GOP, You Are Warned

AEI ^ | 29 dec 04 | David Frum

[white trash redneck]

No issue, not one, threatens to do more damage to the Republican coalition than immigration. There's no issue where the beliefs and interests of the party rank-and-file diverge more radically from the beliefs and interests of the party's leaders. Immigration for Republicans in 2005 is what crime was for Democrats in 1965 or abortion in 1975: a vulnerable point at which a strong-minded opponent could drive a wedge that would shatter the GOP.

President Bush won reelection because he won 10 million more votes in 2004 than he did in 2000. Who were these people? According to Ruy Teixeira--a shrewd Democratic analyst of voting trends--Bush scored his largest proportional gains among white voters who didn't complete college, especially women. These voters rallied to the president for two principal reasons: because they respected him as a man who lived by their treasured values of work, family, honesty, and faith; and because they trusted him to keep the country safe.

Yet Bush is already signaling that he intends to revive the amnesty/guestworker immigration plan he introduced a year ago--and hastily dropped after it ignited a firestorm of opposition. This plan dangerously divides the Republican party and affronts crucial segments of the Republican vote.

The plan is not usually described as an "amnesty" because it does not immediately legalize illegal workers in this country. Instead, it offers illegals a three-year temporary work permit. But this temporary permit would be indefinitely renewable and would allow illegals a route to permanent residency, so it is reasonably predictable that almost all of those illegals who obtain the permit will end up settling permanently in the United States. The plan also recreates the guestworker program of the 1950s--allowing employers who cannot find labor at the wages they wish to pay to advertise for workers outside the country. Those workers would likewise begin with a theoretically temporary status; but they too would probably end up settling permanently.

This is a remarkably relaxed approach to a serious border-security and labor-market problem. Employers who use illegal labor have systematically distorted the American labor market by reducing wages and evading taxes in violation of the rules that others follow. The president's plans ratify this gaming of the system and encourage more of it. It invites entry by an ever-expanding number of low-skilled workers, threatening the livelihoods of low-skilled Americans--the very same ones who turned out for the president in November.

National Review has historically favored greater restrictions on legal as well as illegal immigration. But you don't have to travel all the way down the NR highway to be troubled by the prospect of huge increases in immigration, with the greatest increases likely to occur among the least skilled.

The president's permissive approach has emboldened senators and mayors (such as New York's Michael Bloomberg) to oppose almost all enforcement actions against illegals. In September 2003, for example, Bloomberg signed an executive order forbidding New York police to share information on immigration offenses with the Immigration Service, except when the illegal broke some other law or was suspected of terrorist activity. And only last month, a House-Senate conference stripped from the intelligence-overhaul bill almost all the border-security measures recommended by the 9/11 commission.

The president's coalition is already fracturing from the tension between his approach to immigration and that favored by voters across the country. Sixty-seven House Republicans--almost one-third of the caucus--voted against the final version of the intelligence overhaul. And I can testify firsthand to the unpopularity of the amnesty/guestworker idea: I was on the conservative talk-radio circuit promoting a book when the president's plan was first proposed last January. Everywhere I went, the phones lit up with calls from outraged listeners who wanted to talk about little else. Every host I asked agreed: They had not seen such a sudden, spontaneous, and unanimous explosion of wrath from their callers in years.

Five years ago, Candidate George W. Bush founded his approach to immigration issues on a powerful and important insight: The illegal-immigration problem cannot be solved by the United States alone. Two-thirds of the estimated 9 million illegals in the U.S. are from Mexico. Mexico is also the largest source of legal immigration to the United States. What caused this vast migration? Between 1940 and 1970, the population of Mexico more than doubled, from 20 million to 54 million. In those years, there was almost no migration to the United States from Mexico at all. Since 1970, however, some 65 million more Mexicans have been born--and about 20 million of them have migrated northward, with most of that migration occurring after 1980.

Obviously, the 30 years from 1940 to 1970 are different in many ways from the 30 years after 1970s. But here's one factor that surely contributed to the Mexican exodus: In the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, the Mexican economy grew at an average rate of almost 7 percent a year. Thanks to the oil boom, the Mexican economy continued to grow rapidly through the troubled 1970s. But since 1980, Mexico has averaged barely 2 percent growth. The average Mexican was actually poorer in 1998 than he had been in 1981. You'd move too if that happened to you.

Recognizing the connection between Mexican prosperity and American border security, the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations all worked hard to promote Mexican growth. The Reagan and Clinton administrations bailed out Mexican banks in 1982 and 1995; the first Bush administration negotiated, and Clinton passed, NAFTA. George W. Bush came to office in 2001 envisioning another round of market opening with the newly elected government of his friend Vicente Fox, this time focusing on Mexico's protected, obsolete, economically wasteful, and environmentally backward energy industry.

