deluge the United States with tens of millions of immigrants in the next 20 years then you can find the web sites of each US Senator in this list. Similarly, you can find contact information for your US House Representative here.
Update II: Getting back to the Jeff Sessions speech: most of the huge surge of immigration that this bill creates will be dummies.
At the same time, we have done the research on it, and I will not go into the details, but the programs that allow most of the people to come into our country favor low-skilled workers. We think from 70 to 90, maybe 92 percent of the workers who will come in under the provisions of the bill in the Senate today will come in as low-skilled workers. That is very significant because it is quite clear from every professional, independent, pro-immigration economist who has analyzed it that low-skilled workers do not tend to pay as much in taxes as they take out.
Are the Senators morons? I mean, do they want to bring in large numbers of people who will make little and pay little in taxes while taking lots of taxpayer-funded services? Why are our elites so determined to ruin America?
In fact, if you read the bill, you will discover there has been a studied and carefully carried out plan to conceal how many people will come in under the temporary guest worker programs when, in fact, what they mislabel as a temporary program is in fact a permanent worker program that leads on a direct path to citizenship in fairly short order. I am talking about the future immigration programs in the bill here. I am not talking about the other 11 to 20 million illegal aliens who may claim amnesty under this bill.
Liars and destructive. That's America's elite in the early 21st century.
So Bush is losing support among those who have supported him for years. Why?
A look inside the latest numbers suggests several reasons, but it appears the president's stand on immigration is the biggest drag on his support among Republicans—even more damaging than the disapproval caused by rising gas prices.
Of several issues specifically covered by the Gallup poll—the economy, foreign affairs, the situation in Iraq, terrorism, immigration, and energy policy—immigration is the only area in which more Republicans disapprove of the president's policy than approve. And they disapprove by a significant margin: 52 percent of Republicans in the survey disapprove of Bush's immigration policy, versus 40 percent who approve.
Although immigration is the worst, the president's approval rating among Republicans is at best lackluster on a number of other issues. On the economy, 72 percent of Republicans approve of the president's performance, while 26 percent disapprove—a strikingly high disapproval number given recent reports of high growth and low unemployment.
Bush has gone far enough promoting Open Borders to shock a lot of his supporters. Much of the support he has left is no longer firm.
Likewise in Nebraska last week, immigration toppled the favored candidate in the Republican gubernatorial primary, Rep. Tom Osborne, in what was called “one of the most surprising defeats in Nebraska political history.” Osborne, whose success as the University of Nebraska football coach made him an icon in the football-mad state (he was once called “Nebraska’s God” by one of his hapless political rivals), had never received less than 82 percent of the vote in his congressional races, and was expected to win easily over Gov. Dave Heineman. But that was before Heineman vetoed a bill providing in-state tuition for illegal aliens at state universities, while Osborne approved of the bill. Both Osborne and his campaign manager acknowledged that his support for illegal immigrants was a major reason for his defeat.
You might be wondering how the heck could immigration become a political issue in Nebraska. Surely it is a white place full of white farmers. But immigration is changing Nebraska quite rapidly (and Americans who think they can escape the Hispanicization of America by moving within America are dreaming).
Districtwide, Omaha's student mix stands at 44 percent white, 31 percent black and 21 percent Hispanic.
Black Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers recently managed to get legislation passed that authorizes Omaha to allow 3 school districts that are one each predominately black, white, and Hispanic. This has created a firestorm in the liberal media. How dare blacks want to hang out only with blacks, whites only with whites, and Hispanics only with Hispanics. The right of free association is not recognized on the political Left in America because it produces outcomes they find abhorrent.
Can't Get Enough About Third Parties: Mystery Pollster says he's "not convinced that immigration has yet become an issue of as 'paramount political concern'" as the issues that have historically produced third parties. That's almost certainly true. What MP overlooks, I think, is that the barriers to third party formation are dramatically lower than they used to be. It takes less, in the way of issue salience or personal ambition, to overcome them. .. . What, exactly--other than a first-mover advantage and often-negative "branding"--do the two existing parties have that can't be duplicated un a couple of months via the Internet, a few petitions and some lawsuits by a disaffected maverick or one of Lawrence O'Donnell's bored billionaires? If McCain doesn't get the GOP nomination, I wouldn't be surprised if he went the third party route. Heck, if Hillary doesn't get the Democratic nomination, I wouldn't be surprised. ...
The biggest potential source of third party voters are the people who are furious at our elites for betraying us on immigration.
A substantial minority of the Republicans in the US Senate is doing its best to make Republicans angry at their party. At the Heritage Foundation Robert Rector says even the amended version of the Senate immigration bill still greatly increases legal immigration.
Update: On Tuesday, May 16, the Senate passed Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) amendment to S. 2611 that significantly reduced the number of legal immigrants who could enter under the bill's "guest worker" program. As a result of this change, our estimate of the number of legal immigrants who would enter the country or would gain legal status under S. 2611 falls from 103 million to around 66 million over the next 20 years.
66 million in 20 years is 3.3 million per year of legal immigrants. But since legal immigrants create the support and the ties to enable illegal immigration the rate of illegal immigration would increase as well. We might be looking at 5 million immigrants per year if the Senate bill made it into law. The Senators are nuts.
Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of a political newsletter, now has 42 Republican districts, including Drake's, on his list of competitive races. Last September, he had 26 competitive GOP districts, and Drake's wasn't on the list. "That's a pretty significant increase," he said. "The national atmospherics are making long shots suddenly less long."
At the Cook Political Report, Amy Walter has revised an analysis of the battle for control of the House, taking into account the sour mood toward Republicans nationally as a potentially significant factor in races that might otherwise turn on local issues, candidate performance or the size of campaign war chests.
"In a nationalized election, the typical laws of gravity get thrown out the window," Walter said. "Under-funded candidates beat better-funded candidates, and entrenched incumbents lose to first-time challengers."
The endangered House Republicans could simultaneously nationalize the election in their favor and distance themselves from Bush. How? By passing more legislation that cuts back on immigration. The House Republicans should not give an inch to the Senate on negotiations over their respective immigration bills (the highly restrictionist Sensenbrenner bill in the House and the massive legal immigration increasing S. 2611 in the Senate). Instead, the House Republicans should pass an even more drastically restrictionist bill as a way to mobilize their base and quite a few independent and liberal restrictionists (and they do exist in substantial numbers - see this discussion thread where liberals demonstrate their skepticism of claims that immigration doesn't harm the natives who are less skilled) to go to the polls and vote for restrictionist Republicans.
A new piece of House restrictionist legislation would give any Republicans who didn't vote for the Sensenbrenner bill a chance to vote for a restrictionist bill they could run on for reelection. Such a bill should have a few main provisions:
The House Republicans should run as populists against the big money interests that dominate the White House and Senate.
Update: If you want to contact your US Senators to express your displeasure at their plan to deluge the United States with tens of millions of immigrants in the next 20 years then you can find the web sites of each US Senator in this list. Similarly, you can find contact information for your US House Representative here.
The National Review Online (NRO) has a collection of reactions to El Presidente Jorge W. Bush's speech on immigration which tried to sell relabelled and repackaged amnesty. If you think I'm going over the top rhetorically by referring to Bush as El Presidente Jorge consider that the NRO entitled their collection "Meet El Presidente". The truth is becoming clear even to the neocon Bush apologists at NRO. First off, NRO presents Harvard labor economist George Borjas says Bush has no credibility on immigration enforcement.
President Bush has a huge disadvantage when talking about immigration reform: He is not credible. He spent more than half his time discussing border enforcement, a subject that has not interested him before. Perhaps at the next press conference someone will ask why he did not take the meager steps outlined last night soon after 9/11.
He added a new rationale for a guest-worker program. Not only does Bush buy into the idea that guest-workers do jobs that “Americans are not doing,” he also believes that guest-workers are needed because the increased border enforcement and the new-and-improved employer sanctions cannot stem the tide of illegal immigration. How’s that for declaring defeat before the battle begins? Notably, President Bush skipped the part about how “temporary” guest-workers typically become permanent immigrants.
Borjas has repeatedly shown in his labor market research that the claim that immigrants do "jobs Americans won't do" is false. Immigrants just provide employers with cheaper sources of labor to do the same work. One problem this poses for the rest of us is that we still end up paying to support the displaced American workers plus we pay the health care, education, prison space, and other costs of the low skilled immigrants. But happy talking Jorge doesn't want us to notice this.
James R. Edwards of the Hudson Institute correctly states that comprehensive immigration reform is code for amnesty and open borders.
The president confirmed why his job-approval rating on immigration, 29 percent, is lower than his overall approval rating, 31 percent.
Mr. Bush’s primetime televised speech Monday night amounted to more empty words. The speech betrayed that comprehensive immigration reform is really code for amnesty and virtually open borders. Like the Senate, he’s learned nothing from our amnesty experience.
Bush and the US Senate want to pass a bill that will double the rate of immigration. Yet Bush has the audacity to pretend he wants to control the southern border. He really wants to erase that border.
Republican Congessman from Arizona J.D. Hayworth sees through Bush's rhetoric.
The president last night was unconvincing. The enforcement proposals sounded good, but I don’t think his heart was in it.
The president said the U.S. wouldn’t militarize the border when it’s already been militarized—by the drug smugglers, coyotes, and Mexican troops. He said temporary workers must return to their home country when their work visas expire, but doesn’t tell us what will happen when they don’t.
Manhattan Institute sharpie Heather Mac Donald says the White House has contempt for the American people.
Dangling strings of shiny trinkets, President Bush tried last night to make contact with the restive natives. Six thousand National Guard troops on the border! Infrared cameras! Biometric work cards! Those baubles will dazzle ‘em, the Bush speechwriters must have concluded, and they’ll never notice that we’ve changed nothing in the border-breaking status quo.
Creating a biometric card is meaningless if you don’t penalize employers who ignore it. No fortifications at the border can withstand the avalanche of people seeking to violate our laws so long as they know that once they get across the border, they’re home free in a 3,000-square-mile sanctuary zone. But Bush said nothing about worksite enforcement. If this administration wanted to end illegal immigration, it would exchange those 6,000 National Guard troops for 6000 immigration agents with the mandate to enforce the laws that Congress passed 20 years ago.
Nowhere was the White House’s contempt for the American people more manifest than in Bush’s double-talk on amnesty, however.
My contempt for Bush flows from his contempt for me.
John O'Sullivan sees Bush's speech as aimed at those who are too ignorant about the immigration debate to see through his lies and deceptions. But some conservatives want to be deceived.
To judge from reactions to the speech, however, there are some conservatives willing to be fooled fifteen thousand times. Still, there is an interesting division within the reactions. Those who follow the immigration debate closely were almost uniformly derisive about the speech. They know the details behind the rhetoric: for instance, that the president’s assurance that illegals will have to go to the back of the line behind legal immigrants actually means that they will be given the right of U.S. residency right away. Those who tuned in to the debate only recently, presumably most Americans, take the misleading rhetoric seriously. That is why the initial reception to the speech is likely to be more approving than the final verdict of most Americans when they learn that it promises the arrival of at least 103 million more people in the next 20 years and additional costs to the U.S. taxpayer of $30 billion annually. At least—in both cases.
Steve Sailer and Mickey Kaus have great collections of reactions from bloggers and other commentators. I highly recommend clicking through on both of them.
My reaction after a day to think about it: I hope enough people are not fooled by Bush's Panglossian happy talk. He wants to turn the United States of America into the United States of Latin America.
If the purpose of the speech was to shore up the president’s standing with conservatives, it failed. This administration’s lack of credibility on immigration enforcement can’t be reversed by adding a few National Guard references to its tired rhetoric of unmanned aerial vehicles and more detention beds.
Likewise, the arrests several weeks ago of nearly 1,200 illegal aliens working for IFCO Systems were widely touted as heralding a new wave of legal action against crooked employers—but then most of the illegals were released within hours of the raids.
Finally, President Bush reassured an anxious Mexican president Vicente Fox over the weekend that any deployment would be only temporary, and that the regular Army would not be involved—in other words, “Don’t worry, Señor Presidente, it’s just symbolism.”
As for the Senate’s compromise bill, the Heritage Foundation has released research that should torpedo it. Robert Rector, one of the nation’s leading authorities on poverty and welfare, has estimated that the bill would admit a staggering 103 million people over the next two decades and represent “the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.” Supporters of the bill call their approach “comprehensive,” and they’re right: They aren’t content merely to deal with the current illegal population or to address a supposed shortage of unskilled labor, but want to effect a massive demographic reshuffling of America while they’re at it.
In his Oval Office address, the president squandered what was probably his last chance to reconnect with conservatives on immigration. They will undoubtedly note that the president has waited six years to start talking about enforcement, and will accordingly ask why he can’t postpone his amnesty long enough to give enforcement at try? A speech that had reiterated his support for amnesty in theory, but conceded that enforcement had to come first, would likely have won significant public approval and helped shape events in Congress. The speech he actually gave, on the other hand, is likely further to demoralize conservatives and harden opposition among House Republicans to the Senate amnesty proposal. President Bush’s speech, contrary to its goal, probably ensures that no immigration bill will reach his desk this year. Given the options, that’s probably a good thing.
I think Bush and the Senators have overreached. They have demonstrated that they have incredibly bad judgement and the enormous scale of the damage they'll inflict if they can get away with it. These are not prudent people. They are reckless and dangerous and have no place running the United States of America.
National Review editor Rich Lowry heaps even more right wing abuse on Bush comparing him to Clinton.
President Bush has a bold new approach to immigration enforcement: He wants to police the Mexican border with symbolism.
That's the point of his proposal to send the National Guard to our border with Mexico. This represents Bush's final, desperate descent into Clintonian sleight of hand. He wants to distract enough of his supporters with the razzle-dazzle of "National Guard to the Border!" headlines that they won't notice he is pushing through Congress a proposal that essentially legalizes all the population influx from Latin America that has occurred in the past 10 years and any that might occur in the future.
It is with this position that Bush has wrecked his political standing, kicking out from under himself the support of his conservative base. Bush's National Guard feint is a sign that the White House thinks conservatives are not just disaffected, but credulous.
Bush is playing you for a sucker. Are you going to fall for it?
If you haven't already read it read my post Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal.
El Presidente Jorge W. Bush thinks he can fool people who want an end to illegal immigration and a cut in overall in immigration. See Jorge's immigration speech text for for big whopper lies and deception. (same speech here)
By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000.
One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems, … analyzing intelligence, … installing fences and vehicle barriers, … building patrol roads … and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities.
Congressman Charlie Norwood (D GA) says we'd need 8 times the number of soldiers to get control of the US border with Mexico. If we built a formidable border wall with barbed wire and sensors we could eventually reduce the number of people needed on the border. But Bush is (of course) opposed to a full border length barrier with fencing and a wall.
Bush thinks we should thrill at the prospect of more foreign workers to drive down wages of Americans while they use taxpayer-funded social services, health care, and education for their kids.
Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program. The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively, we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across.
Therefore, I support a temporary worker program that would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in an orderly way, for a limited period of time. This program would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers for jobs Americans are not doing.
Jobs that Americans are not doing? Sure. Because employers can hire foreigners more cheaply.
He pretends we can't enforce immigration law against employers who hire foreigners. What nonsense. Employers get given Social Security numbers that are obviously wrong and the government has the capacity to identify large numbers of fraudulent uses of legitimate numbers. But the US Congress and Bush block more widespread checking of Social Security number validity during hiring.
Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof.
Bush also has greatly reduced raids and enforcment activities against employers of illegals. Lots of illegals are easy to identify. But Bush does not want them identified.
The goal of Bush's speech is to fool his base into supporting pending Congressional legislation that would increase immigration. Bush supports a US Senate bill that would double legal immigration to over 2 million per year and they'd get dumber too.
The immigration reform bill that the Senate takes up today would more than double the flow of legal immigration into the United States each year and dramatically lower the skill level of those immigrants.
The number of extended family members that U.S. citizens or legal residents can bring into this country would double. More dramatically, the number of workers and their immediate families could increase sevenfold if there are enough U.S. employers looking for cheap foreign labor. Another provision would grant humanitarian visas to any woman or orphaned child anywhere in the world "at risk of harm" because of age or sex.
The little-noticed provisions are part of legislation co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida, which overcame some early stumbles and now has bipartisan support in the Senate. The bill also has been praised by President Bush, and he is expected to endorse it as a starting point for negotiations in his prime-time address to the nation tonight.
All told, the Hagel-Martinez bill would increase the annual flow of legal immigrants into the U.S. to more than 2 million from roughly 1 million today, scholars and analysts say.
These calculations do not include the people who'd come in on work permits. Bush is willing to put a few thousand National Guard on the border if it will fool the rubes in the Republican base. He is trying to deceive you. He's dishonest. He wants to implement policies that are even more harmful than current immigration polices.
Bush does not want to enforce immigration law. He has demonstrated that. Ed Rubinstein has the facts on worksite arrests of illegal alien workers under the Clinton and Bush Administrations.
1997: 17,554 1999: 2,849 2000: 953 2001: 735 2003: 445 2004: 159
A similar pattern holds for fines of employers with over a 2 order of magnitude decline in fines against employers who hire illegals (click through to see that table in the article). Bush is telling bald faces lies about what he intends to do to enforce immigration laws. He wants an amnesty and a massive increase in immigration. Enough! It it time to stop immigration entirely.
Under Yeh Ling-Ling's proposal for immigration reform, even she wouldn't be allowed into the country.
In 1980, Yeh arrived on U.S. shores on a visa sponsored by her sister. She went to work as a paralegal for an immigration law firm, helping file petitions for fellow foreigners to enter the United States. But then she started to notice the effects of immigration and population growth on the San Francisco Bay area.
"When I found out the cost of infrastructure, the cost of educating kids in America, I was shocked," said Yeh, executive director of the Oakland-based Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America, a nonprofit organization that wants to reduce immigration. "There would be a tremendous drain on America. . . . Isn't it clear that immigration is not needed to boost the U.S. economy?"
Hispanics perform poorly in American schools. Some claim more money for schools would solve the problem. But see this table "Total and current expenditure per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1919-20 to 2001-02". From 1971 to 2001 the total expenditures per student in inflation adjusted dollars doubled from $4884 to $9614. Going back even further the expenditures tripled from 1963's $3228. Money is not the problem.
The rapidly increasing sums of money spent on Hispanic education in America do not purchase a highly educated ethnic group. About half of Hispanics drop out of high school and on average those Hispanics still in school in 12th grade know about as much as white kids know in 8th grade. So the demographic trend in America is making the nation dumb and dumber. As the white baby boomers retire expect American living standards to stagnate due to a less skilled workforce. We are going to move down the curve of IQ and the wealth of nations.
A Christian Science Monitor article about environmentalists who oppose population growth but do not oppose immigration (because it feels so good to pose as morally superior to other white people about other races) points out that Hispanics are causing half of US population growth and immigration to the US increases their fertility and hence world population growth.
The US Census Bureau this week reported that Hispanics - the largest minority at 42.7 million - are the nation's fastest-growing group. They are 14.3 percent of the overall population, but between July 2004 and July 2005, they accounted for 49 percent of US population growth. Of the increase of 1.3 million Hispanics, the Census Bureau reported, 800,000 was because of natural increase (births minus deaths), and 500,000 was due to immigration.
Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, finds that once women emigrate to the US, most tend to have more children than they would have in their home countries. "Among Mexican immigrants in the United States fertility averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per woman in Mexico," he wrote in a study last October. And the same is true among Chinese immigrants. Fertility is 2.3 in the US compared with 1.7 in China. However, typically these high fertility rates decline in the successive generations as immigrants assimilate into America.
The environmentalists for Open Borders are fools. Their position not only increases the population of the United States. It even increases the population of the world. But they do not want to agree with Right Wingers. Got to maintain their pretense of moral superiority. So they'd rather be wrong and morally superior in their own imaginations.
WASHINGTON -- After months of partisan maneuvering, Senate passage of sweeping immigration legislation is virtually assured by Memorial Day. But that scarcely ends the struggle in Congress, given the vast differences between President Bush and House Republicans over the fate of millions of illegal immigrants.
The substance of the Senate bill is unlikely to change significantly from the measure that was stuck in gridlock more than a month ago. It includes additional border security, a new guest worker program and provisions opening the way to eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.
I feel contempt for the US Senate.
The agreement brokered by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., breaks a political stalemate that has lingered for weeks while immigrants and their supporters held rallies, boycotts and protests to push for action.
Mr. Frist said 14 Republicans and 12 Democrats will negotiate with House members once the Senate passes an immigration bill. Seven of the Republicans and five of the Democrats will come from the Judiciary Committee, with the remaining negotiators to be picked by Mr. Frist and Mr. Reid.
President Bush has said he favors legislation that would enable immigrants to become citizens, but only after they meet strict standards. He has said repeatedly that he does not favor "amnesty," a word that is anathema to many conservatives. "We congratulate the Senate on reaching agreement, and we look forward to passage of a bill prior to Memorial Day," Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, told The Associated Press.
"Today's agreement is a major step forward in our fight for tough but fair immigration reform," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).
"Business and labor, Democrats and Republicans, religious leaders and the American people strongly support our plan to strengthen borders, provide a path to earned citizenship for those undocumented workers who are here and put in place a realistic guest worker program for the future."
Will the House leadership cave in and agree in conference committee to a bill more like the Senate's bill? You could send a brick to your Congressional representative for $11.95. This has become a symbolic way to demand a wall on the US-Mexico border. Elected representatives are trying to avoid accepting shipment of the bricks.
A Lawrenceville man shipping bricks to Congress as a demand for a secure border instead has collided with a wall of bureaucracy.
Jim McAuliffe, co-owner of a new Gwinnett-based mailing company, fears the Senate and House post offices are using a technicality to refuse to deliver nearly 1,200 bricks that arrived Tuesday and an additional 2,300 scheduled to arrive by today as a protest against illegal immigration.
A Senate postmaster claimed the bricks — which arrived by a UPS freight service — each require $3.90 in postage to be brought to members of Congress, McAuliffe said.
He's switched to sending the bricks via parcel post to get around the rule the postmasters in Congress were using to reject the bricks.
So far, McAuliffe's shipping records show the biggest targets of bricks are senators from Texas, Florida and California along with the leadership. Georgians — so far — aren't mailing in numbers; Tuesday's shipment included only 28 bricks for Sen. Johnny Isakson and 37 for Sen. Saxby Chambliss, both Republicans. A few were addressed to House members from Georgia; U.S. Reps. Tom Price and John Linder, also Republicans, led with eight each.
The US Senate seems deaf to the rising popular anger on immigration. So much for the idea that the United States has a goverment of, by, and for the people.
Think this blog represents a fringe strain of American political thought? I'm only fringe by the standards of inside the Beltway, in executive suites which want cheap labor, in academia, and in the liberal media. When compared to the vast majority of the American public I'm pretty mainstream. The Center for Immigration Studies reports on a new poll of American public attitudes toward immigration.
WASHINGTON (May 3, 2006) – A new Zogby poll of likely voters, using neutral language (see wording on following pages), finds that Americans prefer the House of Representatives’ enforcement-only bill by 2-1 over Senate proposals to legalize illegal immigrants and greatly increase legal immigration. The poll was conducted for the Center for Immigration Studies.
Check out some highlights from this poll.
Click through and check out the results by racial groups, religious groups (the Jews are of course the biggest Open Borders supporters), political affiliation, and income. The higher income people are more in favor of Open Borders. Part of that is a result of higher IQ Jews being higher income than the average. But there's also the economic interest of other upper class people in cheap gardeners, cheap maids, and the like. Lower class people can't afford to hire manual laborers and correctly see immigrant laborers as competition that drives down wages.
More than any other issue immigration shows the gap between the elites and the government on one side and the populace on the other side. The extent to which the government resists following the majority of the American people on immigration is a measure of just how powerful business and intellectual elites are in American politics.
Another point: on immigration el Presidente Jorge W. Bush is quite willing to defy the wishes of 81% of what conventional wisdom holds is his base. But clearly, in Jorge's mind Latin America is his base. Total nutcases can get elected President of the United States.
This report reminds me of another recent poll, this one in the UK, which found that the majority of the British people hold the same views on immigration as held by the supposedly extremist British National Party. The emergence of so-called extremists parties is a sign that the public is being ignored by the existing political parties. Will an anti-immigration nationalist party become a significant force in American politics in 2008?
I hope the Hispanics hold more marches of illegal aliens and do more boycotts. The marches are obviously having beneficial effects. Three articles in the Washington Post have a common theme: Americans are mad about the immigration onslaught and at their elites for refusing to do anything about it. Voters are rebelling in local elections.
Herndon voters yesterday unseated the mayor and Town Council members who supported a bitterly debated day-labor center for immigrant workers in a contest that emerged as a mini-referendum on the turbulent national issue of illegal immigration.
Residents replaced the incumbents with a group of challengers who immediately called for significant changes at the center. Some want to bar public funds from being spent on the facility or restrict it to workers residing in the country legally. Others want it moved to an industrial site away from the residential neighborhood where it is located.
I have a better idea: Use the site as a place where the police can go and arrest and hold illegals for deportation.
While a series of marches focused much of the nation's attention on the plight of illegal immigrants, scores of other Americans quietly seethed. Now, with the same full-throated cry expressed by those in the country illegally, they are shouting back.
Congressional leaders in Washington have gotten bricks in the mail from a group that advocates building a border fence, states in the West and South have drawn up tough anti-immigrant laws, and ordinary citizens, such as Janis McDonald of Pennsylvania, who considers herself a liberal, are not mincing words in expressing their displeasure.
"Send them back," McDonald said. "Build a damn wall and be done with it."
If the federal government would receive into custody all illegals caught by local police we could round up the illegals pretty quickly.
PHOENIX -- State legislatures around the nation are considering hundreds of proposals dealing with illegal immigration, reflecting the exasperation of many local officials with Congress's failure to contend with the millions of undocumented workers who have entered the nation in recent years.
Here in Arizona, the House has passed a proposal to set fines and other penalties for companies that hire undocumented workers. The bill, which had regularly failed in previous years, is expected to win Senate approval within days and is only one of many plans under consideration. Others include bills to erect an 80-mile fence and a multimillion-dollar radar system along the Mexican border, designed to slow the nightly flow of migrants across the desert. Another bill would require police to check the citizenship of anyone stopped for a traffic offense. The state House, by a vote of 43 to 12, has passed a resolution calling on Washington to dispatch the U.S. Coast Guard to this landlocked, coast-free state to assist in patrolling the border.
The backlash is going to build until Congress and the President stop the deluge. It is in their power. They could reverse the deluge in 30 days and we could get most of the illegals out in a few years. Plus, we could stop the immigration lottery, chain migration, anchor babies, and immigration of groups that do worse on average than American whites.
MEXICO CITY - ``Nothing gringo,'' warns the rallying cry of Mexican activists calling for a May 1 boycott of all U.S. businesses south of the border.
The campaign, aimed at pressuring Congress to legalize undocumented migrants, was timed to coincide with ``The Great American Boycott,'' in which activists are urging migrants in the United States to skip work and avoid spending money to demonstrate their importance to the U.S. economy.
The Mexican boycott was being promoted on Web sites and through e-mail messages, one of which warns that ``people shouldn't buy anything from the interminable list of American businesses in Mexico. . . . That means no Dunkin' Donuts, no McDonald's, Burger King, Starbucks, Sears, Krispy Kreme or Wal-Mart.''
Happy days. Now if they could only decide to boycott our border, our cities, our hospital emergency rooms, our welfare offices, and other institutions we'd be in great shape.
The American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico said organizers are risking a backlash and foolishly targeting some of their best allies, since U.S. corporations have actively lobbied Congress for immigration reform including legalization for many of the estimated 11 million undocumented migrants.
Mexicans' refusal to "buy American" on May 1 could further polarize the debate and make reform supporters seem anti-American at the very moment that lobbyists are trying to persuade lawmakers in Washington to pass a bill that would benefit migrants, worries Larry Rubin, the chamber's president.
"This is like shooting oneself in the foot," Rubin said. "U.S. companies have been the first to lobby, launching a huge lobbying effort for immigration reform. … Why hurt something that is helping you?"
Yes, corporate interests who want cheap labor are in favor of illegal aliens and worker permit programs. But these same corporate interests are not in favor of paying for the health care costs, education, and other costs of these "cheap" workers and their families. No, they expect us to do that.
A quarter of Mexico's formal private-sector jobs with regular pay are provided by U.S. firms, according to the American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico.
American companies with plants in Mexico ought to notice that all those deportees who get sent back to Mexico will be available for hire at even lower wages in Mexico.
"There will be 2 to 3 million people hitting the streets in Los Angeles alone. We're going to close down Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tucson, Phoenix, Fresno," said Jorge Rodriguez, a union official who helped organize earlier rallies credited with rattling Congress as it weighs the issue.
I hope they succeed and that they carry plenty of Mexican flags. These protests anger middle America and are good for the immigration restrictionist movement.
"It's intimidation when a million people march down main streets in our major cities under the Mexican flag," said Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman volunteer border patrol group. "This will backfire," he said.
Some Latinos have also expressed concerns that the boycott and marches could stir up anti-immigrant sentiment.
One person's concern is another person's hope. Yes, by all means, demand legalization and demand the conversion of the American southwest back into a province of Mexico. You'll cut a couple of years off the wait for a full border barrier wall replete with barbed wire. Carry lots of Mexican flags. Shut down streets. Pull your kids out of schools. Draw plenty of attention to yourselves. By all means awaken a sleeping giant.
Not content with his disastrous debacle in Iraq Bush is lobbying Congress to put through a damaging illegal alien amnesty and large scale importation of foreign workers.
IRVINE, Calif., April 24 -- Under pressure from Republicans to play a bigger role in the immigration debate, President Bush will begin meeting key lawmakers Tuesday to help forge a bipartisan agreement by Memorial Day to offer some undocumented workers a path to citizenship.
But White House aides emphasized that Bush has no intention for now of staking clear legislative positions on the immigration bill. He does not want to embrace a proposal, only to see it lose once House and Senate negotiators try to reach a final agreement, whose prospects are still seen as remote on Capitol Hill.
Bush is a really bad President of the United States. If he manages to get his immigration polices through Congress he'll be the worst President at least since World War II.
WASHINGTON - Seeking to jumpstart an immigration debate that stalled in the Senate three weeks ago, President Bush on Tuesday summoned senators from both parties to the White House to emphasize his support for a comprehensive reform.
"I strongly believe that we have a chance to get an immigration bill that is comprehensive in nature to my desk before the end of this year," Bush said after meeting with 17 senators immersed in the oft-contentious debate.
WASHINGTON - A bipartisan group of senators emerged from a meeting with President Bush on Tuesday more optimistic than before about the prospects for creating a national guest-worker program and a permanent residency application process for some of the nation's roughly 12 million undocumented immigrants.
"After this meeting, I'm convinced we'll pass immigration reform this year," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said following an hour-long meeting at the White House with the president and more than a dozen senators involved in the debate. Specter predicted Senate passage of an immigration bill by Memorial Day and a final bill, adopted by both chambers of Congress, by the end of the year.
''I know this is an emotional debate," Bush said in a speech before the Orange County Business Council in California. ''But one thing we cannot lose sight of is that we're talking about human beings -- decent human beings that need to be treated with respect. Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic. It's just not going to work."
The Federation for American Immigration Reform has responded to Bush's remarks pointing out that Bush is using a massive deportation as a strawman while ignoring many other options for reducing illegal immigration.
In his Irvine speech, President Bush assiduously ignored viable proposals for enforcing U.S. immigration laws that do not entail mass deportation. Proposals, including one approved by the House of Representatives last December, call for a comprehensive approach to immigration enforcement rather than merely deporting the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the country. The comprehensive approach includes strict enforcement of laws against employing illegal aliens; removal of business tax deduction and government contracts to employers found to be hiring illegal aliens; limiting illegal immigrants' access to non-essential and non-emergency benefits and services; enhanced border security; greater cooperation between federal and local law enforcement agencies, and other measures that remove the incentives for people to remain in the U.S. unlawfully."President Bush is using the mass deportation argument as a political straw man," charged Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "The fact of the matter is that no one has seriously suggested that we deport 12 million people. Nevertheless, the president continues to attack this straw man, while he refuses to exercise any of the powers he already has at his disposal to enforce the nation's immigration laws, protect American workers, and defend the homeland security of this nation."
Illegal aliens can be induced to remove themselves from the United States gradually over several years. See my post "Illegal Aliens Would Self Deport If Immigration Laws Enforced".
If an illegal alien amnesty and guest worker program similar to the one being contemplated by the United States Senate and supported by President Bush were enacted, the cost burden to state and local governments would be staggering, projects an analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). FAIR estimates that state and local costs associated with illegal immigration for public education, health care and incarceration, now about $36 billion a year, would balloon to $61.5 billion by 2010 a 70 percent increase and increase to $106.3 billion by 2020. “From every possible angle, an illegal alien amnesty and guest worker program would be a fiscal and administrative nightmare,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “Never mind the fact that an illegal alien amnesty is a moral betrayal of the American public and immigrants who played by the rules. It would be an unfunded federal mandate that will bankrupt states, counties and cities all across the United States.”
Depending on what Congress decides to do about immigration — curtail it, expand it — the United States is facing a future population just 45 years away that could vary by more than 135 million residents. Our population is going to be growing in any case, largely because of immigrants who have arrived in the past few generations, but that growth could be limited to about 66 million persons (a 22% increase) if we effectively combat illegal immigration and pare back legal immigration to a moderate level. Alternatively, if current proposals to increase immigration, give legal status to those currently here illegally, and create a new guest worker program were adopted, we likely will be facing the prospect of a population in 2050 of half a billion people. That would be about 200 million more persons than today (a 67% increase). If our policy makers pursue the latter course, our projection is that the country will be on a course to reaching about one billion people by the end of the century.
If Congress should end up ducking the issue of immigration reform and maintaining the status quo of mass legal and illegal immigration, our population is projected to still continue its rapid growth. Our projection is for a population of between 445 and 462 million residents depending on the assumptions used.
I have previously listed all the reasons why so-called guest worker programs would fail to stop illegal immigration and actually make it worse. See my post "Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal"
The stakes in the immigration policy fight are absolutely enormous for the future of the United States. If you want to choose a single issue for which to write to Congresscritters or to your newspaper or to argue about with friends immigration is the most important issue to argue today. Read about why massive Hispanic immigration will turn the United States into a less developed country with declining living standards and also see my post "Benthamite Libertarian Collectivists Wrong On Open Borders". A great deal is at stake.
Update: Lawrence Auster says Bush believes in the merger of Latin America and the United States of America. Bush's tendency to embrace faith in whatever he decides he believes as a substitute for reasoning about empirical evidence makes him an especially damaging President.
In the wake of this week's massive demonstrations, many House Republicans are worried that a tough anti-illegal-immigration bill they thought would please their political base has earned them little benefit while becoming a lightning rod for the fast-growing national movement for immigrant rights.
House Republicans rushed through legislation just before Christmas that would build hundreds of miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, require that businesses verify the legality of all employees' status through a national database, fortify border patrols, and declare illegal immigrants and those who help them to be felons. After more lenient legislation failed in the Senate last week, the House-passed version burst into the public consciousness this week, as hundreds of thousands of protesters across the country turned out to denounce the bill.
Fools. Yes, their base really does want tough legislation to stop illegal immigration. The Republican Party's best hope for maintaining control of Congress in the November 2006 elections is to stop alienating their base and show they give a damn about their base. But these idiots are more impressed by lots of Mexicans marching in US cities carrying Mexican flags and delivering speeches in Spanish. They are ready to cave.
"America is a nation with borders and borders matter. We are a nation of citizens and citizenship matters. We are also a nation of laws and laws matter. We have an important immigrant heritage and honoring that heritage matters.
"In December, the House of Representatives passed a strong border security bill aimed at securing our borders and preventing illegal immigration.
"However, on December 16, 2005, there were 191 House Democrats who voted to oppose House Republican efforts to reduce the crime of unlawful presence in the United States from a felony to a misdemeanor. Instead, they voted to make felons out of all of those who remain in our country illegally.
"While we are disappointed with the House Democrat's lack of compassion and the continued efforts by Senator Reid to block action on immigration legislation so that Congress can proceed to conference, it remains our intent to produce a strong border security bill that will not make unlawful presence in the United States a felony."
The Republicans in both houses of Congress ought to unite behind Sensenbrenner's tough House bill. It could win them elections.
The survey found that 38 percent of the public approve of the job Bush is doing, down three percentage points in the past month and his worst showing in Post-ABC polling since he became president. Sixty percent disapprove of his performance.
With less than seven months remaining before the midterm elections, Bush's political troubles already appear to be casting a long shadow over them. Barely a third of registered voters, 35 percent, approve of the way the Republican-led Congress is doing its job -- the lowest level of support in nine years.
The Democrats are more likely to win if the Republicans continue on the path of totally demoralizing and angering their base (and a majority of the public which wants less immigration).
Senate Democrats refused to allow consideration of an amendment yesterday that would bar illegal aliens convicted of felonies from obtaining U.S. citizenship.
Democrats said the amendment would "gut" the immigration bill under consideration in the Senate and refused to allow a vote on it.
"It hurts the bill," said Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "It hurts the very foundation and what I believe is the spirit" of the legislation.
Yes, Harry Reid, it does hurt the spirit of this legislation. The spirit of this legislation is so bad that trying to make it just the least bit good does undermine it.