Bush's hopes have been bitterly disappointed. The Fox government has actually done less to restore Mexican growth than the PRI governments of the 1990s. And so Bush has been pushed away from his grand vision and has instead accepted Fox's demand that the two countries concentrate on one issue: raising the status of Mexican illegals in the United States. But this won't work. Just as the U.S. cannot solve the problem by unilateral policing, so it also cannot solve it through unilateral concession. Bush had it right the first time.

Some of the president's approach to immigration remains right and wise. He is right to show a welcoming face to Hispanics legally resident in the United States. He is right to try to smooth the way to citizenship for legal permanent residents. He is right--more controversially--to give all who have contributed to Social Security, whatever their legal status, access to benefits from the Social Security account.

But he is wrong, terribly wrong, to subordinate border security to his desire for an amnesty deal--and still more wrong to make amnesty the centerpiece of his immigration strategy.

Right now, of course, the president does not have to worry much about political competition on the immigration issue. But Republicans shouldn't count on their opponents' ignoring such an opportunity election after election. "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants," Hillary Clinton told a New York radio station in November. And later: "People have to stop employing illegal immigrants. I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work." Okay, so maybe Hillary will never pick up many votes in Red State America. But there are Democratic politicians who could.

Republicans need a new and better approach--one that holds their constituency together and puts security first.

First, Republicans should develop and practice a new way of speaking about immigration, one that makes clear that enforcement of the immigration laws is not anti-immigrant or anti-Mexican: It is anti-bad employer. Illegal immigration is like any other illegal business practice: a way for unscrupulous people to exploit others to gain an advantage over their law-abiding competitors.

Second, Republicans can no longer deny the truth underscored by the 9/11 commission: Immigration policy is part of homeland-security policy. Non-enforcement of the immigration laws is non-protection of Americans against those who would do them harm.

Third, Republicans have to begin taking enforcement seriously. It's ridiculous and demoralizing to toss aside cabinet nominees like Linda Chavez over alleged immigration violations while winking at massive law-breaking by private industry--or to regard immigration violations as so trivial that they can be used as a face-saving excuse for the dismissal of a nominee damaged by other allegations.

Fourth, skills shortages in the high-technology and health-care industries are genuine problems that have to be addressed--but they should not be used as an excuse to void immigration enforcement. Republicans can say yes to using immigration law to attract global talent, while saying no to companies that systematically violate immigration law to gain an advantage over their more scrupulous rivals.

Fifth, Mexico should not be allowed to sever the migration issue from trade and investment issues. Mexican political stability is a vital national-security issue of the United States--and just for that reason, Americans should not allow Mexican governments to use migration as a way to shirk the work of economic and social reform.

Finally--and most important--Republicans need to recognize that they have a political vulnerability and must take action to protect themselves. An election victory as big as 2004 can look inevitable in retrospect. But it wasn't, not at all. The Democrats could have won--and could still win in 2006 and 2008--by taking better advantage of Republican mistakes and making fewer of their own. And no mistake offers them a greater opportunity than the one-sidedness of the Bush immigration policy. The GOP is a party dedicated to national security, conservative social values, and free-market economics. The president's policy on immigration risks making it look instead like an employers' lobby group. That's the weak point at which the edge of the wedge could enter--and some smart Democratic politician is sharpening it right now.

[Fatalis]

The criminal act is not the taking of a job. The criminal act is the gross violation of America's sovereign border.

Both are violatrions of the law. An illegal would need to break at least these two laws to qualify for the President's proposed guest worker amnesty.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Are you using hyperbole for the sake of making your point? You'd actually vote for her?

Do you really believe she would ever do a damn thing to curb the tide of people her husband swore in by the tens of thousands, in stadium swear-ins, outside of which were voter- registration booths operated by Democrats.

Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing. This is precisely what I have alerted against in all my Hillary-warning replies and to which I was poohed-poohed as her never having a chance at winning.

She is a Marxist. She loathes America and her ideals and values as much as her husband loathed the military. She, as her husband, is expert at saying whatever she needs to say in order to gain votes.

She will do nothing about illegal immigration because the illegal immigrants form part of the power base of her Marxist agenda.

[oldbrowser]

Exactly right. I may actually vote for Hillary IF she actually does something to stop illegal immigration


Hillary is not going to do anything about illegal immigration,
these are illegal democratic voters. What she will do is talk
about it to see how many voters she can split off from the Republicans. Even is she just causes turmoil and makes a few mad enough to not vote it will make a difference.

[dennisw]

Workplace verification is now available with just an 800 call in all 50 States. House Rules Chair David Dreier has introduced HR 5111 which will make the program mandatory.