Senators Jon Kyl and John Cornyn argued that the amendment is necessary.
Mr. Kyl came to the floor and listed the crimes he said would not be included without his amendment, such as burglary, assault and battery, possession of an unregistered, sawed-off shotgun, kidnapping and alien smuggling.
How about an even better idea? How about no amnesty?
Why does Reid think the Kyl-Cornyn amendment goes against the spirit of Frist's immigration legislation? Restrictions on immigration by criminal record are especially problematic for HIspanics.
Nationally, Hispanics are on average 3.7 times as likely as whites to be imprisoned.
More good coverage at the VDare blog.
Steve Sailer argues that no immigration bill should be passed now and instead immigration should be a 2006 election issue.. Also check out Jorge W. Bush waving a Mexican flag. Here are reconquista advocates protesting US immigration laws with Mexican flags.
Some estimate that bills pending in the Senate could double the nearly 1 million green cards handed out yearly, granting legal permanent residence.
The United States, which already welcomes more legal immigrants than any other country, would see major increases in green cards under both immigration proposals being debated in the Senate. The bills also would add tens of thousands of temporary visas for workers, from the high-tech industry to medically underserved areas.
America isn't on a fast enough road to Third World status. The fools in the US Senate want to accelerate the process.
A new poll by the Pew Hispanic Center finds that most Americans want the illegal aliens shipped home.
Overall, 53% say people who are in the U.S. illegally should be required to go home, while 40% say they should be granted some kind of legal status that allows them to stay here.
Of course our elites have contempt for the wishes of the majority when those wishes conflict with the interests of the elites.
Looking at the full report (PDF format) some interesting facts emerge. The percentage of Americans who agree with "Immigrants today are a burden because they take jobs, housing" has risen from 38% in Sept 2000 to 44% in Dec 2005 to 52% in Mar 2006. So the shift in attitudes on immigration is rapidly heading toward restriction even as most of the US Senate tries to put through a massive amnesty and increase in legal immigration. Also, interestingly, when given a list of choices for how to decrease illegal immigration from Mexico the most popular choice (49%) was for tougher penalties for employers. That would work if done vigorously. But Congress and Bush are opposed to interior enforcement against employers because the employers are opposed and the money of the employers talks more powerfully than the public. While the Senate tries to increase immigration only 17% of the public agrees with them.
The public’s divisions over illegal immigration are mirrored in views of legal immigration; 40% say the current level should be decreased, but almost the same number (37%) believe it should be kept at its present level, while 17% prefer to see it increased.
The more educated and more financially secure are least likely to see immigrants as a threat. To lots of smart people dumb immigrants are not direct competitors in jobs and at the same time are cheap sources of labor for gardening, construction, made service, and nannies. So that result is not too surprising. However, it also represents a short-sightedness that ignores the higher crime, crowding, pollution, white flight from decaying schools, taxes, and other costs.
Only a third of the public see Hispanic immigration as a cause of higher crime. Never mind that they commit crime at a rate a few times higher than whites. The truth is hidden from view. Here we see the effect of the deceitful American media, academia, and government. The FBI refuses to break out Hispanic crime figures and deceptively lumps them in with whites. The vast bulk of the press refuses to acknowledge crime rate differences between races. Our masters are corrupt and deeply dishonest.
There is a limit to how much legal equality one can have in a society where the distance between the haves and have nots keeps getting bigger and bigger. Crush41 points out that states with greater ethnic diversity have greater disparities in wealth.
Diversity brings economic disparity. Economic disparity is not good for democracy. The corollary is that diversity is not good for democracy. The optimal situation is one in which wealth disparities are naturally small without having to resort to robin hood wealth transfers.
Yet economic disparity is absolutely correlated with race. Running a regression and correlation analysis on data from the fifty states plus DC, I looked at each state's population of the four major ethnic/racial groups (non-Hispanic white, black, Hispanic, and Asian) and correlated it with the variable "Median income as a percentage of
Mean income" which was computed by dividing each state's median income by its mean income. The larger the difference between the two, the greater the economic disparity in the state (think of how much Bill Gates moves the mean while doing no more for the median than Joe accountant in the state of Washington who makes $60,000 a year).
I found that significance factor was virtually zero for whites, blacks, and Asians (in other words, there is a 99.9999999% chance that the correlation between wealth disparity and race is not random). For Hispanics, the significance factor .067, meaning that there is a 6.7% chance that the relationship was due simply to chance. That is due to the substantial differences in the American Hispanic community (Cuban doctors in Florida vs Amerind fruit pickers in California).
Put ethnic groups with big differences in average IQ into the same area and the result will be widening differences in economic outcomes. This is the future our masters want for us. Why do they want it? Have they deceived themselves that they are so wise they could not possibly create such an outcome or do they do this for short term advantage while ignoring the longer term effects?
Republican Senators Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez want an amnesty for illegals who have been in the United States for at least 5 years.
Under the compromise proposal, still in the early stages, illegal immigrants who could produce pay stubs, billing records or other documentation showing they have lived and worked in the United States for five years would qualify for a work visa and an opportunity to apply for citizenship. They could stay in the country as they apply for a green card.
Those not meeting the requirements would have to return to their native countries. New measures in the larger immigration bill, such as a tamper-proof identification card and sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants, would convince recent illegal immigrants they have no choice but to comply, advocates of the compromise said.
I have a simple response to these jerks: The US Congress has had decades of opportunities to show that it will seriously enforce immigration laws and has failed to do so. The Congress has passed bills that purported to toughen immigration law enforcement and then proceeded to gut enforcement by pressuring agencies of the US government to hold back from doing vigorous enforcement. Any time the employer fines or round-ups of illegals began to scale up to a level that would make a difference Congressional committees applied pressure to gut the enforcement initiatives. See past posts from my Immigration Law Enforcement archives for descriptions of how Congress sabotages immigration law enforcement.
In a nutshell: Congress can't be trusted. Unless Congress does enforcement first any supposed compromise that purports to combine an amnesty with enforcement will inevitably become an amnesty only. When people like Martinez and Hagel try to tell us differently they are just flat out lying. I feel insulted by the brazenness of their lying.
Responding to the pressure of corporate America and the White House for cheap labor and to demands from ethnic lobbies and labor unions for cheap recruits, senators now seem likely to insist that any such enforcement law must also amnesty the 12 million illegal immigrants already here and admit more legal immigrants by a "guest-worker" program and higher quotas for legal immigration.
In other words, the Senate will act on the following logic: In order to have fewer immigrants, we must admit more of them. In order to halt illegal immigration, we must legalize it. And in order to enforce the law, we must reward those who have broken it.
As Steve Sailer points out: Time to build a wall. We need a fence. A border barrier similar to the Israeli barrier with the West Bank would cost well under $10 billion dollars or less than 2 months costs of the war in Iraq. Or we could look at highway construction for construction costs for a wall. The materials that are used to build sound barriers along highways in populated areas would cost about $3.2 billion for a 5 meter high wall 2000 miles long (see my comment below the original post where I calculate out the numbers). There'd be additional costs for barbed wire, sensors, and additional fencing layers as well as an access road. But we could easily afford all this. It'd be similar scope to building an interstate highway along the border.
The old labor unions haven't totally rolled over for the elites on how to make the US labor force cheaper. Organized labor opposes Ted Kennedy's plan to bring in massive numbers of low skilled low pay foreign workers.
New economic research that pits native-born workers against low-skilled immigrants in a struggle for jobs and wages has fueled a rift between some of Washington's most liberal lawmakers and their allies in economics and labor, who fear that the Democratic Party is pushing an immigration policy that forsakes the party's working-class mainstay.
The Democratic Party has abandoned its historical concern for working conditions and pay of the lower classes. It sees them as recipients of government programs, not primarily as workers. If lower classes can't be categorized as "oppressed" minorities most of the Democratic Party is just not interested in them.
Increase the supply of labor and the labor cost goes down for owners of capital.
"What immigration really does is redistribute wealth away from workers toward employers," said George J. Borjas, an economist at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Somehow the upper class gatekeepers of the Democratic Party messed up weren't paying attention to North Dakota. They let Byron Dorgan, an old school Democrat, get elected to the Senate. I picture well heeled Democrats at some Westchester New York upper class party sipping wine and complaining to each other that Dorgan could drive up the price of gardeners and nannies if he isn't stopped.
But the work of Borjas and other economists is becoming a wedge in the Democratic Party. Citing Borjas's work, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) denounced the Senate immigration bill yesterday, saying: "This is clearly a corporate strategy to keep wages low. It clearly will replace the jobs of American workers."
At issue is a guest-worker provision that would allow hundreds of thousands of foreign workers legal access to the U.S. labor market each year and the impact those new low-wage workers would have on stagnant wages.
The number of native born males who are working is actually shrinking.
A Northeastern University study found that nearly 86 percent of all newly employed workers hired from 2000 to 2005 were immigrants. For men, the statistics were more stark. In that time, the labor market for men rose by 2.66 million while 2.77 million foreign-born men found work. In other words, Sum said, immigrants have begun replacing native-born male workers.
"Young guys are being displaced by immigrants," he said. "Some of my good liberal friends take issue, but if you're a young worker under 25, poorly educated, probably African American, the higher the share of new immigrants in your community, the worse your employment prospects are becoming."
Our elites truly are electing a new people. We are going to be swept away as somehow unworthy. Why don't they like us? Why do they want to replace us? I am used to employers replacing workers with other workers. But I'm still trying to get my mind around the idea of elites replacing the masses with a different population. Don't like your majority? Think it is too smart and uppity? Put it in its place by importing a newer, more compliant, and dumber majority. That describes what is happening to a once proud American people in the early 21st century.
Americans need to get mad enough to replace their elites before their elites replace them. It is them or us people. Who's it gonna be? Wake up.
While the US Senate schemes on how to drive wages lower the masses increasingly want immigration cut back.
Immigration and outsourcing American jobs, two areas of international relations identified as major concerns in the first fielding of the Foreign Policy Index last year, continued to resonate exceptionally strongly with the public in this survey.
There is marked dissatisfaction on illegal immigration. Nearly eight in 10 of those surveyed gave the United States a "C" or less in protecting our borders from illegal immigration. And this dissatisfaction is nearly universal. Of all the foreign policy issues that the public was asked to grade, immigration shows the least polarization by political party affiliation. The percentage of Americans rating the nation's efforts at protecting our borders from illegal immigration an "F" has risen (30 percent, from 24 percent) in the last six months.
Finally, the public gives its lowest grades to the government's efforts at protecting their jobs. But this is an issue where the public shows frustration about where to place ultimate responsibility. Close to eight in 10 (78 percent) said that the government could do something or a lot about protecting American jobs. But a majority (52 percent) doesn't think it is realistic to think that the U.S. government will be able to have U.S. companies keep jobs in the United States rather than outsourcing them overseas. And they don't hold American companies responsible either. Close to three-quarters (74 percent) think it is unrealistic to expect that companies will keep jobs in the United States when labor is cheaper elsewhere.
The divisions on immigration is between the elites and the masses. On the bright side the level of popular anger continues to rise and will eventually force the elites to obey public desires. But a great deal of damage will be done before that happens. Will we get another amnesty first?
In my neighborhood the Hispanic gang graffiti has gone from nothing a few years ago to frequent new graffiti. One wooden fence I walk past on dog walks got cleaned and painted over two or three times but the owners just can't keep up with the new scrawlings. A lady with a brand new white Toyota got black graffiti paint on her driver side door and she told me she'd had the car for 3 days when that happened. The mayor of Santa Barbara told me the city used to use a graffiti removal guy one day a week but had to hire the guy full time. Plus, the city bought a vehicle (which a friend tells me costs over $50,000) that sprays out high pressure hot water to clean graffiti. I saw a couple of city workers using it to clean big letter graffiti on a road I walk along daily.
Why am I supposed to welcome these people with open arms? I hate to see a society decay.
WASHINGTON, March 29 — Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said Wednesday that he and other House Republicans recognized the need for a guest worker program, opening the door to a possible compromise with the Senate on fiercely debated immigration legislation.
"We're going to look at all alternatives," Mr. Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said at a news conference. "We're not going to discount anything right now. Our first priority is to protect the border. And we also know there is a need in some sections of the economy for a guest worker program."
"We're looking at all alternatives and we're not going to discount anything right now," Hastert said. "Our first priority is to protect the border. And we also know that there is a need in some sectors of the economy for a guest worker program.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
What are you going to believe the repeated lies of our corrupt elites or your lying eyes?
House Majority Leader John A. Boehner refused yesterday to rule out compromising with the Senate to expand the House border security bill to include a guest-worker program or provisions that opponents call "amnesty."
"Let's wait and see what the Senate can produce," he told reporters yesterday when asked whether House Republicans would reject the Senate Judiciary Committee's proposal to allow the estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the U.S. to seek citizenship after paying a fine.
Mr. Boehner and other House leaders said yesterday they still prefer their border-security-only bill.
"Border security is a huge, huge issue everywhere," said Majority Whip Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican. "House members are on the right side of the issue."
Boehner, R-Ohio, gets a voting history score of B- from an immigration restrictionist group. Ohio Republican Senator Mike DeWine, who recently voted for a huge amnesty bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee scores a career voting grade of D- and a recent grade of F- from the same immigration restrictionist group.
A couple of years ago I wrote a post which as far as I can tell still has the most comprehensive list of reasons why a foreigner worker permit program would increase rather than decrease illegal and legal immigration. See my post Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal. If someone can find a more comprehensive list of reasons why a worker permit program would not control or slow the illegal immigrant influx please give me a link to it.
WASHINGTON, March 27 — With Republicans deeply divided, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Monday to legalize the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants and ultimately to grant them citizenship, provided that they hold jobs, pass criminal background checks, learn English and pay fines and back taxes.
The panel also voted to create a vast temporary worker program that would allow roughly 400,000 foreigners to come to the United States to work each year and would put them on a path to citizenship as well.
The legislation, which the committee sent to the full Senate on a 12-to-6 vote, represents the most sweeping effort by Congress in decades to grant legal status to illegal immigrants.
Those 12 votes for the amnesty represent 8 Democrats and 4 Republicans.
The Republicans who voted for the amnesty are making a huge mistake and not just for their nation (which is not their main concern). They are making a huge mistake for their party. The Iraq war has made Bush and the Republicans very unpopular and as conditions in Iraq continue to deterioate Iraq is going to become an even bigger problem for Republican electoral chances.
Immigration amnesties only increase the influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal. The Senators are not voting for a fix of the problem. They are voting to make the problem worse. This is how great nations decline. Big problems cease to become things to fix. Problems become things to deny and to worsen.
Polls have found that support for the war and expectations about its outcome have reached their lowest level since the invasion. A Pew Research Center poll this week found that 66 percent of respondents said the United States was losing ground in preventing a civil war in Iraq, a jump of 18 percent since January.
The Pew poll also found that 49 percent now believed that the United States would succeed in Iraq, compared with 60 percent last July. A CBS News poll completed two weeks ago found that a majority (54 percent) believed Iraq would never become a stable democracy.
Richard B. Wirthlin, who was the pollster for President Ronald Reagan, says he sees the beginning of a decisive turn in public opinion against the war. "It is hard for me to imagine any set of circumstances that would lead to an enhancement of the public support that we have seen," he said. "It is more likely to go down, and the question is how far and how fast."
This is a really bad time for the Republicans to take a stand on immigration that the overwhelming majority of their base opposes and which even the middle of the road voters oppose.
The Republicans are going to become road kill due to immigration. The future of the Republican Party can be seen in Calfornia and it is grim. But the victory of the Democrats is not going to taste sweet. All the bad things that are happening due to immigration are going to get much worse. They are going to rule over the worsening social pathology.
Update: The Republican US Senators who voted for this amnesty travesty are: Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Sam Brownback of Kansas. Anyone reading this who lives in those states please vote against them the next time they are up for reelection. Also, convince someone to run against them in a primary. They have got to go.
Cheeky devils. China tells America to keep Chinese illegal aliens.
WASHINGTON (AP) - China is refusing to take back an estimated 39,000 citizens who have been denied immigration to the United States and have clogged detention centers at federal expense, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Tuesday.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Chertoff said that China last year readmitted 800 people. But that made only a small dent in what he described as a backlog of thousands illegally in the U.S.
``The math is pretty easy - at that rate, we wind up with increasing numbers of migrants who, if we're going to detain them, we're going to have to house at enormous expense,'' Chertoff said.
Currently, 687 Chinese are being held in federal detention facilities, at a daily rate of $95 each, while some 38,000 have been released on bond or under a monitoring program...
I think the United States ought to tell China that no Chinese citizens will be allowed into the United States unless the Chinese can assure that they can all return back to China. But China knows the US government are a bunch of wimps when it comes to enforcing immigration laws or controlling borders. This is one of many signs of what happens when credibility of law enforcement severely decays.
WASHINGTON - The Senate’s main immigration bill would enable most illegal immigrants now in the United States to remain indefinitely as long as they stay employed, but it wouldn’t put them on a glide path to U.S. citizenship.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin debating the measure Wednesday under a three-week timetable aimed at producing a final version for the full Senate by March 27.
Sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee chairman, the legislation is designed to strike a middle course between a bill passed by the House of Representatives calling for tougher immigration enforcement and pro-immigration advocates who call for permanent legal status - and eventual citizenship - for the estimated 11 million aliens now in the country illegally.
President Bush, defying objections from conservatives, has called for an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws and the creation of a temporary guest-worker program to ensure a steady source of labor for U.S. business. Under Bush’s plan, qualified workers, including residents now here illegally, could stay in jobs for up to six years, then would be required to return home.
Senate Judiciary Committee staff members who explained key provisions of Specter’s bill on Monday said that the measure would create a "gold card" program for illegal immigrants who entered the United States before Jan. 4, 2004. It also would create a guest-worker program to bring in more foreign laborers.
The US government seems intent on making me believe that it lacks legitimacy. They betray us.
What comes after a gold card? A platinum card for illegal aliens who help others enter the country illegally?
Over at Gene Expression TangoMan has a post about press bias on immigration and this led to a great comment post about liberal hypocrisy on immigration by "Big Bill".
Look, white women don't want to cook. They don't want to take care of babies. They don't even want to HAVE babies. They don't want to wash clothes. They want servants -- dishwasher, Cook, Nanny, yard boy.
They all want to be Betty Friedan feminists: a wealthy husband Carl plenty of servants, nice home, nice vacation home, and all the time in the world to write political screeds about how evil men are.
And the best part about championing illegal aliens is that they can pat themselves on the back about being good liberals.
It's a win-win situation for a feminist: you get to live off the sweat of poor people, you get to put other evil demanding white people out of a job, and you get to pretend you're still a good leftist like you were in college.
I hung out in nanny bars in Manhattan and Yonkers for a few years. I know the shtick cold.