It is worthless until it's mandatory and accompanied with prosecution for those who break this law. With Dreier sponsoring it it will die. He is not an opponent of illegal immigration plus I'm convinced that California Ag businesses are large contributers to his campaigns funds

[Fatalis]

If Hillary successfully exploits the "immigration issue", it will be because there are people who normally vote GOP who think of Mexicans as inevitably Democrat voters, don't like Mexicans, don't like their culture, don't like their social conservatism, are appalled that we now receive 45% of the ENTIRE Hispanic vote (which means a probable majority of Mexicans already given the hevily Democratic allegiance of Puerto Ricans) and the fact that many who regard themselves as conservatives are very favorable toward welfare state programs so long as those programs are only for people like themselves.

You're applying the race baiting bit thickly this close to the New Year.

If Hillary successfully exploits the weakness President Bush threatens to bring to the GOP if he is able to legalize any illegal aliens, it will be because a few per cent of swing voters, who aren't lockstep Republicans, flipped their votes her way.

[Flux Capacitor]

----And that leaves out the battle between Giuliani cultural liberals and cultural conservatives that will cripple the 2008 GOP nomination fight.----

Very true -- that's a big problem looming on the horizon. What could mitigate it, ironically, is Hillary herself. She's as hated among Republicans as Bush is among Democrats, and that could get Republicans to put aside their differences and unite around a single candidate early, as Democrats did around Kerry this year. They made a poor choice, of course, and that's the key: the Republican candidate must be an exciting, inspiring figure who will motivate the swing voters to turn out for him or her, because they will not turn out against Hillary.

And even all of this does not take into account Hillary's likely attempt to set up a third-party candidate to siphon Republican votes. Hell, it's how her husband won. Which brings us back to immigration: Unless the GOP acts on this, it is looking at a very possible Perot-style split over the issue that would hand the election to the Hildebeast.

2008 will be a nail-biter.

-Dan

[Fruitbat]

Exactly right. I may actually vote for Hillary IF she actually does something to stop illegal immigration as opposed to merely rhetorically opposing it. Our President and our party's next nominee are on notice. How they treat law-abiding Americans will determine my vote in the next four years.

This is one of the most assinine statements I've heard. And what makes you think that simply b/c she says she's gonna do something about it, that she will? She won't! It's all lipservice! Have you learned nothing from the Clintoons!

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

A good article, most of which rings true. But these two points:

“He is right to try to smooth the way to citizenship for legal permanent residents. He is right--more controversially--to give all who have contributed to Social Security, whatever their legal status, access to benefits from the Social Security account.”

….

“Third, Republicans have to begin taking enforcement seriously.”

contradict one another. Not only is it unfair to all those who go through the long legal maze toward becoming citizens to grant de facto citizenship to those who bucked the system, it would set all of those illegals given amnesty down the wrong road of assuming that if they don’t play by the rules, eventually the rules will be changed to how they play.

And please, everyone, let’s not mince words, it is amnesty plain and simple. The entire text Reagan’s ‘amnesty’ never once used the term ‘amnesty’ but that’s what it effected.

“Fourth, skills shortages in the high-technology and health-care industries are genuine problems that have to be addressed--but they should not be used as an excuse to void immigration enforcement. Republicans can say yes to using immigration law to attract global talent, while saying no to companies that systematically violate immigration law to gain an advantage over their more scrupulous rivals.”

This point can also be hotly contested. Whether there is a genuine shortage of such skill or whether management in our country doesn't want to pay the going rate to those in our country who have the skill is not a point to be granted by either side. We need a lot more data before accepting that this is the case. For example, if there is a shortage, is it because college students who may choose a career that in that shortage area see those jobs going to offshore workers at a salary they cannot live comfortably on?

Before admitting or refuting this point of Frum’s, it should be agreed by both sides that immigration to shore up a weakness of technical skill should only be permissible after we determine that those US citizens who are available and able are being utilized, thus lowering our overall unemployment rate and controlling immigration.

[Fatalis]

It is worthless until it's mandatory and accompanied with prosecution for those who break this law. With Dreier sponsoring it it will die. He is not an opponent of illegal immigration plus I'm convinced that California Ag businesses are large contributers to his campaigns funds

The current 50 State voluntary program was expanded from a five State pilot program by legislation President Bush signed in 2003. Consider it a grace period, during which employers have the opportunity to verify the eligibility of their work force and remove illegals without a huge disruption to their businesses. I'm optimistic that because Dreier is GOP establishment and has recently been seen as soft on illegal aliens his legislation will be more likely pass.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

As I said 8 months ago, she is a serious threat. She knows how to play this card. If Kerry got the percentage he got, Hillary stands a good chance of winning. Part of the motto that will bring a lot of votes to her side will be, "Isn't it about time elect a woman president?" I'd predict she could take 1-2 points just from people who want to cross that threshold.