It is hard to pretend (which doesn't mean liberals do not try) that Mexicans are being let into America to be equals when they are let in to be trash collectors, nannies, gardeners, maids, bus boys, and other very low status occupations. It is hard to pretend they will rise up the level of equality when only 53% of Hispanics graduate from high school in the United States of America. It is hard to pretend that the huge Hispanic influx isn't further impoverishing our existing lower classes.
"Big Bill" also says:
College boys who have utterly no conception of what it's like growing up and living on the left side of the Bell curve like most black folks and poor white folks in America are oh so eager to import 6 billion ignorant peasants from all over the world. It assuages their guilty middle-class conscience.
Why make America more like the lousier places in the world? Where does this impulse come from? Do the supporters of America's terrible immigration policies somehow believe that the result won't be bad? Do they believe their own rhetoric?
One of my biggest worries about growing the lower class through immigration is that people at one rung on the ladder tend to look up at people on higher rungs and think they do not deserve to be higher up. A lot of people who lack the intellectual capacity to do work that earns an upper middle class or higher income also lack the intellectual capacity to understand just how complex that work is or how much wealth that work produces.
How can a person who, say, lays brick or hammers nails into roofs imagine how much more productive is the person who develops a new roofing material or a new way to make roofing material? Their tendency is going to be toward seeing their own work as the "real" work and the work of people sitting in offices as useless work that accomplishes little that is immediately obvious. Their desire for higher self esteem combines with their inability to comprehend work that is beyond their intellectual ability to cause them to discount the value of work that commands much higher incomes. Seems to me that a society with an increasing number of such people will have a politics increasingly driven by resentment toward the most productive. Upper class liberals ought ask themselves if it is in their best interest to support development of such a society.
Disseminating information about how to evade a host country’s laws is not typical consular activity. Consulates exist to promote the commercial interests of their nations abroad and to help nationals if they have lost passports, gotten robbed, or fallen ill. If a national gets arrested, consular officials may visit him in jail, to ensure that his treatment meets minimum human rights standards. Consuls aren’t supposed to connive in breaking a host country’s laws or intervene in its internal affairs.
The border-breaking guide is just the tip of the iceberg of Mexican meddling, however. After 9/11, Vicente Fox’s government realized that the immigration amnesty that it had expected from President Bush was on hold. So it came up with the second best thing: a de facto amnesty, at the heart of which is something called the matricula consular card.
Mexican consulates, like those of other countries, have traditionally offered consular cards to their nationals abroad for registration purposes, in case they disappear. In practice, few Mexicans bothered to obtain them. After 9/11, though, officials at Los Pinos (the Mexican White House) ordered their consulates to promote the card as a way for illegals to obtain privileges that the U.S. usually reserves for legal residents. The consulates started aggressively lobbying American governmental officials and banks to accept matriculas as valid IDs for driver’s licenses, checking accounts, mortgage lending, and other benefits.
The only type of Mexican who would need such identification is an illegal one; legal aliens already have sufficient documentation to get driver’s licenses or bank accounts. Predictably, the IDs flew off the shelf—more than 4.7 million since 2000. Every day, illegals seeking matriculas swamp the consulates. Every seat and place to stand in the modest, white stucco Santa Ana, California, consulate was filled one morning this July, most of the people there seeking the 200 or so matriculas that the consulate issues per day.
The Mexican government knows just how subversive its matricula effort is. A consulate’s right to issue such a card to its nationals is indisputable; where the Mexican diplomats push the envelope is in lobbying governments to adopt it as an American ID. In announcing the normalization-through-the-matricula push, then-foreign minister Jorge Castañeda was characteristically blunt: “We are already giving instructions to our consulates that they begin propagating militant activities—if you will—in their communities.”
The Mexican government opposes housing codes and other laws that make it hard for illegals to live in American society.
Mexico’s consuls go even further in undermining U.S. border law. They’re evolving a “disparate impact” theory that holds that any police action is invalid if it falls upon illegal Mexicans, even if that action has nothing to do with immigration. In July, the Mexican consul general in New York City, Arturo Sarukhan, lambasted Suffolk County, Long Island, officials for evicting over a hundred illegal aliens whose dangerously overcrowded housing violated fire and safety codes. The code enforcement constituted a “vilif[ication]” of the Mexicans, Sarukhan said, and inflamed community “tensions.” Policing fire and safety codes is a core function of local government—unless it interferes with an illegal Mexican, in the New York consul general’s view. He might note that the “tensions” in Long Island aren’t due to the Suffolk County government but to the continuing influx of Latin Americans flouting American law.
Mexico wants us to take in their illegals and then educate their illegals and their American citizen descendants as Mexicans in Spanish and with Mexican history lessons.
The gall of Mexican officials does not end with the push for illegal entry. After demanding that we educate their surplus citizens, give those citizens food stamps, deliver their babies, provide them with doctors and hospital beds, and police their neighborhoods, the Mexican government also expects us to help preserve their loyalty to Mexico.
Since 1990, Mexico has embarked on a series of initiatives to import Mexican culture into the U.S. Mexico’s five-year development plan in 1995 announced that the “Mexican nation extends beyond . . . its border”—into the United States. Accordingly, the government would “strengthen solidarity programs with the Mexican communities abroad by emphasizing their Mexican roots, and supporting literacy programs in Spanish and the teaching of the history, values, and traditions of our country.”
The current launching pad for these educational sallies is the Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior. The IME directs several programs aimed at American schools. Each of Mexico’s 47 consulates in the U.S. (a number that expands nearly every year) has a mandate to introduce Mexican textbooks into schools with significant Hispanic populations. The Mexican consulate in Los Angeles showered nearly 100,000 textbooks on 1,500 schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District this year alone. Hundreds of thousands more have gone to school districts across the country, which pay only shipping charges. Showing admirable follow-up skills, the consulates try to ensure that students actually read the books. L.A. consulate reps, for instance, return to schools that have the books and ask questions. “We test the students,” explains Mireya Magaña Gálvez, a consul press attaché. “We ask the students: what are you reading about now? We try to repeat and repeat.”
I bet that in poorer parts of Mexico there's a shortage of school books.
The Mexican government lies about why it wants Mexican history taught in American schools.
Like most explanations given for Mexican involvement in American cultural matters, the justification for the textbook initiative is tortured. “If people are living in the U.S., of course they need to become excellent citizens of this place,” says Magaña Gálvez. “If we can help in their education, they will understand better.” But if the goal is American assimilation, why take a detour through Mexican history? “We must talk about Mexican history,” she explains. “Our history is very rich, very intensive. It’s important to know that history. The students will feel proud to become Americans if they feel proud of their country.”
Mexican diplomats lobby California schools to violate the proposition law against bilingual education. George W. Bush's US Department of Education cooperates with Mexico on a program to bring Mexican teachers into US schools to train US teachers to teach Mexican culture and history. Our government and the Mexican government are the enemies of US nationalism.
The Mexicans are massive hypocrites. Mexican immigration laws select for people who will not be net drains on society.
Mexico’s own immigration policies are the exact opposite of what it relentlessly advocates in the United States. Its entry permits favor scientists, technicians, teachers of underrepresented disciplines, and others likely to contribute to “national progress.” Immigrants may only enter through established ports and at designated times. Anyone not presenting the proper documentation and health certificates won’t get in; the transportation company that brought him must pay his return costs. Foreigners who do not “strictly comply” with the entry conditions will face deportation. Steve Royster, who worked in the American consulate in Mexico from 1999 to 2001, presided over several deportations of Americans who had overstayed their visas. “They were given a choice: accept deportation or go to jail,” he says.
Providing full college tuition or all-expenses-paid secondary and primary education for illegal American students in Mexico? Unthinkable. Until recently, U.S.-born children of Mexican parents weren’t even allowed to enroll in Mexican public schools, reserved for Mexican citizens only. The parents would have to bribe officials for Mexican birth certificates for their kids. (The 1998 change in the Mexican constitution to allow dual nationality now makes enrollment by U.S.-born Mexicans possible.) “We’re not friendly with immigrants; that’s a big difference with the speech we have here with American schools,” admits a Mexican diplomat.
See "FBI Official Says Matricula Consular Card Is Security Threat". Also see my previous posts on Heather on immigration: "Heather Mac Donald: The Immigrant Gang Plague", "Heather Mac Donald On The Illegal Alien Crime Wave", "Heather Mac Donald On Terrorism, Racism, Immigration Law Violators", "Heather Mac Donald On Illegal Alien Gangs And Restrictions On Police", nad "Heather Mac Donald: A New Latino Underclass".
RICHMOND, Oct. 28 -- Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore unveiled a television ad Friday evening that focuses on immigration and blasts Democrat Timothy M. Kaine for supporting taxpayer-financed day-laborer centers and in-state tuition discounts for undocumented immigrants.
Kaine's campaign responded immediately, saying that the commercial misrepresents the lieutenant governor's views.
Kaine claims he's against in-state tuition for illegals. But he makes an exception for children brought here by their illegal parents. Well, er, those children are probably the bulk of those illegals seeking to get in-state tuition. So Kilgore's claim sounds pretty accurate.
The important point about this report is that immigration is becoming an issue in election races and candidates see the pro-illegal immigration label as an electoral liability. As long as immigration does not become an election issue wealthy people with vested interests in cheap labor can buy politicians to lower immigration barriers. But the broad public wants less immigration, not more. In close races immigration is going to pop up more in reaction to increasing public unhappiness about elite contempt for popular views on immigration policy.
Republican Governor Rick Perry of Texas disagrees with former Republican Governor of Texas George W. Bush on the importance of law enforcement on the US border with Mexico.
"Until the U.S.-Mexican border is secured to the point that we have substantially stopped the illegal trafficking of people and narcotics and terror, any discussion about a guest worker program is premature," Perry, normally a staunch Bush ally, said before returning to Texas after a two-day trip to Washington.
Perry also said he wants the federal government to declare the 2,000-mile border stretching from Texas to California a "high-risk threat area" to enable it to qualify for additional law enforcement money from the Homeland Security Department.
In response to the lawlessness of Nuevo Laredo Mexico and Mexican Zeta commando military deserters operating along the US border Governor Perry is allocating more law enforcement resources to the US-Mexican border.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry also announced last week a new security plan for the Texas-Mexico border, saying the state would "increase the law-enforcement presence in the border region, provide new investigative tools, improve communications among law-enforcement officials and make our border region more secure."
"I offer this plan, not because it is the state's responsibility to control the federal border, but because the state of Texas cannot wait for the federal government to implement needed border security measures," he said.
Build a wall. Round up all the illegals. Quadruple the size of the Border Patrol. The lawlessness could be stopped and the smuggling reduced by orders of magnitude.
EL CENIZO, Texas - When he looks across the Rio Grande into Nuevo Laredo, Webb County Sheriff Rick Flores sees not the friendly Mexican border town he knew growing up, but the violent trappings of another country far to the south.
"It's a sad, scary sight," he said. "We are in the United States of America, and just across this border, the Colombianization of Mexico is slowly taking shape."
In describing the surging drug violence along the U.S.-Mexico border and elsewhere in Mexico, Flores and other law enforcement officials and analysts are increasingly referring to Colombia, where the Medellin drug cartel and other criminal organizations waged war on the government and killed hundreds of people during the 1980s.
Mexico has become the center of the drug war.
An estimated 1,100 people have been killed in drug-related slayings so far this year, and analysts say that the epicenter of the hemisphere's drug war has shifted to Mexico.
Effective border enforcement would reduce the level of violence and lawlessness in Mexico. We could cut off the ability of drug cartels to cross the border at will by building a barrier layer, quadrupling the Border Patrol, and increasing the number of inspectors at entry points. Then the drug money would stop flowing through northern Mexico and the place would become less corrupt (at least by Mexican standards) and less violent.
Update: Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison joins a lengthening line of politicians who are reacting to popular frustration over weak border enforcement and proposing legislation or ordering policy changes.
WASHINGTON — Saying the U.S.-Mexico border is "hemorrhaging," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison filed a bill Wednesday that would give states, local law enforcement and volunteers the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.
The legislation mirrors an effort in the House that would create civilian militias to patrol the 2,000-mile border with an amateur force.
The political wind is blowing increasingly in the direction of immigration restriction.
Update II: Jerry Seper of the Washington Times reports that Texas sheriffs are outgunned and outequipped by drug smugglers and illegal aliens.
Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez Jr., who has spent 30 years with the Zapata County Sheriff's Office and leads its 24-member force, said his outmanned deputies do daily battle with alien and drug smugglers who have better weapons, vehicles, radios, computers, telephones, Global Positioning Systems and night vision equipment.
"It's the federal government's responsibility to ensure border security, and I would think that after September 11, the government would be concerned about making sure these borders are secure," he said. "But I assure you, the border here is very, very porous. How can anyone honestly say we are doing our best to prevent another terrorist attack from happening?"
The United States government should not tolerate lawlessness on its border with a narco-state.
In the wake of the hugely-successful Minuteman Project, the California Border Police Initiative currently gathering signatures in the Golden State is shaping up to be yet another shot-heard-round-the-world, 9.9 magnitude earthquake against illegal immigration, the likes of which America has never seen.
But without enacting comprehensive summary removal of illegal aliens and criminal aliens at the federal level, these heroic state efforts will be largely for naught.
The bottom line: any increased boots-on-the-ground immigration enforcement by police officers, immigration agents, the U.S. Border Patrol—or even a citizen Border Protection Corps—also desperately needs companion immigration legislation from Congress to see to it that the aliens arrested for immigration violations are actually deported!
If the California Border Police voter referendum gets onto the ballot and then wins passage then that will put more pressure on our disgusting political class in Washington DC to do more real immigration law enforcement and border enforcement. For that reason alone I think that the passage of the initiative will not be for naught. Also, a state police force deployed near the border would stop illegals from entering and the federal policy makers would find it very hard to refuse that police force the power to deport illegals.
If you are a Californian who wants a stop to illegal immigration consider helping the California Border Police initiative group to round up signatures to get the initiative on the California ballot. Or donate some money to them.
State level initiatives in Calfornia and Arizona (the only two of our 4 border states with Mexico that have popular ballot voter initiative processes) could go far toward cutting back on illegal immigration. Ballot initiatives could fund the development of border barriers along California's and Arizona's borders with Mexico.
Mann is right to argue for the removal of legal obstacles to deportation of illegals. His article lists a set of reforms which Congress should enact. Read the full article for the details.
For immigration law enforcement to work, America needs summary deportation, not perpetual immigration litigation in the federal courts.
Contrary to the repeated lies by the Open Borders crowd illegals could be rounded up very quickly and cheaply. As one of my correspondents pointed out "we could build a wall from Tijuana to Brownsville for the cost of one month in Iraq". The bulk of the illegal influx across the Mexican border could be stopped. The highest cost quote I found for the Israeli West Bank barrier is $4.15 million per mile. At that cost level California, which has a 140 mile border with Mexico, could seal off the border for $581 million. Arizona, which has a 370 mile border with Mexico could build a barrier for $1.535 billion. In fact, state legislative representative Russell Pearce is working to put an Arizona-Mexico border barrier on the Arizona ballot for November 2006.
Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, is drafting a measure to ask voters next year to spend the money to erect a climb-proof fence wherever possible from Yuma to east of Douglas.
California needs a similar initiative. Also, for many other states further from the border which have ballot initiative processes ballot initiatives could be used to instruct state police and other state agencies to support the rounding up of illegals for deportation.
Aside: A concrete barrier would not fall victim to wire cutters. Also, a barrier layer should have depth and lots of sensors. Anyone attempting to cross should trigger alarms that would bring border police to catch them before they made it through all the barrier layers.
They sneak across the border hoping for a better life, but immediately needing free health care, free education, and free government support if they can get it and usually do get it. A new federal report shows that only four states verify eligibility before you get Medicaid (AHCCCS), a $4 billion program with more folks enrolled in AHCCCS than K through 12.
But those things aren’t free. We pay for them. Right here in Arizona the average LEGAL family pays at least an extra $2,000 every year to support illegal aliens and another $2000 in taxes to make up for the $400 billion in unpaid taxes by the underground workforce that don't pay taxes and still use services such as education ($8000 annually per child). And those are just the direct expenses. They don’t include the cost of increased crime, city or county enforcement and jail cost, increased car insurance, increased medical/health insurance and other direct, but non-governmental expenses.
Measures to stop the immigration deluge at the state level will make clearer the divide that exists between elite and popular positions on immigration. The elites will find it more difficult to pursue their own interests at the expense of the populace if more states adopt immigration restrictionist policies and follow through with real enforcement.
WASHINGTON — Worried that the tone of the immigration debate is pushing Latinos away from the Republican Party, the White House is working with political strategists to create a broad coalition of business groups and immigrant advocates to back a plan President Bush could promote in Congress and to minority voters in the 2006 elections.
The strategists say Bush is planning to make immigration a top priority as soon as this fall, once the focus on a Supreme Court vacancy has passed. The push is being planned to coincide with next year's campaigns for the House and Senate, in which Latino voters could be crucial in several states. It is part of a broader White House strategy to forge a long-lasting majority by drawing more minority voters.
Aiming for an air of bipartisanship, the White House-backed coalition, to be called Americans for Border and Economic Security, will be led by former U.S. Reps. Cal Dooley (D-Hanford) and Dick Armey (R-Texas). The chief organizer is one of the capital's most important White House allies: former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, who has hosted preliminary meetings at his Washington lobbying firm just blocks from the White House and has been advising the RNC on minority outreach.
I'm old enough to remember when it was considered a good thing and a sign of much desired progress when all classes of workers experienced rising salaries. Now a sitting President can organize a massive campaign to import millions of foreign workers to drive down native salaries and especially salaries of the poorest citizens. Times change.
Big money donors are being recruited for the new coalition.
A guest-worker program is favored by many Latinos and by businesses, many of them major GOP donors that depend on a steady flow of workers from Mexico and other countries. The White House effort is aimed at satisfying these groups while promoting tougher border security enforcement. The latter focus is an attempt to mollify a vocal bloc of cultural conservatives in the GOP — some in the House leadership — who argue that undocumented workers present a security threat and take some jobs that could be filled by Americans.
Bush wants the funds to attack the Republican base. Conservative talk radio has turned heavily against Bush's position on immigration. Ditto for some other conservative opinion outlets. Can big corporate donors fund an effort big enough to overwhelm the influence of populist anger? Can the Republican voters be persuaded that they are just there to vote Republican and that the party exists to serve the interests of those employers who use illegals and not the interesets of all Republicans?
Admission into the new coalition costs between $50,000 and $250,000. The proceeds are expected to pay for a political-style campaign for an approach to immigration that combines heightened border security with a guest-worker program of some sort, creating an environment that the White House believes will be more favorable for Bush to step back into the fray.
In an unamazing coincidence that combination just happens to show up in bill introduced into the US Senate by Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). The Cornyn-Kyl bill combines tougher immigration enforcement with a worker permit program.
The Kyl-Cornyn bill calls for the creation of a machine-readable, tamper-proof Social Security card that would be issued to every American in the workforce. It would also fund the hiring of 10,000 Department of Homeland Security personnel dedicated to weeding illegal immigrants out of the workforce and an additional 1,000 for detecting immigration fraud.
Companies that hired illegal immigrants would face tough fines.
Additionally, the bill would authorize the recruitment of 10,000 new Border Patrol agents over five years and a $2.5 billion investment in unmanned aerial vehicles, cameras, barriers, and sensors along the Mexican border.
Unless the barriers extend the full length of the border and are thick and high the illegals are going to go around them or cut through them.
The other, by Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, would require workers in the United States illegally to return home before being permitted to participate in a new guest worker program. It would also throw enormous new resources at border, interior and workplace enforcement.
Kyl denied that his bill amounted to mass deportation, as many have charged.
Kyl's bill brings out the conflict between the business interests which just want cheap labor and the Hispanic activists who want more Hispanics to stay here permanently to form a larger Hispanic voting bloc. The Hispanic activists want all the illegals to stay without any inconvenience. The businesses want the Hispanics but are relatively less worried about inconveniencing them. Though of course the businesses do not want to be inconvenienced themselves. So their positions are not too far apart.
But the most important witness at the hearing turned out to be Hal Daub, a former congressman who now heads the American Health Care Assn. The industry he represents is clearly alarmed by the Kyl-Cornyn approach. Deporting illegal healthcare workers would be "disruptive to the delivery of quality care. It would cause a deterioration in the quality of that care," he said. By the end of the hearing, Cornyn was in full retreat, saying that maybe an illegal worker's "trip" home could be short enough to ensure no disruption in his employment. So the punishment turns into a vacation?
This all lends credence to the theory that the Kyl-Cornyn bill is a tactical gambit — backed by the White House — to produce a compromise bill that preserves the essence of McCain-Kennedy with a tougher veneer, so that it can be more easily sold to a skeptical House.
The Bush Administration intends to satisfy the demands of some business interests to gain legal access to low wage foreign workers and to appeal politically to Hispanic voters. In an attempt to overcome staunch public opposition to the president's plan, the goal of the coalition will be to sell the plan as a solution to mass illegal immigration.
"A more accurate name for this association of special interest high-rollers would be the Coalition to Destroy the American Middle Class," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "It is a blatant attempt to convince America's embattled middle class that they will be better off if employers can legally bring millions of foreign workers to this country.
"Mass illegal immigration is certainly a problem, but the solution is not amnesty and guest worker programs," Stein continued. "Whether these millions of people enter legally or illegally, the impact on American workers and the nation's vital social institutions is exactly the same."
How to explain Bush's position on immigration? Is it driven more by a desire for Hispanic votes or more for employers of cheap labor? Steve Sailer thinks the Bush family is in a tight relationship with the corrupt Mexican elite. That elite is what America will replicate if we keep letting in the Hispanic flood.
I'm not surprised that a shallow pseudo-conservative president would put the interests of big business donors ahead of the long term best interests of the country. What I find more puzzling is the willingness of the liberal mainstream media to embrace cheap immigrant labor. See, for example, this Boston Globe editorial in favor of cheap immigrant labor. Granted, they don't use the term "cheap immigrant labor" but that is the core of the big worker permit proposal which the Globe apparently supports. Do the Globe's board of directors see cheap labor as in their economic interests? Do big liberal media outfits see themselves as having the same economic interest in cheap labor as do so many restaurant owners, drywall installers, and lawn mower service operators?
But no, Newt was telling me about the danger from illegal aliens coming across our open borders. He talked about the threat this poses to our national security in an era of terrorism, the high costs to U.S. taxpayers, the follies of multiculturalism, and the urgent need for everyone in our country to be able to speak our English language.
The message was skillfully designed to appeal to Americans who are outraged at our government's failure to protect us from the invasion of illegals. But slyly buried in the middle of Newt's message was an endorsement of a "guest worker" plan to invite even more aliens to take U.S. jobs.
The politicians and business executives, who are determined to continue bringing in foreigners to work for lower wages than Americans expect, have gotten smart. The plan to import "willing workers" from other countries is now being packaged in the language of concern about border security.
This strategy is obvious in the new White House-backed coalition called Americans for Border and Economic Security, organized by Republican lobbyist (and former Republican National Committee Chairman) Ed Gillespie. Admission to this coalition costs $50,000 to $250,000, fees that will finance a political-style campaign to sell the American people on a guest-worker program wrapped in a few border-security measures.
"The administration is consulting with Congress to discuss realistic and comprehensive immigration reform," White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri said.
Tamburri said it is "critical" that any immigration reform address border security, enforcement and the economic reality of the demand for willing workers. She said it must do so in a way that does not allow amnesty and establishes greater control of U.S. borders through increased security, domestic enforcement and a temporary-worker program.
The White House's strategy is to put forth a proposal that seems to get tougher on border security while at the same time putting in place a plan to give permits to illegal alien workers. The financed campaign behind it is not a guarantee of success given that conservative talk radio and many other sources of conservative opinion will fight against it. Bush did not succeed with the big bucks he lined up in support of Social Security investment accounts. So big financial backing is not a guarantee of success.
President Bush yesterday told House Republicans that he wants them to pass an immigration bill this fall, but members said he may not get a bill he likes.
The president did not go into specifics at yesterday's meeting, several Republicans said. But Mr. Bush previously has called for a guest-worker program that matches workers with employers who say they cannot fill those jobs with Americans. He also called for an increase in the level of legal immigration.
Employers want illegal aliens because they can pay them less than they pay Americans. No labor shortage exists in America. Market prices change to make labor demand and supply equal. This is Economics 101.
Cheap labor for employers means higher taxes for everyone at higher income levels. People who earn low wages inevitably turn to governments for medical and other services.
It's easy to understand why Wal-Mart is hostile to unions. Under the current balance of power between the company and its employees--uh, I mean "associates"--the average hourly wage is $9.68. That's substantially lower than the average hourly wage for all retail workers, which is $12.28. (In case you're wondering, the average hourly wage for all nonsupervisory workers in our labor force is $15.90.)
In addition, only about half of Wal-Mart's employees can afford to buy into the company's health-insurance plan. As a result, Wal-Mart employees are turning in droves to government-funded health programs to ensure that their children can see a doctor when they're sick.
Wal-Mart stands in marked contrast to Costco, which has a partly unionized work force (the Teamsters represent about 15,000 workers at Costco stores in California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia). Costco pays an average of $16 an hour, and 82 percent of its employees are covered by company health insurance.
Immigrant labor that is cheap for employers is subsidized by middle and higher income taxpayers.
If you want to understand why Bush's foreign worker permit proposal will not stop the influx of illegal immigrants then read my post "Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal".
Hillary Clinton has talked tough on illegal immigration. But Hillary has since taken positions opposing measures to crack down on illegal immigration. Once again Hillary refuses to put our money where she pretends to be on immigration.
The Senate voted yesterday against fulfilling its pledge from last year to hire 2,000 more Border Patrol agents and fund 8,000 new detention beds for illegal aliens in fiscal 2006, as some potential presidential candidates weighed in on border security and illegal immigration.
Hillary voted against both amendments that would have increased the number of Border Patrol agents and also that would have allowed all the non-Mexican illegal immigrants who are captured crossing the border to be held for deportation.
The major Democratic Party contenders for the 2008 Presidential election all voted against tighter border security.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, who had made a splash recently with comments about cracking down on illegal immigration, voted against both amendments, as did Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the 2004 Democratic nominee, and Democratic Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who has said he plans to run.
Just last week the former first lady blasted President Bush on border security in a statement posted to her official Senate Web site.
"This administration has failed to provide the resources to protect our borders, or a better system to keep track of entrants to this country," she complained, adding, "I welcome the addition of more border security."
Who is a bigger liar? George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton? I figure Bush is because he's had more opportunity to craft big lies to implement policies. During her husband's administration Bill and not Hillary was the architect of the biggest lies.
She also touched on several education issues, including her support of legislation known as the DREAM Act, which would allow illegal immigrant children who finish high school in the United States to avoid deportation, earn a path to citizenship, and possibly receive in-state college tuition rates. The National Council of La Raza held a rally in support of the measure on Sunday.
"We want to make it possible for the 65,000 undocumented young people who graduate from our high schools each year to receive in-state tuition rates and pursue their own dreams," she said. "I hope, with your help, we will make that Dream Act a reality this year."
One wonders what she advocates for illegal alien high school drop-outs. Does she draw a distinction between the desirability of those smart enough to go to college and those who aren't even smart enough to graduate from high school? The average Hispanic 12th grader knows about as much as the average white 8th grader. Would Hillary Clinton publically acknowledge this fact if confronted with it? Would she agree that sending people with 8th or 9th grade levels of education on to college with racial preferences works against the best interests of the nation? Or does she think that higher achieving white, East Asian, and South Asian students should be discriminated against for the benefit of a growing Democratic Party voting block that is a source of cheap labor for businesses that donate to both parties?
I think it is clear at this point that Hillary Clinton is not serious about cutting back on illegal immigration. The only hope for immigration restrictionists in the 2008 Presidential election is Tom Tancredo.
The four-term House member met Thursday evening with members of the Christian Coalition of Iowa in Davenport before making similar stops in Cedar Rapids and Cedar Falls on Friday. He planned to leave Iowa today after a morning event in Dubuque.
"I'm here to get people to ask the question: What are you going to do about illegal immigration?" Tancredo told The Des Moines Register in a telephone interview Friday. "And if I can help elevate this issue to where it really does command the debate, I will have done my job. If no one else will take up this issue in the presidential campaign, then I will."
My guess is he will run. If he runs then he will have many very motivated supporters. So he has a fair shot at getting the Republican nomination. He'd be a huge turn-about from George W. Bush.
The Bush administration's guest worker plan has actually helped fuel illegal immigration because some believed President Bush is offering amnesty, according to a watchdog group's analysis of a government poll of immigrants detained by the Border Patrol.
The survey, some of the results of which were obtained, analyzed and released Tuesday by Judicial Watch, found that 63 percent of more than 800 immigrants arrested along the nation's southern border said they had heard from the Mexican government or media that Bush was offering amnesty. Forty-five percent said they attempted to cross the border based on those beliefs. Eighty percent said they wanted to apply for amnesty.
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, today released the results of a previously undisclosed Border Patrol survey of apprehended illegal immigrants demonstrating that President Bush’s “temporary worker proposal,” was broadly interpreted as an illegal immigration amnesty program by illegal immigrants from Mexico, and led to a spike in illegal immigration crossings. Judicial Watch also uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) a Border Patrol document entitled, “White House Approved Talking Points,” directing Border Patrol agents to withhold information on the impact of the Bush amnesty proposal on illegal crossings.
Judicial Watch presented the documents and a report, U.S. Border Patrol Survey Analysis, to House Immigration Reform Chairman Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) at a joint press conference. Among the conclusions of Judicial Watch’s report are:
- President Bush’s proposal lured greater numbers of illegal immigrants to violate the law. Approximately 45% of respondents crossed illegally based upon rumors of a Bush amnesty program.
- Approximately 63% of the illegal aliens surveyed received Mexican government or media information supporting the notion of a Bush administration amnesty program.
- When asked if they would seek amnesty if offered, 80% of apprehended illegal immigrants answered, “yes.”
The “talking points memo” uncovered by Judicial Watch instructs Border Patrol agents to withhold information about the negative impact of the president’s proposal. “Do not talk about amnesty, increase in apprehensions, or give comparisons of past immigration reform proposals…Do not provide statistics on apprehension spikes or past amnesty data,” Border Patrol agents were told.
The Bush Administration does not want the truth getting in the way of the lies they tell.
"This is a bombshell," Tancredo said. "The White House and DHS leadership must immediately address the survey and the way the information request was handled so that the American people know that their government isn't playing politics with national security data.
"I have said all along that the president's immigration plan is amnesty, regardless of what the president calls it. We now have proof that illegal aliens understand that it's amnesty as well, and that it is an enticement to cross the border."
See my previous post "Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal".
Increasingly, King said, he hears from constituents concerned about stemming illegal immigration. The subject comes up in forums at civic centers, chats with spectators at the West Islip Memorial Day parade and in the pews of his parish church, he said.
"Last Sunday this woman turns to me and says, 'Glad to see you in church, congressman, but close our borders,'" said King, a six-term House member.
Likewise, Democrat Tim Bishop of Southampton attended town-hall meetings from Mastic to Kings Park to Selden, and discussions often developed about how immigration affects jobs, social services and the quality of the life in neighborhoods.
"It depends on where you go, but it's an issue that arises at virtually every town hall meeting I have, to varying levels of intensity," said Bishop, who was often on the receiving end of barbs about the federal government failing to address the issue.
This illustrates why the 2008 election is so important. George W. Bush will block many policy changes aimed at stopping the illegal alien influx. But a more restrictionist President in 2009 can count on a more restrictionst Congress to fashion legislation to stop and even reverse the illegal alien deluge.
Eunice Moscoso of the Atlanta Journal Constitution reports on signs that immigration is becoming a more important political issue.
Washington — As gay marriage was in 2004, immigration will be a driving social issue in the next presidential election, some conservatives predict.
In California and Colorado, they have started campaigns for referendums to crack down on illegal immigrants, and groups in other states are considering similar efforts. Some are buoyed by a successful state referendum in Arizona last year requiring immigrants to show proof of legal residence before voting or receiving state welfare services.
Immigration is also becoming an increasingly hot topic on radio and television talk shows as Congress considers various proposals, including one introduced last month by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would allow illegal immigrants to apply for temporary work visas.
The amnesty proposal of McCain and Kennedy shows just how contemptuous the elites are toward the masses. A widespread growing desire for a halt to the illegal influx elicits yet another amnesty just as Dubya's foolish immigration amnesty proposal managed to anger the Republican base. As more lower class people become upset by the effects of immigration I expect more Democrats such as Tim Bishop to feel increasing heat on immigration from portions of their base as well.
California State Assembly member Ray Haynes has announced a proposal to create a California Border Police agency to stop the illegal alien influx over the California border.
So why not enforce federal law? Why not set up a state agency that could enforce these laws throughout the state with trained police personnel in a comprehensive and uniform manner throughout the state? At the border. In the jails. At the street corners where everyone sees them standing every day soliciting under-the-table labor for the day. It is too easy. Why didn’t anyone think of it before?
Will it cost too much? It will cost about $200-300 million dollars, but it could save us $5 billion. That is worth the cost. Will it protect us? The public safety danger of not controlling our borders is obvious. The cost of doing nothing is too high. To do this, I have introduced ACA 20, which would establish the California Border Police agency. There is a simultaneous effort to place this idea on the ballot via the initiative process, which you can learn about at www.calborderpolice.com.
Haynes knows the 2/3rds Democrat California state legislature would never enact such a law. His real aim is to win enactment through the state popular initiative process. A victory for this intiative could be a pivotal event in the American immigration battle. A 2006 victory in heavily Hispanic California would be a very loud wake-up call for the entire nation and would generate enormous amounts of publicity. If California stopped illegal immigration over its border with Mexico this would demonstrate that the national government could certainly do the same over the entire border if only it chose to do so.
The creation of a California Border Police agency in 2007 would make immigration an even bigger issue in the 2008 election. Since repeated polls have shown that the majority of the American public favors a more restrictionist immigration policy elevation of immigration as a political issue works for the restrictionist side. The elites are only allowed to thwart the will of the masses because of apathy. Increased media attention mobilize opposition and the elites will be forced to shift to more restrictionist positions.
Froma Harrop of the Providence Journal-Bulletin makes a liberal argument for immigration restriction.
But this issue does not belong to the right. Or it shouldn't. Illegal immigration hurts most liberal causes. It depresses wages, crushes unions and kills all hope for universal health coverage. Progressives have to understand that there can be little social justice in an unregulated labor market.
“Liberals are so confused on this issue,” says Vernon Briggs, a labor economist at Cornell University and self-described liberal. “Immigration policy has got to be held accountable for its economic consequences.”
Many Democrats used to get it. In 1964, President Johnson abolished the Bracero program, which brought in “temporary” farm workers from Mexico. Its demise let Cesar Chavez organize U.S. farm workers. His union won some battles early on, but a new wave of illegal immigrants in the mid-1970s reversed that progress. The union barely exists today.
Harrop argues that if Hillary Clinton would take a consistent immigration restrictionist line that she could win the Presidency in 2008. Harrop sounds like she'd be very happy with that outcome.
Upper class liberals used to identify much more strongly with working class American interests. But a recent Pew poll showed that 58% of liberals favor a temporary worker permit program while only 36% oppose.. Two other major pillars of the Democratic Party's coaltion (at least as Pew categorize the people they polled) are "Disadvantaged Democrats" (in other words: blacks and Hispanics) and "Conservative Democrats" (in other words, the former heart of the party). The "Disadvantaged Democrats" heavily oppose temporary immigrant worker permits with 63% against to 30% in favor. This result makes sense. Poor lower class blacks are having their wages driven down and their jobs taken away by the huge illegal Hispanic influx. Their salaries and labor market participation rates are declining. The "Conservative Democrats" also understand that the illegal influx works in favor of upper class purchasers of labor and against the interests of the working class.
The Democratic Party's standpoint on immigration demonstrates that upper class liberals are in control of the party. If poor blacks and conservative Democrats had their say the party's immigration policy would be different. Some of those conservative Democrats are swing voters. They'd vote for a Republican who appealed to their interests. If immigration restrictionist Tom Tancredo wins the Republican nomination in 2008 I bet he's get more black and conservative Democrat votes than George W. Bush did.
Jerry Seper reports yet another reason why the Bush Administration is worthy of contempt.
U.S. Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section of the Arizona border where protesters patrolled last month because an increase in apprehensions there would prove the effectiveness of Minuteman volunteers, The Washington Times has learned.
More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration.
"It was clear to everyone here what was being said and why," said one veteran agent. "The apprehensions were not to increase after the Minuteman volunteers left. It was as simple as that."
I have a suggestion for the Border Patrol agents: Wear hidden microphones and even hidden video cameras and record your bosses giving you such politically calculated orders. Then send the recordings to some TV cable networks. I'm sure Lou Dobbs would love to get this sort of material on CNN and Bill O'Reilly would use it on Fox. The technology exists for doing that sort of thing.
A Newsmax article draws attention to Hillary Clinton's Senate Website where Senator Clinton has a message that calls into question the sincerity of Hillary's earlier tough statements on immigration (more here). Let us take a look at what Hillary is now saying about the "Real ID" legislation and about tightening of asylum requirements.