[Sam the Sham]

But who would that be ? Not McCain. Not Giuliani. Not Schwarzenegger. Where are the exciting, rising leaders on the cultural right ?

Or are you assuming that cultural conservatives would hold their noses and vote for McCain ? I think many cultural conservatives would rather see Hillary win than let the Rockefeller Republicans back in control of the GOP.

[BlackElk]

Any "Republican" who will vote for Her Satanic Majesty to thwart immigration (no less) can and will be replaced.

[dennisw]

You definitely don't want anything that can be done over the internet. Probably your best bet would be something accessible via modem, using a secure, encrypted client and server architecture.

Let the big guys handle it in Washington DC headquarters. Big guys would be a credit card company as you suggest.

Then let the small guys get a piece of the action in the states with each state having ten private contractors who will securely hook into Wash DC and relay the results to employers

I'd put up a fight over using the government for this, however. Existing credit agencies could provide a primer for private businesses to handle this.

The Feds are sure to screw up such a computerized operation. It's imperative to farm it out to private business.

With massive fines in place and a huge number of employers looking for a reliable way to make sure they're not going to get slammed for hiring illegals, a whole new market for employee work rights verification could be created overnight.

Fines have to be large enough to deter employing illegal aliens so you can't get a leg up on your competition

[txdoda]

Workplace verification is now available with just an 800 call in all 50 States. House Rules Chair David Dreier has introduced HR 5111 which will make the program mandatory.

Should of been mandatory from the get-go.....

Whens the last time the 'critters' passed a new law for citizens to *voluntarily* abide by ???

[JustAnotherSavage]

"Where are the exciting, rising leaders on the cultural right ? "

Here's one, who the MSM seems to hate since they refuse to ever give him any coverage:
www.inhofe.senate.gov



INHOFE SAYS INTELLIGENCE REFORM BILL OVERLOOKS MAJOR ISSUES

Wednesday, December 8, 2004

WASHINGTON--U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) today voted against the final passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (S.2845), which was eventually approved by the Senate (89-2).

"Today I joined the majority of our Oklahoma delegation in voting against the final passage of this bill," Inhofe said. "While there where many provisions I agreed with, unfortunately there were also glaring omissions that where impossible to overlook and caused me to oppose final passage.

"Stripped from the final version of this bill were five provisions that I felt were absolutely imperative to include in this reform package. Once you pass a bill, you lose your leverage to get those things that were controversial back in the bill. I do not have any doubt that the Speaker would bring this up at the beginning of the next Congress, but I have serious doubts that once passed in the House that those five areas that I have outlined would be corrected in the Senate. "Many people would be outraged to know that there is a 3.5 mile gap in our fence line with Mexico that exists solely to preserve the environment of five birds that are protected by the Endangered Species Act. The provision in the bill to patch this hole was removed because apparently repairing our border will disturb these five animals."

Senator Inhofe also expressed dismay that the following provisions were removed from the original version of this legislation:

* Electronic Confirmation by State DMVs of the Validity of Other States' Driver's Licenses and Driver Information.

* Anti-Trafficking Provision that Adds to the Existing Criminal Code Regarding the Sale of ID Counterfeiting Technology and Information.
* A Requirement for Proof of Lawful Presence in the United States.
* Temporary Driver's License requirements that State Visas and similar Documents Should Expire on the Same Date as Temporary Licenses.
* Restriction on a State's Ability to Accept Foreign Documents like the Matricula for Driver's Licenses.

[LS]

Bill didn't have a chance. He never got 50% of the vote.

But I would LOVE for the Dems to run Hillary, because that would be the coup de grace for a sick party.

[LS]

There are not 40% nationally who "love" Hillary as a candidate. Don't confuse NY politics with the U.S. Every survey finds STRONG hostility to her running for president. EVERY ONE.

[Fatalis]

Any "Republican" who will vote for Her Satanic Majesty to thwart immigration (no less) can and will be replaced.

With what, a snap of the fingers?

David Frum, the author of the article at the top of the thread, is a former speechwriter for President Bush and wrote The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush.

He's warning of the threat Bush's illegal alien policy poses to the GOP with good reason: it's very unpopular and pisses people off.

[Fatalis]

There are not 40% nationally who "love" Hillary as a candidate. Don't confuse NY politics with the U.S. Every survey finds STRONG hostility to her running for president. EVERY ONE.

Post one that shows the strong hostility at more than 40%.

[dennisw]

Should of been mandatory from the get-go.....

I'm pretty sure workplace verification was part of the Ronald Reagan 1986 amnesty but was never implemented so it would work in the real world with an SS# database. IOW employers can legally go through the charade of verifing phony work documents. There is no penalty for doing so.