I'm also deeply concerned that on an emergency supplemental to fund our troops and provide disaster relief for areas devastated by the tsunami we are being asked to vote on the so-called "Real ID" legislation. Its supporters say it is supposed to make our country safer, but how do we know that? We haven't had any committee hearings or any debate about it in the Senate. I had previously joined with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, on her amendment to prevent immigration proposals from being thrown needlessly into the emergency supplemental, and I am outraged that the Republican leadership in both the House and Senate decided to ignore this reasonable request and put this seriously flawed act into a bill to fund our troops. Emergency legislation designed to provide our troops with the resources they need to fight terrorism on the front lines is not the place for broad, sweeping immigration reform.
I am in total agreement with those who argue that we need to address our immigration challenges and we must also recognize that we are still not doing what we should to fulfill the demands of homeland security. And these issues do go hand-in-hand. If we can't secure our borders, we can't secure our homeland. We need a much tougher, much smarter look at these issues. Instead, we're faced with a piece of legislation, passed by the House, jammed into an emergency supplemental bill and my Republican colleagues are going to claim that we've made America safer. Well, that's a false claim.
But physical border security is just one layer of homeland security. We also need better enforcement of immigration laws in the interior. The "Real ID" legislation begins to address that need. Keep in mind that some of the 9/11 attackers had fake IDs that they'd purchased off of Hispanic ID traffickers in Falls Church Virginia. Fake IDs, real IDs granted to people without legal rights to be in the United States, and real IDs granted to people using false identities all need to be made more difficult to obtain and to use.
Hillary is opposed to tougher asylum eligibility rules.
We must continue our American tradition of welcoming immigrants who follow the rules and are trying to build a better life for their families. That's why I am so troubled by the changes in immigration, environmental and privacy laws included in this bill. I also worry about the consequences likely to occur because of changes in the asylum rules in the Real ID Act. I'm proud of the fact that our country has historically welcomed asylum seekers and refugees. Utica, New York is one of the most welcoming places for refugees in the entire country. But, under these new rules, we'll see whether America remains a welcoming place for those who seek refuge from persecution and violence.
The original changes in the asylum eligibility rules were watered down due to lobbying by the Southern Baptist Convention and other religious groups who favor more asylum immigration. Given that literally billions of people live under governments that are in some ways discriminating against believers of particular religions I think the idea that someone some should be eligible to immigrate to the US due to religious persecution is nuts. If every eligible person could come we'd have billions more living here.
I see oppposition to tougher asylum rules as a bad sign in any American politician. Many asylum immigrants are really motivated by the desire for higher living standards. In Britain the asylum problem has gotten so bad that in the recent British election Michael Howard and the Conservatives proposed withdrawing from the UN Refugee Convention so that Britain could adopt much tougher rules for handling asylum applicants.
A Conservative government would set an upper limit on the total number of immigrants and asylum seekers allowed into Britain each year of between 10,000 and 20,000. It would withdraw from the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention and adopt an Australian-style "points system" for deciding who should be allowed in.
Asylum applications would no longer be processed in the UK – instead, they would be assessed in British-run centres near the claimants' countries of origin. There would be 24-hour security at all British ports, and the assumption that foreigners who work legally in Britain for more than four years would have an automatic right to settle here would be reversed.
Part of the problem lies in the 1951 Geneva Convention on the status of Refugees. This, of course, applies to all European countries but its application has been widened by the decisions of British judges. They have, for example, recognised persecution by non state agents - unlike their colleagues in France and Germany. Accordingly, they have granted asylum to homosexuals from Jamaica on the grounds that they would face persecution from their fellow citizens. And, in the Shah case (1999) the Law Lords ruled that women in Pakistan could constitute a persecuted "particular social group" who were entitled to asylum because they were subject to discrimination and inferior status in Pakistan. (There are approximately 65 million women in Pakistan). Furthermore, the Convention itself forbids imposing any penalty on "genuine refugees" who have no documents. This is being exploited by asylum seekers are who are instructed by people traffickers to destroy their documents so as to make their removal more difficult. The Home Office have stated that 80-90% of asylum seekers are found to be without documents. Other difficulties flow from the fact that the document is an International Convention rather than a national law and, is therefore, much vaguer in its drafting.
In September 2004 the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled to award a Chinese woman asylum in the United States because she feared sterilization in China as a result of her violating China's 1 child policy.
In the opinion, Judges Diane P. Wood and Ann Williams, two of the three judges who decided the case, made it clear they weren't finding that every woman of child-bearing age in China automatically would be entitled to asylum because of its coercive family-planning policies.
But Judge Terence Evans wrote, "I think, as a practical matter, we are either doing, or coming close to doing, just that."
Evans went on to say that "the floodgates are probably open."
Dan Stein sees the obvious problem with this ruling.
"We couldn't let everyone [in China] who wants to have 10 kids come here," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that favors tightening immigration restrictions. "No country can sustain an asylum policy that tries to remedy broad social problems."
In March 2005 the nutty left wing 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that forcibly sterilized people in China have a right to asylum in the United States.
Men whose wives were forcibly sterilised under China's coercive population control policies are entitled to political asylum in the US, the federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled.
The ruling could greatly increase the number of people able to stay in the US because of persecution under China's population policies.
"Involuntary sterilisation irrevocably strips persons of one of the important liberties we possess as humans: our reproductive freedom," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote on behalf of the panel of three.
"Therefore, one who has suffered involuntary sterilisation, either directly or because of the sterilisation of a spouse, is entitled [without having to prove anything else, to refuge in this country]."
That is a huge door to open. Suppose you are a fairly callous and amoral Chinese man who wants to come to America. What to do? Get married, have a kid, then get your wife knocked up again. When the Chinese government sterilizes your wife then apply for asylum in the United States.
Heck, a Chinese man and his wife who both happen to want only one child could have the child and then keep starting pregnancies until the Chinese government sterilizes her. Then they both could immigrate to the United States and get asylum.
The United States needs to cancel any treaty memberships that are an obstacle to cutting back on asylum eligibility and asylum eligibility rules should be made much tougher.
Michael Howard is kicking himself that he backed away from a big push on immigration in the final days of the election campaign - a decision which Tories believe may have cost them at least 10 extra seats in parliament.
As the Conservatives embark on a fresh round of soul searching, Mr Howard believes he could have finished off Tony Blair because a further 10 Tory MPs would have cut Labour's majority to below 50, dealing a fatal blow to the prime minister.
Mr Howard, who focused strongly on immigration in the early part of his campaign, abandoned plans to return to the charged issue in the final days because he wanted to present an upbeat message of what he would do as prime minister.
Michael Howard is now the lame duck leader of the Conservatives, having signalled he will step down once a replacement is chosen.
John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde, in Scotland, agreed that the Tories had failed to emerge from their electoral ‘black hole’, but said that immigration had been the ‘one and only popular tune’ which seemed to appeal to voters.
“They lost despite their immigration policy, not because of it,” he said.
If the Republican Presidential candidate loses in 2008 it won't be because he strongly supports border control and expulsion of illegal immigrants.
The Conservative Party in Britain was not able to run against the incumbernt Labour Party on the unpopular Iraq war because the Consevatives supported it as well. However, the Tories made large inroads by campaigning against immigration.
Blair's Labour Party was returned to power with a drastically reduced majority of an estimated 68 seats, down from 160 as the war in Iraq had a telling impact on voters.
Its forecast 36 per cent of the vote was the smallest winning share in modern history.
Labour MP Margaret Beckett said she had "a horrid feeling immigration helped the Conservatives".
Note the winning margin in their Parliamentary system. 64% of the British population voted against the winners.
The main opposition Conservative Party, which ran a pared-down, sharply focused campaign that emphasized law-and-order issues such as restricting immigration and adding police officers, would gain 30 to 44 seats, according to the projections. The third-party Liberal Democrats, the only major party that opposed the war, would gain five to 15.
In addition to a boost from voters turning against Tony Blair, Conservative canvassers were reporting that the use of the immigration issue had increased support among former Labour working-class voters, despite the widespread criticism that the tactic drew during the campaign.
The Conservatives propose an annual quota for immigrants and want to withdraw from the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention, which obliges countries to take in asylum seekers based on need.
Most asylum claims are motivated by the desire to move to a wealthier country and make more money.
"Sometimes I think the authorities are too soft," said Dalbir Deol Singh, a Sikh voter in the Ilford North constituency now held by the governing Labour Party. Although he's voting for Labour, he says his children will vote for the Conservatives "because they feel too many immigrants means trouble for all of us."
A substantial minority of Hispanics in America also want less immigration. British Prime Minister Tony Blair had to respond to the Conservatives on immigration during the campaign by proposing tougher policies on immigration and political asylum.
Blair is also promising a tougher stand on immigration. One of his campaign slogans is "Your country's borders protected," and he has vowed to recruit 600 more border guards.
Taking a position in favor of immigration restriction against asylum seekers has worked very well for the ruling right-wing Liberal Party in Australia. British sentiment is building against immigration and the same is happening in the United States. Politicians in both countries are becoming less afraid to openly voice immigration restrictionist positions. Expect to see the immigration debate to play a much bigger role in the US election in 2008.
Although President Bush has criticized the group as vigilantes, Schwarzenegger said, "They've done a terrific job. And they have cut down the crossing of illegal immigrants by a huge percentage.''
Schwarzenegger, appearing on the conservative Los Angeles KFI radio's "John and Ken'' talk show, was asked his views of the Minutemen, who are using armed volunteers along the border in Arizona. The governor endorsed the effort, saying, "It just shows that it works.''
"Our federal government is not doing their job," Schwarzenegger said. "It's a shame that the private citizen has to go in there and start patrolling our borders."
Schwarzenegger, speaking to the afternoon drive-time "The John & Ken Show" on KFI-AM, also called on KRCA-TV to take down its new billboards.
The billboards, which Schwarzenegger called "extremely divisive," identify the station's market as "Los Angeles, Mexico." About 75 are going up around Southern California.
"I think the big mistake is that it promotes illegal aliens to come in here. And it's the last thing that we need," the governor said. "They should take it down immediately."
Arnie didn't move to California from Austria to become a Mexican.
Go check out a picture of one of the billboards. I think the billboards are great because a lot of people will see those billboards and realize that we need to slam on the brakes on immigration and deport the illegals. The pro Open Borders crowd needs public apathy to win. These billboards will tend to make people less apathetic and more angry.
U.S. Rep. Bob Filner, a Democrat who represents the district where the wall is located, is against the Border Patrol's plans. California's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has expressed misgivings. But Hunter, Ed Royce and Randy Cunningham, three Republican congressmen from neighboring San Diego districts, are pushing legislation that would allow the Border Patrol to override the Coastal Commission's objections. It's part of a package of border security measures known as "Real ID," because it also contains provisions that would require states to produce counterfeit-proof driver's licenses.
President Bush says he'll sign the bill, even though it has become a rallying point for people opposed to his guest-worker plan.
"I didn't particularly want to come to Washington and talk about the border," said Hedgecock, who for 10 years has participated in the anti-immigration radio blitz dubbed "Hold Their Feet to the Fire." "But the fact is that the listeners were absolutely adamant that we do this."
The radio hosts, from California, Texas, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Arkansas, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Ohio and Washington state, aired their shows live from a Holiday Inn meeting room just steps from the U.S. Capitol.
Not only did the sheer number of hosts, 17, and their fans, 400, illustrate how immigration concerns have spread beyond border cities, it also underscored how radio hosts have evolved from opinionated entertainers to political activists whose familiar voices can galvanize growing numbers of people to their causes.
Populist anger over immigration will continue to build. I expect to see larger scale volunteer efforts to patrol the border, more radio talk show hosts shifting toward a restrictionist position, and quite possibly Tom Tancredo elected President in 2008. Tancredo will have the most motivated base of supporters of any possible Republican candidate in 2008. 2009 could be the year when immigration policy undergoes the biggest change since the 1920s.
While Senator Larry Craig (R Idaho) is trying to get the AgJobs illegal immigrant amnesty attached to the Iraq spending appropriations bill Senator Dianne Feinstein (D California) is opposing Craig on AgJobs.
When word spread that such additions might be in the wind, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, authored a non-binding resolution that no such measures be added. It passed 61-38. But almost immediately after that resolution passed, the immigration provisions began to be offered. More of the same is expected today.
Feinstein was particularly upset at the notion that AgJobs could be considered now.
"This is going to be a huge magnet" for illegal immigrants, Feinstein warned her colleagues during an impassioned floor speech. "Mark my words."
Opposition to the proposal is not limited to the GOP. One of Craig's harshest critics on the Senate floor was Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California, who said the program offered "nirvana" to Mexican workers who might be contemplating crossing the border illegally to seek work in the United States.
If they can make it across the border and work 100 hours on a farm, Feinstein said, they could hope to qualify for permanent residency for themselves and their immediate families.
"This is a bill of enormous dimensions," she said. "This could be the largest immigration program in history. It could bring millions of people into this country — workers, their children, their spouses."
Dingbat Senator Barbara Boxer (also D California), never one to flinch from embracing bad ideas, opposed Feinstein on the AgJobs amendment.
"This will open up a long and complicated debate on the floor of the Senate," Feinstein said of the diverse immigration provisions under consideration. "We should not do that." Feinstein's Democratic colleague, California Sen. Barbara Boxer, opposed her on the effort to keep immigration measures off of the Iraq bill. Even though the resolution passed, moreover, senators quickly proceeded to parade their own immigration priorities into public.
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D Maryland) offered a separate amendment to increase the number of H2B visas so that crab seafood processors and tourist businesses in Maryland could get cheap immigrant labor.
Mikulski in February introduced a bill to do the same thing, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005. Businesses pleaded for the relief after the H2B cap was reached on Jan. 3, leaving many industries, particularly those that needed workers in the late spring and summer, short the number of workers they need.
Industries cannot put in requests for H2B workers until 120 days before the start of their season, which puts summer businesses like seafood processors at a disadvantage.
"H2Bs are a problem," said Chris Foster, deputy secretary of the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development. "When they reach the cap, they shut down. . . . That's a significant impact predominantly on the Eastern Shore."
Foster said with the "very, very seasonal economy" on the Eastern Shore, the unemployment rate can range from 4 percent to 10 percent during the year, but during the summer months it's at zero, and there is a worker shortage.
But if immigrants are not allowed to do the work businesses could respond by raising offered salaries as a way to attract Americans who could move to the area to work in the summer time. The use of migrant labor is done because it is cheaper. Should keeping down the price of labor be the main goal or even a major goal of immigration policy? No! What is wrong with American workers earning higher salaries? And whatever happened to the Democratic Party as supposed defenders of the working men and women of this country? Mikulski clearly represents the interests of business owners at the expense of the larger working and taxpaying public.
For several years now, Sen. Larry Craig has teamed up with Sen. Ted Kennedy to relentlessly push the AgJobs bill (the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act, currently S. 359), which would grant amnesty to most illegal alien farmworkers, and their families (plus admit many, many more through a harmful “temporary” worker program). Estimates are that as many as three million illegals could take advantage of this amnesty.
Sen. Craig has said he intends to offer his amnesty as an amendment when the military spending bill is considered next week on the Senate floor. His hope is that if his amnesty is added to the Senate version of the bill it will be too difficult for pro-borders Republicans in the House to kill it when the two bodies meet to reconcile the different versions of the bill.
AgJobs lets illegals who work in agriculture to get amnesty. Of course you can bet that just about every illegal in the country would come forth claiming to have worked under the table in some tomato field for a few weeks (which is all that is required to get the amnesty - at least in the 2004 version of the bill).
Western Growers Association President Tom Nassif spoke with Peter Jennings last week on ABC World News Tonight to voice his support for the "AgJOBS bill," which would give legal status to some U.S. farmworkers.
Congress may be becoming more sensitive to and worried about anti-immigration sentiment. I noticed in articles about the AgJobs bill that the number of co-sponsors in the Senate are a lot lower than they were last year. Frank Gaffney thinks that many previous cosponsors of AgJobs will still be willing to vote for it this year.
Interestingly, Messrs. Craig and Kennedy have significantly fewer co-sponsors (43) on their legislation this year than in the last session of Congress (62). At this writing, it is unclear if many of those senators who no longer want to be publicly associated with this amnesty bill will nonetheless vote for it.
In fact, AgJobs had 63 Senate cosponsors in 2004 and 115 House cosponsors. Note that while in the Senate almost two thirds of the 100 members were cosponsors. But with 435 members in the House of Representatives the AgJobs consponsors in the House last year were slightly more than a third of the total membership.
Republican Party activists who want more restrictive immigration laws and real enforcement of immigration laws need to start requiring Congressional candidates to pass a litmus test on immigration.
William Gheen of the American for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (AILPAC) has an article in VDare reporting on a purge of immigration restrictionist advocates from the Frree Republic web site discussion forums.
Members and readers of Free Republic would be surprised to know that many members of their community have fallen silent on the discussions about illegal immigration lately because free speech is an illusion on FreeRepublic.com. They are silent because they have been banned from the Web site without warning, cause, or explanation in most cases. For weeks the moderators have been suspending and banning new members that chimed in quickly on the immigration debates.[Cache of ALIPAC posts, banned]
Now this trend has broadened as the first groups of long-term users were suspended or banned this past week. Although Robinson and his staff removed many members of the Free Republic community in the first few days of the purge, those that religiously support President Bush's immigration plan, open borders and approve of public benefits for illegal aliens remain on the forum. Those that were banned were the members that wanted more done to control illegal immigration and a strict observance to the President's Oath of Office.
By taking sides with the open borders lobby, Jim Robinson has taken a position that is at odds with more than 80 percent of the Free Republic community and the majority of conservatives in America. The fact he is using tactics his own users would find unethical to censor articles and silence opposition with banishments and intimidation is of great concern to all of us as Americans. New members of Free Republic and those that are not aware of Robinson's covert attempts to stifle debate should be warned.
Robinson predictably calls the restrictionists all sorts of the standard nasty names.
In an update Gheen reports that conservative Fox TV News political talk show host Sean Hannity has a dim view of the Free Republic.
Robinson’s biggest mistake, besides implying he was fighting to keep Free Republic safe from secret Nazi conspiracies, was to show that the points of the original article were true for all to see. He banned true conservatives left and right in a vain attempt to control the debate while calling people names without any evidence his character attacks were true. He shot himself in the foot while that foot was placed deeply in his own mouth.
Robinson later admitted he had no direct evidence that any of the groups and individuals he banned and maligned were racists. He even admitted that he supported the President’s guest worker plan and ran a new poll that shows Freeper conservatives are clearly opposed to the Bush immigration plan. In this case it is Mr. Robinson that represents the fringe element and has supported unsubstantiated personal attacks on his forum.
Even Sean Hannity has written off Free Republic, saying "Everyone I knew basically left because of so much childish immature personal attacks, the propensity there to eat their own." [Listen to Sean Hannity’s Statement about Free Republic. ]
There is perhaps irony in Hannity's reaction because the claim has been made that Hannity's own discussion board censors posters who oppose Bush's illegal alien immigration plan. Parenthetically, there is a reason why criticism of Bush's plan has to be censored: It is really bad. See my previous post "Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal" to read about just how bad that proposal really is.
I used to think that Robinson was simply an egotistical fool. Now, with the revelation of Bush White House subsidies to media supporters, I naturally wonder if more is involved.
My take on Jim Robinson's move is that it is seriously backfiring. He has scaled up his on-going purges to a level that has made them too visible and he's chosen to do this on an issue which elicits strongly held views and where he's far out of sync with the views of the majority of the people on the political right. Free Republic is going to become a shadow of its former self in terms of influence. So many members will be banned or leave on their own accord that Free Republic's hey days are likely behind it. Other sites that host uncensored (except for spam) conservative political debate forums are going to receive a fair number of new members as former Freepers look for new places to go. If enough sites of that sort do not already exist they can be created fairly easily and cheaply. If you know of any conservative or otherwise right-wing general political discussion forum sites (as distinct from blog sites that allow comments) which do not censor immigration restrictionist add links to them in the comments. Gheen has a list of threads in various sites that are discussing the Freeper purge. AILPAC has its own discussion forums including a section devoted to threads on the Freeper purge.
Robinson's purge is backfiring most strongly in the debate about immigration. His purge fits into a larger pattern of elite disdain for popular opinion and the purge serves to draw attention to the extent of the elite disdain of popular opinion on immigration and of the extreme measures which many in the Open Borders lobby will adopt in their attempt to shut out popular views.
US Senator John Cornun (R-TX) thinks George W. Bush's proposal for a massive worker permit program for illegal aliens is too strict because it requires illegals to go back to their country of origin before applying to return with a work permit. Cornyn wants to simply convert illegals already in the United States into legal temporary workers.
Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, also said he thinks new temporary workers from overseas must return home after their work visa ends, but he is skeptical about how successful it would be to have illegal aliens return home before applying for the program in the first place.
"A program that told people you'd have to leave to go apply for it would be viewed as sufficiently punitive that people would say, 'Look, I'll just take my chances under the status quo,' which to me is not good," Mr. Cornyn told The Washington Times in a recent interview in his office in the Senate Hart Office Building.
Now, it can be argued that he did not explicitly say the illegals should be able to apply for legal work permits while still in the United States. But he does not like the requirement to make them go home and he likes the work permit program idea. So his preferred solution is obvious: let them stay and just become legal workers.
If illegal aliens can not be expected to return home to apply for a work visa then why is it reasonable to expect that they would voluntarily return home when their work visa expired? Also, my guess is that many illegals who are already here working will just choose to stay here working illegally rather than identify themselves to authorities by applying for a work visa that might not be granted. After all, if an illegal has been here for many years already he or she probably thinks the odds of getting caught are pretty low. There is a big disincentive for illegals to become temporary workers: the application for a temporary worker permit effectively identifies and tags them to the government and starts a clock running where they will be expected to leave either if their work permit application is rejected or when their work permit expires. Why should long term illegal aliens - or those who have the ambition to be long term illegal aliens - give up the potential to live and work here many more years by applying for a work permit?
There are many reasons why Bush's illegal alien worker permit program will have many harmful effects and will not stop the flow of illegal aliens into the United States. See my previous post "Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal" for lists of arguments on various aspects of Bush's proposal.
In his January 2005 State Of The Union message George W. Bush made it clear that he still favors his massive alien worker permit program.
"It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists," Mr. Bush said.
The door can't be closed to terrorists without making illegal entry into the country extremely difficult for everyone. But Bush is not pushing to make all illegal entry much more difficult. So Bush is not really pushing to make illegal entry by terrorists much more difficult.
But the plan still faces serious obstacles, including strong opposition from a group of about 70 House conservatives led by Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who has called it a "pig with lipstick."
Mark Krikorian doesn't think George W. Bush is being rational in formulating his immigration policies.
Mark Krikorian, president of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group favoring tighter immigration laws, says most guest workers will not want to return to their home countries.
A guest worker plan "assumes that we can use the labor of people and then get rid of them. No guest worker program has ever succeeded in doing that anywhere in the world," he said.
"The president is emotionally committed to open immigration," he said. "He is projecting his feelings for his gardener and his cook to all immigrants."
Yes, Bush's immigration policies are seem irrational (at least if we expect immigration policy to be formulated from the standpoint of US national interests). Though he may be pursuing rather narrow family interests by promoting the political future of his half-Mexican nephew George P. Bush. But even George P. Bush can't hope to pull in many Hispanic votes unless he switches his allegiance to the Democratic Party.
Cornyn and other Senators who favor either a worker permit program or even a more overt amnesty want to take the Real ID Act recently passed by the US House of Representatives and add the Real ID Act to a larger immigration bill that would create a work permit system.
Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary immigration subcommittee, said he is working with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to determine how to address the Sensenbrenner bill.
"I have always believed that we need to take a comprehensive look at immigration," said Cornyn, who supports the driver's license elements of the House bill.
The measure also mandates completion of a border fence near San Diego that has been held up amid environmental concerns.
So the immigration political fight of 2005 is shaping up as a fight between a US Senate that overall favors turning millions of illegal aliens into legalized workers in a worker permit system and a US House of Representatives whose Republican majority is opposed to worker permit proposals and who favor cracking down on illegals via a number of means including tougher laws for getting drivers licenses and tougher immigration law enforcement.
As the immigration debate develops in 2005 keep in mind the arguments I have in my post "Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal" for why the Bush proposal will not stop the flow of illegal aliens over the border and why it will not convert many of the currently illegal into legal status. The main effect of the Bush bill will be to create conditions for even larger influxes of illegals as more people come and work here and establish ties and accumulate resources here that will help them return illegally when their worker permits expire and to bring in family members illegally.
Asked whether he will move forward this year with his immigration-reform plan which critics say amounts to amnesty for an estimated 8 million illegal aliens in the United States Mr. Bush said: "Yes. Yes, I will." And asked where his proposal ranks in a second-term agenda already overflowing with big-ticket issues from reforming Social Security to overhauling the U.S. tax code, he said: "I think it's high. I think it's a big issue."
President Bush's lackluster job-approval rating will make it harder to push through his second-term tax and Social Security reforms, and could undermine House conservatives' uphill battle against runaway spending, some lawmakers say.
Mr. Bush's job rating dipped below 50 percent in a new Associated Press poll and registered 52 percent in a Gallup poll last week. That is well below what re-elected presidents in the past have scored before being sworn in for their second terms.
Unless Al Qaeda manage to pull off another big terrorist attack in the US I do not see how Bush can recover in popularity at all. Events in Iraq are going to continue to hurt how he is seen by the American populace. The huge federal budget deficit effectively prevents him from using increased spending to try to appeal to many sectors of the American populace. If an Al Qaeda attack takes place in America then even though Bush's popularity would soar (human nature being what it is) the public would also become far more fearful of foreigners and would want to see policy changes aimed at preventing illegal aliens from entering the United States. So I do not see how Bush can get into a strong position for pushing his incredibly bad immigration proposal.
Bush has already committed to a very large effort to push his Social Security privatization effort through Congress. I hope that effort will absorb so much political capital that he won't have any left over to push through his potentially very harmful immigration initiative. Bush's second fiscal policy priority after Social Security is tax reform. Will he have much political capital left over after dealing with those two?
In fact, Bush may wound his party badly with his Social Security plan. Newt Gingrich sees Bush's Social Security plan as potentially disastrous for the House Republicans.
Outside Congress, several party activists are sounding similar alarms after word spread last week that Bush is planning to reduce future benefits as part of the restructuring. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) is warning that Republicans could lose their 10-year House majority if the White House follows through with that proposal.
Bush may so frighten the House Republicans that they might dig their feet in against his policies across a large range of issues. On immigration Bush might make common cause with a mix of some Republicans and some Democrats while stiffening a substantial portion of the Republican House members over immigration. But will any Democrats be willing to sign on in support of Bush's immigration initiative? It is not the sort of amnesty that generates Democrat voters right away. So the Democrats might hold out for their preferred form of amnesty that puts millions of future Democrats on the fast track to US citizenship and voting rights.
See my previous post Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal for lists of points to keep in mind about why Bush's proposal will make America's immigration problems worse, not better.
Jewish Agency officials hailed as a positive first step media reports Saturday that Germany will stop offering unlimited immigration and generous social benefits to Jews from the former Soviet Union. According to the German media, starting in January 2006 only FSU Jews who are under the age of 45 and familiar with the German language will be eligible to immigrate.
Oh the irony.
In June, a small group of Temecula-based Border Patrol agents set off a panic among immigrants by beginning to patrol and arrest people in cities far north of the border, including Corona and Ontario.
The next month, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking information about whether the Border Patrol was acting lawfully.
Imagine, if you will, a country that has decayed so far into barbarism that bank robberies are no longer investigated and prosecuted. Then imagine some lower level federal bureaucrats taking it upon themselves to round up some bank robbers and try to stop the robberies. Then imagine some supposed civil rights organization moving to oppose real law enforcement. Absurd, right?
The ACLU has ceased to be an organization that works to protect constitutional rights and became just another left-liberal political activist organization. By this action the ACLU shows that it simply is opposed to immmigration law enforcement. This form of opposition to immigration law enforcement is, in essence, a claim that the government does not have the moral legitimacy to enforce immigration law. I want the government to protect me from illegal immigration and I want the ACLU to stop acting to deny me that protection.
Steve says if the flow of illegal immigrants who drive down wages at the bottom is cut off then the resulting rise in wages at the bottom will cause more Hispanics to decide they can afford to not vote for the Democrats.
The simplest model of white, Hispanic, and black voting behavior is that voters (at least those who are less than well-to-do and are family-oriented) are on average torn between the Democrats' tax-and-spend policies and the Republicans' family values stances. The poorest ethnic group of voters, blacks, feels they can't afford to waste their vote on semi-symbolic family values issues when they need direct help on bread-and-butter issues. In contrast, the wealthiest ethnic group of voters, whites, can afford to vote for Republicans—both because some are so wealthy that GOP policies like eliminating the inheritance tax are in their self-interest; and because, for the majority, they can afford to vote for family values.
Hispanic voters fall in the middle. Hispanics, overall, are quite poor. But those who are citizens and regular voters tend to be a little better off than blacks, and somewhat more upwardly mobile. They are tempted by the GOP's family values rhetoric. But a large majority feel their pocketbooks demand they vote Democratic.
This suggests that Hispanics are most likely to become Republican voters when, on average, they aren't so poor. The most straightforward way to raise Hispanic average incomes is to stop taking in so many extremely poor Hispanics from south of the border.
Rather than try to cater to Hispanics already in the US by letting in more of the same instead stop the flow in order to stop the growth of the lower class.
This argument really builds on Steve's previous argument that higher levels of inequality are found in the states that the Democratic Party dominates.
Little noticed at the time (certainly I had no idea!) back in February 2003 Hillary Clinton came out firmly against illegal immigration.
Saying that she is strongly opposed to "illegal immigrants," New York Sen. Hillary Clinton announced Tuesday that she would support a national identification card for U.S. citizens if other measures to keep illegals out of the country failed."I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants," Clinton told WABC Radio's John Gambling. Then, a few moments later, the Democratic Party presidential frontrunner added, "We might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens."
Clinton said she would support a national ID card as part of an overall effort to improve the U.S.'s national security.
"Clearly we have to make some tough decisions as a country," the top Democrat warned. "And one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry and exit system so that if we're going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let's have a system that keeps track of them."
..."People have to stop employing illegal immigrants," she told WABC. "I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau Counties, stand in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx (and) you're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work. You know, this is not a problem that the people coming into the country are solely responsible for. They wouldn't be coming if we didn't put them to work."
"I don't think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better," Clinton told Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren.
To enhance border security, Clinton explained, "there's technology now available. There are some advanced radar systems. There are biometric and other kinds of identification systems that we've been very slow to deploy and unwilling to spend money on."
In December 2001, for instance, Clinton urged Canadian offiicals to "crack down on some of these false documents and illegals getting in."
Think about the electoral calculus for her position. She'd gain people on the Right and in the middle who are frustrated about illegal aliens. She might lose some Hispanic votes but she'd gain other Hispanics who do not want illegals coming in competing with them for jobs. So her Hispanic losses may be pretty small and her gains among white males (who are far more numerous) and even white females unhappy about the current immigrant influx could potentially be very large. If our choice in 2008 is pro-illegals Jeb Bush versus anti-illegals Hillary Clinton then I predict Hillary will win.
P.S.: If Hillary's attacked by Hispanic groups for these sentiments so much the better for her! Her husband had an unformed, fuzzy image when he ran--he could show his heartening anti-liberal streak by dissing an out-of-line rap singer. Hillary, in contrast, has a hard, fixed liberal image--and probably needs to crack it with a high profile, revelatory fight against someone or something on the left more powerful than Sister Souljah. How about LULAC?
Hillary, as presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party's Presidential candidate in 2008, has put Republican Presidential aspirants in 2008 in a difficult position. The Republicans have gotten away with defying their base on immigration because their base had nowhere else to go. Well, Hillary just said "come on over". A lot of elections are won by very small margins. Hillary's position has made the standard national Republican waffle on immigration harder to sustain. In the run-up to the 2008 election national Republicans are going to be under greater pressure to take harder line positions against illegal immigration.
The claim that George W. Bush nationally won 44% of the Hispanic vote is based on an absolutely huge and unbelievable 59% of Hispanics voting for Bush. Blue/Red voting results by county for 2000 and 2004 show few shifts in Texas. For the Hispanic vote for Bush in Texas to have gone up so much the white vote for Bush would had to have gone down.
The exit poll claims Bush's share of Texas Hispanics leapt from 43 percent to a staggering 59 percent. (My recollection is that this Texas figure was originally something like 52 percent, but in the rejiggering, it was inflated to an unlikely 59 percent in the final numbers.) Texas is what's driving this 44 percent national figure.
This is particularly odd because you would think such a shocking improvement with an important bloc in Texas would lead to a much better overall performance by Bush in his home state. Yet, Bush's growth in his share of the total vote in Texas was only 1.9 percentage points, below his national average of 3.1. The exit poll tries to explain this by claiming that—while Bush's share of the white vote grew by four points nationally—in Texas it shrank by 1 point, which seems odd, to say the least.
If 59% of Texas Hispanics supported Bush, then Bush should have carried just about every county in the state. But most of the heavily Hispanic Rio Grande Valley remained firmly in Kerry's grasp. Of the 15 Texas counties lost by Bush, 13 had Hispanic populations of 75.0% to 94.3%. The other two were Travis County (Austin), a college and government town, and Jefferson County in the East, which is 32% black.
The Hispanic vote in Texas also would have to be almost twice the 32% of California Hispanics that voted for Bush according to exit polling in California. Why would that be the case? How could national polls before the election have Kerry having about a 2-to-1 advantage with Hispanics and then in a short period of time have half that advantage disappear?
The Rove/Bush strategy did not make any remarkable gains with Hispanics in other states. In the rest of the country Bush may not have surpassed Reagan's 1984 share of the Hispanic vote (reported in some places to have been 35%). The Hispanics are going to remain overwhelmingly Democrats and white people are going to continue to shift from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. Eventually America will become politically much more divided based on race. A drastic reduction in the current immigration rate could reduce the depth of that growing split.
Update: Michelle Malkin covers the Hispanic vote question and links to a Mike Tolson piece in the Houston Chronicle on measuring Hispanic voting behavior.
The institute, essentially a wing of the San Antonio-based Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, found itself at odds with the numbers put out by the main national exit poll in the previous two national elections. The problem, Gonzalez said, lies in the way the poll goes about collecting them.
"Network and media surveys are not designed to measure Latinos," Gonzalez said. "They are designed to measure the general market. The Latinos are not suburban. We're the most urban electorate in America. There are not lots of rural or suburban Latinos anywhere. What you get when you have a general market survey is one that shows more Latinos who are Republican."
Steve Sailer points to an extremely reprehensible attempt by the National Republican Congressional Committee to restrict the freedom of speech of radio talk show hosts.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has filed a seven-page complaint letter with the Federal Elections Commission alleging the hosts of a popular talk radio show have illegally colluded with a Democratic candidate for Congress to oust Rep. David Dreier from office.
According to the complaint, John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou, hosts of the afternoon John and Ken Show'' on KFI, have made unlawful campaign contributions by making repeated on-air appeals for listeners to reject Dreier and elect Cynthia Matthews on Nov. 2.
Then there is the hypocrisy of this move.
Dreier was a top adviser for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in his campaign to replace Davis and appeared on the John and Ken Show several times to promote the recall effort. Now that the tables have been turned and an influential Republican is under attack, the Republican Party wants to pull the plug, Kobylt said.
"He's basically complaining that we're picking on him and supporting his opponent," said John Kobylt, who hosts the show with Ken Champiou.
Mr. Dreier, who received a D+ from the Americans for Better Immigration, was targeted for defeat by listeners of the show in August. By taking down a Republican congressman, Mr. Kobylt and Mr. Champiou say they hope to jolt the party into cracking down on the flood of illegal aliens crossing the border from Mexico.
I think the "Fire Dreier" campaign is a great example of populist anger where non-politicians organize their own campaigns to push issues outside of the restricted range of acceptable discourse maintained by the political parties.
John and Ken are motivated by opposition to current immigration policy. They are targetting a Democrat and a Republican in the House of Representatives for defeat based on their immigration voting records.
Congressmen David Dreier (Rep.) and Joe Baca (Dem.) are the choices to be Politically Sacrificed. KFI listeners are encouraged to tell everyone to vote these two hacks out of office. If you want to see their immigration report card and voting records click here. If you missed any of the past interviews, you can listen to them in our Audio Archives section of the website, here.
Aside: While you might think the FreeRepublic web site would be all about preserving freedom some of the FreeRepublic posters do not even see the right to freedom of speech as at stake in this affair. Would the Freepers be more eager to defend John and Ken if John and Ken were only targetting Democrats and the National Democratic Congressional Committee filed a complaint against John and Ken and ClearChannel?
Also, will John McCain stay consistent with his position that political speech needs to be regulated by the government and side with Dreier? This'd be a two-fer for McCain. He can oppose free political speech and support a Republican at the same time.
Also, will Republican or Democratic Party Supreme Court nominees be more likely to side in favor of freedom of speech of radio talk show hosts and to peel back the free speech restrictions in campaign finance law?
As a result of Illegal Immigration, since 2000, 28 emergency rooms in California have closed, including six in Los Angeles County just this year. The report was issued as the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 Tuesday to tentatively approve closing the trauma center at the problem-plagued Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center. They might not be the emergency rooms in your area but it is only a matter of time. Every time an emergency room closes that adds extra burden to the next closest emergency room. This effect is inevitable. Will it take one of your children being in an accident and needing one of these facilities and finding that it has been closed before you see the seriousness of these trauma centers closing?
More than 65 ERs have closed statewide in the past decade and 28 since 1999. Los Angeles County has seen the number of trauma centers, where the most seriously injured can receive critical care around the clock, dwindle from 23 to 13 in two decades, and another one is set to close by year’s end. In addition, six ERs in the county will have shut in 2004 alone.
If we deported the millions of illegal aliens in Southern California the emergency ward closures could probably be halted and perhaps even reversed.
Update II: It is not just the emergency rooms that are closing. Whole hospitals in LA are closing because they can not afford to serve so many uninsured patients (mostly illegals and children of illegals).
Santa Teresita Hospital, Century City Hospital, Community Hospital of Gardena and Elaster Community Hospital all closed this year because of a lack of finances to serve uninsured clients.
Do you live in an area that is starting to see a surge of illegal immigration? Look forward to losing some of your hospitals.
Are you in favor of stopping the influx of illegal aliens into the country? Want to cut out low skilled immigration? Want tough enforcement of immigration laws? If you are a Kerry supporter living in a solid Bush state (a so-called "Red" state) then write in Congressman Tom Tancredo (R CO) for the Presidential ballot. If you are a Bush supporter in a solid Kerry state (a so-called "Blue" state) then, again, write in Tom Tancredo.
Note that I'm not proposing anything that will "waste" your vote in a way that will change the outcome of the election in a way that you disfavor. If you live in a state which is very heavily leaning in a way against your wishes your vote isn't going to change that. But if you are in that category you could use your ballot to send a symbolic message.
My own view is that Bush and Kerry are both so bad in their own ways that it is hard to strongly support either of them. It is hard to tell which will be worse because there are too many factors that will determine what they can manage to do. Perhaps a Republican Congress will prevent Kerry from doing too much damage. Maybe the continuation of the Iraqi Debacle will cause great public opposition to Bush that it will prevent Bush from getting into more misadventures abroad. I'm not sure. Still, you may see things differently and yet still agree with that immigration policy is badly broken and that it is time to stop the illegal alien influx.
If you live in a state that is heavily leaning against your Presidential preference then you really lose nothing by using your ballot to make a protest vote.
For example, suppose you are for Bush but you live in Calfornia. Well, Bush has a snowball's chance in hell of winning California (or Illinois or New York for that matter). A Bush supporter who votes for Bush in California will have no effect on the outcome of the election. So I have a suggestion: write in Tom Tancredo on the ballot. A large count of people writing in Tancredo will be noticed. National politicians need to learn that there are voters out there who want a Presidential candidate who is an immigration restrictionist.
The same advice holds a Kerry supporter in Texas, most of the plains state, Georgia, Alabama or other Bush strongholds. If you are an immigration restrictionist and Kerry supporter and you live in a "Red" state then your vote for Kerry has no chance of helping to close a small margin in the Texas state vote. The Texas, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, and Oklahoma electoral college votes are going for Bush. You can bet on it.
So where is your state in the polls for Kerry versus Bush? Noah Millman has his own guesses on how the states will go for the electoral college. Also, check out the Rasmussen electoral college predictions by state. If you want to be sure you are not going to waste your vote check out the RealClearPolitics electoral college chart that shows whether each state is leaning or solid for each candidate. Check out where the Presidential candidates stand in the polls in this election. Any immigration restrictionist who is living in a "Solid" state who is opposed to the candidate who is "Solid" in that state ought to use their vote to file a protest. Why not?
Update: If writing in a candidate's name does not appeal then consider voting for Constitution Party candidate and immigration restrictionist Michael Peroutka. Read about Peroutka on immigration. Peroutka is on the ballot in 37 states. But I can not find a list of which states those are. If anyone has a source for such a list please post it in the comments.
Also, surprisingly, while Ralph Nader is not an immigration restrictionist to the extent that Michael Peroutka is Nader wants to cut back on illegal immigration. (more here) However, Nader sends some pretty mixed messages with support for what sounds like a big Mexican work permit guest worker program. Also, see this map for whether Nader is on the ballot in your state.
MICHAEL HOWARD: We will start by cracking down hard on illegal immigration.
LISA MILLAR: If he manages to defy the opinion polls and oust Tony Blair's Labour Government, Michael Howard says he will pull the UK out of the international convention on refugees, set an annual upper limit for immigration and shake up the work permit system.
The bulk of the claims for political refugee status are pretty bogus. Most of the world is poorly ruled. Most of the world is poor. The bulk of the poor people who want to escape poverty, corrupt cops, and lawlessness are not suffering from persecution aimed specifically at them. They just happen to live in societies that are failures when compared to Western societies. If they are eligible for asylumn then so are a few billion other people. But letting them all in is crazy. Britain's rate of asylum immigration has grown literally by orders of magnitude in the last couple of decades and could grow by orders of magnitude more unless the government cracks down and puts a stop to it.
The anti-immigration position of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and its significant gains in elections have put pressure on the UK Conservative Party to accommodate the demands of its base for a crack-down on immigration.
Tory strategists also believe that immigration is a key issue for many voters who deserted the party for the UK Independence Party in the European elections in June and whom the Conservatives must win back before the next general election.
Robert Kilroy-Silk, a UKIP member of the European Parliament, said Mr Howard had "plagiarised" one of his speeches earlier this month when he called for immigration to be capped at 100,000 people each year and pledged to withdraw from the UN convention.
"He is actually parroting virtually what I said," Mr Kilroy-Silk told Radio Four. "He has got to steal UKIP’s clothes because we are stealing their votes."
There is a lesson here for the United States: A third party focused on immigration and the National Question could potentially force the two major US parties to shift their positions on immigration in a restrictionist direction.
Well, it has been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Though one can doubt whether Michael Howard sincerely likes his own newly adopted policy position on immigration.
For his part, Home Secretary David Blunkett last year nailed his colours to the mast when he declared he saw "no obvious upper limit to legal [economic] immigration".
The British now have the luxury of choosing between 5 parties with three for differing levels of immigration restriction (Tories, UKIP, BNP), one trying to have it both ways (Labour), and fifth (Lib-Dems) probably in favor of continued high levels of immigration. Whereas Americans have a choice between two parties whose top leaders compete with each other for the honor of helping an influx of illiterate peasants ruin the country.
Party conservatives are angry that the GOP's influential platform committee, which decides the party's principles and priorities, is endorsing President Bush's plan to create a nationwide temporary foreign worker program. That program, which the president outlined in January, would legalize the country's 8 million to 10 million illegal immigrants.
I have previously summed many reasons why Bush's immigration temporary work permit and stealth amnesty program would be a disaster. See my post Thinking About Bush's Less Than Half-Baked Worker Permit Proposal.
Having received a great deal of criticism for that proposal Bush is trying to implement it covertly by rule changes that make it easier for Mexicans to stay in the US for longer periods of time. Bush is also undermining immigration law enforcement in other areas as well.
A longtime party operative confided that, in his view, "Nothing will sap turnout by our voters like amnesty. It's the complaint I hear most from our folks." Another platform delegate used an obscenity to refer to the immigration plank.
Richard Lessner, Executive Director of the American Conservative Union, says the Bush Administration inserted Bush's immigration amnesty into the Republican Party platform in the face of grass roots anger.
You have to give the Bush political operation credit: they badly outflanked the party conservatives. By the time delegates gathered here in New York for the platform committee work, the game was already over. The Bush operation made certain that the committee, selected by state parties, was packed with loyalists. Any chance of a conservative uprising over the platform was DOA. The most controversial plank in the draft platform was on immigration, specifically President Bush's proposal for a guest worker program for illegal aliens, a plan that also would put those who entered America unlawfully on the path to U.S. citizenship. This idea is wildly unpopular with grassroots Republicans and the Bush people know it. So the fix was in. Any effort by the handful of conservatives on the rubber-stamp platform committee to amend or delete the offending plank on immigration were trumped by a series of strong-arm tactics and procedural maneuverings.
Lessner also draws attention to Bush's crushing of attempts to oppose big government conservatism.
While there is much in the platform to please conservatives, there is also plenty to infuriate. Just eight years after the GOP platform called for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education, the 2004 platform boasts, ï¿½President Bush and Congressional Republicans have provided the largest increase in federal education funding in history and the highest percentage gain since the 1960s [only a last-minute amendment deleted a reference to LBJ at this point] . . . Support for elementary and secondary education has had the largest increase in any single Presidential term since the 1960s ï¿½ an increase of nearly 50 percent since 2001.ï¿½
A Texas delegate, introducing an amendment to delete this mind-boggling big government boast, said it sounded like something out of the Democratic Platform rather than anything identifiably Republican. The amendment was overwhelmingly crushed.
"Why can't we get a list of the platform committee members?" asked Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum and a veteran conservative who led the efforts to revise the platform planks on immigration, stem cell research and other issues. "What is the big secret? They not only don't want them talking to me, they don't want them talking to each other."
"Why did drafting this political manifesto resemble the Manhattan Project developing the atomic bomb?" the conservative commentator Robert Novak asked in a column published yesterday. "The process fits the Bush White House's authoritarian aura that has tempered enthusiasm within the party on the eve of its national convention."
Bush is big on secrecy, and not only in areas related to national security. So this is pretty typical of what the Bushies do.
But there are other significant shifts in the Republican platform compared with four years ago.
Gone is the call of 2000 for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Recession, the Bush tax cuts, and the cost of the war contributed to a record-high budget deficit.
My take on all this is that nothing less than Bush's defeat for reelection will put an end to the leftward drift of the Republican Party's leadership on immigration, government spending, racial preferences, and a great many other subjects. Bush is very obviously working to implement policies that will undermine the Republican Party's base and one of his motives may be dynastic family succession. Bush needs to lose for the good of the party. Only his defeat will set off a debate within the party on which direction it should be heading on immgration, the National Question, foreign policy, and the growth of government.
The 2004 convention is taking place in New York, only 80 miles away from the last one, but in a different universe. All Americans have been forced to pass through the portal marked by Sept. 11. As you look out at the delegates to this year's G.O.P. gathering, remember that these folks have fallen down a chute, and they have no idea where it lets out. When they nominated George Bush in 2000, they had no idea that Mr. Small Acts of Compassion was going to be transformed into Mr. Epic War Against Evil. They had no idea they were nominating a guy who was going to embark on a generational challenge to transform the Middle East. They had no idea they were nominating a guy who would create a huge new cabinet department for homeland security, who would not try to cut even a single government agency, who would be the first president in a generation to create a new entitlement program, the prescription drug benefit, projected to cost $534 billion over the next 10 years. They had no idea that a Republican-led government would spend federal dollars with an alacrity that Clinton never dreamed of, would create large deficits, would significantly increase the federal role in education, would increase farm subsidies, would pass campaign-finance reform and would temporarily impose tariffs on steel.
There used to be a spirit of solidarity binding all the embattled members of the conservative movement. But with conservatism ascendant, that spirit has eroded. Should Bush lose, it will be like a pack of wolves that suddenly turns on itself. The civil war over the future of the party will be ruthless and bloody. The foreign-policy realists will battle the democracy-promoting Reaganites. The immigrant-bashing nativists will battle the free marketeers. The tax-cutting growth wing will battle the fiscally prudent deficit hawks. The social conservatives will war with the social moderates, the biotech skeptics with the biotech enthusiasts, the K Street corporatists with the tariff-loving populists, the civil libertarians with the security-minded Ashcroftians. In short, the Republican Party is unstable.
Brooks' essay is quite long. Toward the end he lays out what he sees as a set of policies around which a new and more stable coalition could be built. One of his planks which I support is more government funding of energy research. Also, he calls for reform of rules for teaching credentials so that more people with relevant skills can teach. An even better reform would be the uncoupling of who lectures from who tests so that people can watch video lectures and then be tested by a credentialed institution to show that one has achieved some level of proficiency in some subject. The cost of lectures could be greatly reduced by eliminating much of the redundancy that comes from thousands of professors teaching basically the same material years after year. Let people learn by watching video lectures in their own time at their own convenience for a small fraction of the cost of live lectures.
George P. Bush is George W. Bush's nephew and son of Florida governor Jeb Bush and his Mexican wife. George P. Bush doesn't want illegal aliens of his race shot by chile powder projectiles.
"If there has been American approval for this policy, that is reprehensible," Bush said of the guns, essentially paintball projectiles filled with chile powder. "It's kind of barbarous."
Speaking in sometimes halting Spanish mixed with English, he said his uncle was not blame for the gun policy, which has angered Mexicans; instead, he blamed it on "some local INS (Immigration) guy who's trying to be tough, act macho."
The pellet guns, which were approved at the federal level, have been used on a trial basis since 2001 in California and Arizona. Border Patrol agents fired the pepper balls in 81 instances from 2002 to 2003 and reported no deaths or severe injuries
George P. Bush has been saying some reprehensible things for years.
Dubya has loudly proclaimed that his close ties to Mexican-Americans shows that he is a new kind of Republican.
Confirming this, his nephew George P. Bush told reporters, "Our biggest challenge will be to separate my uncle from the rest of the Republican Party."
This, then, could be why George W. has spent so much effort promoting a wedge issue that can only split his own party. He thinks the long-run fate of his dynasty demands a new, improved Republican Party —and a new, debased America.
Some right-wingers say I shouldn't be so critical of George W. Bush. But read what George P. Bush says above. George P. Bush wants me to let W. escape from any feeling of obligation toward immigration restrictionists. My guess is that W. has already done that without my help. P. wants W. to act as if W. does not represent us. W. is already doing that. Well, okay then. I accept this as a done deal already.
"This is a President who represents the diversity of our society, who we can count on to change the Republican Party to represent our views,"
"She told me we have to fight for our race, we have to find the leaders who represent us," he said in fluent Spanish.
P. Bush wants the Republican Party to fight for Hispanics. I'm guessing he wants to do that at the expense of whites. Well, I'm white. I think he wants to change the Republican Party at my expense. Am I mistaken? I also agree with Steve Sailer's analysis that W. is pursuing a wedge issue in his own party by promoting Mexican immigration in order to promote the political futures of his brother Jeb and nephew George P. Well, the Republican Party would be better off without the Bushes. They've caused enough damage as it is. Be gone with them.
Valerie Richardson has a report on Republicans who are turning against Bush due to his position on immigration.
The anti-Bush Republicans didn't switch allegiances immediately. Terry Anderson, a conservative Los Angeles radio talk-show host who focuses on immigration issues, said frustration with the party's acceptance of the status quo — in which hundreds of thousands of illegals enter the country each year — has only recently reached the boiling point.
"At first, when I started to, you might say, bash Bush, and say how sorry I was that he was doing this, I got a lot of flak for it. People were saying, 'Well, he's still a good man, he's just getting bad advice from [adviser] Karl Rove,' " said Mr. Anderson, whose KRLA-AM talk show is syndicated in eight markets.
"Then the calls and e-mails started to change, and people were saying, 'Maybe you're right,' " he said. "Now I hear from Republicans all day long who are totally against him. These are staunch, hard-core conservative Republicans who do not like him [Bush] anymore."
Bush has given up promoting his less than half-baked worker permit and amnesty plan because he wants to get reelected. But he is probably going to take up promoting it if he gets reelected. Unless he completely shifts his position on immigration and comes out for closing the Mexican border with a barrier there is no reason to trust him on immigration. This is beginning to sink through the Republican ranks. Bush doesn't realize yet just how far he'd have to shift on immigration to win back his base. At the same time, his current position on immigration is doing nothing to help Bush with Hispanics. Bush would benefit from shifting to a restrictionist position. But I do not expect him to make such a huge shift in his position.
Count me in the ranks of those who are going to vote for a third party candidate as a protest vote. I do not believe that protest votes are wasted. Political parties must periodically be made to understand that they can't take their base for granted. In the longer run the Republican Party will be better off if Bush loses. Immigration will be one of the issues that his loss will be blamed on. We will get double bonus points as the neoconservatives (who, it bears repeating, are not really conservatives) will lose considerable influence as well. The bulk of the neocons are in favor of continued high levels of low skilled immigration anyway. So damage to their standing in the Republican Party will damage the pro-immigration coalition in the party as well.
Some neocons know that they are being hurt by their faction's position on immigration. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy comes to mind. Though it is hard to tell whether Gaffney opposes high levels of immigration or just opposes the Bush Administration's alienation of its base over immigration. My guess is that Gaffney is not a restrictionist. But he sees immigration policy as something less important than the use of a Republican Administration to pursue neocon foreign policy goals. So he'd sacrifice neocon preferences on immigration in order to be able to have the power to implement neocon foreign policy.
Update: Over on the Claremont Institute's Remedy web log Ken Masugi argues Bush may be able to win back his disgruntled ex-supporters by trumpeting the importance of court appointees.
They are not taking anything for granted, and the campaign will camp out in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Significant conservative defections (on issues ranging from tariffs to spending to failure to veto to, worst of all, immigration) may be won back by mere mention of the courts (unmentioned, as far as I can recall, by the Boston Democrats). Will the same number or more people vote for him in 2004, in the right states, than in 2000?
Note that Masugi recognizes the scale of the damage done by Bush's immigration position. I'd also add Bush's Iraq fiasco along with the Bush Administration position on the University of Michigan racial preferences cases. Bush's placement of the winning of Hispanic votes ahead of principle led even George Will to criticise Bush's embrace of group rights. Well Ken, for myself the argument about court appointees is just not going to fly. First of all, the demographic future of the US is more important than the courts in the long run. Republicans in Congress will be very reluctant to vote for a new amnesty if Bush goes down in defeat this fall. Also, I'm betting that Bush in a second term will appoint a Hispanic who favors racial preferences to the US Supreme Court. A leading candidate is Bush White House lawyer Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales rewrote and gutted Solicitor General Theodore Olson's Supreme Court brief in the University of Michigan cases. Bush may appoint Gonzales to the Supreme Court if reelected.
The decline in Hispanic support for the president can be seen in the trend on Bush approval. In June 2001, Hispanics and whites expressed the same level of approval for Bush's performance. In the next two years as well, there was little difference between the two groups in their support for Bush. But the most recent survey finds a 27-point drop in Hispanic approval compared with June 2003, from 67% to 40%, at the same time that approval among whites declined only 8 points (69% to 61%).
Leading beltway neoconservatives take note: If you want to continue to elect hawkish Republican Presidents who will eagerly attack your favorite targets you are going to have to switch your positions on immigration. Either the Hispanics see less interest in seeing their kids fighting in the Middle East than white folks do or Hispanics also have been thinking about the consequences to them from Bush's less than half-baked worker permit proposal.
Update: A poll shows Hispanics favor John Kerry to George W. Bush 2 to 1 (PDF format). The national Republican Party's attempt to move less to bid for Hispanic and old folks votes is backfiring. It is angering and alienating the nationalists and fiscal conservatives. This move is also doing serious damage to the health of the republic. Bush deserves to lose. The Republicans would do less damage if they were the opposition party in charge of part or all of Congress.