Posted on 01/18/2007 9:13:50 AM PST by WatchingInAmazement
As the immigration debate resumes on Capitol Hill, Americans will hear everyone's voice _ except theirs.
Labor unions, big business, chambers of commerce, university think tanks, religious organizations, social-service agencies, La Raza _ all support liberalized immigration policies, including amnesty. The only "debate" is over how many illegals get a pass to citizenship and how fast.
Democrats promise to pass a "comprehensive" (i.e., generous) package that will be even more wide open than the one approved by the Senate last session.
If lawmakers make good on their pledge, the Heritage Foundation figures that 67 million more foreigners will enter the United States in the next 20 years. That surge surely excites multiculturalists and capitalists eager for an endless flow of cheap labor.
But Americans have a different desire.
In opinion poll after opinion poll, U.S. citizens say they want less immigration, not more. They want existing laws enforced, not nullified.
When given a choice of immigration "reforms," two out of three respondents to a survey by The Polling Company last fall favored the House-passed bill that tightened immigration quotas, strengthened border controls and toughened workplace enforcement. Only one in three supported the leaky version Sens. Mel Martinez, Ted Kennedy and John McCain cobbled together.
Among the other sentiments expressed by surveyed voters:
_ 79 percent agree that "legalizing illegal immigrants would only encourage more illegal immigrants to come to America."
_ 65 percent say quality of life will suffer if the nation's population grows by more than one-third in the next 50 years (the projection if immigration is not controlled).
_ 62 percent say media coverage of immigration is superficial and unbalanced.
This last point is worth examining, because it helps to explain the disconnect between public opinion and lawmakers' actions.
We've known for some time that business wants loose, unenforced immigration laws. From big flag-waving outfits like Wal-Mart and Home Depot to Joe Blow's Stucco & Drywall that hires day laborers off the streets, companies will do just about anything to keep the mojo going. It's just business.
Meantime, American workers, especially younger ones on the lower rungs of the job ladder, find their paychecks and employment opportunities shrinking. And, of course, every taxpayer gets to pick up the tab for the rising social costs that bottom-feeding employers shove off onto the public.
This is no surprise. Even Karl Marx understood that capitalism thrives on surplus labor. The cheaper, the better.
But what is surprising is how the national media fail to responsibly report this. See if you agree or disagree with the following statement:
"Media coverage of illegal immigrants is mostly devoted to human-interest stories like how illegals risk their lives to enter the country or their lives once here, rather than the costs they create and the Americans who may be harmed by their being here."
As noted above, 62 percent of the national poll's respondents agreed with that description. Whatever mainstream media you read, hear or view, you're probably nodding as well.
Politicians, like the rest of us, are influenced by what they see. As long as news outlets regurgitate a diet of fluffy "human-interest" stories and pro-immigration essays, congressmen can continue to do the bidding of corporate campaign contributors while paying only lip service to the public's wishes.
Illustrating this double-speak, Congress last year authorized construction of a fence along 700 miles of the Mexican border. But it did not fund the project. Though the Senate voted 83-16 to build the barrier, it's now declared dead.
Few in the media bother to expose such chutzpah. Even fewer mention, let alone explain, the historical context and social ramifications of the ongoing, unprecedented illegal influx into this country.
When editorial pages of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal eerily echo the cause of illegal aliens _ and slander immigration critics as bigots (if they're acknowledged at all) _ Washington's Democrat-Republican duopoly receives ample political cover.
From our jails to schools to hospitals, there are serious issues to be reported about immigration's fiscal and societal impacts. But it takes effort to follow the money and divulge inconvenient truths.
It's so much easier (and politically correct) to trot out a hapless immigrant and tell another tale of victimhood, racial profiling or successful "grassroots" activism (like campaigns that have led 17 states to allow voters, e.g., illegals, to cast ballots with no identification).
All the while, craven politicians count their corporate cash and enjoy softball coverage as they pander to the much-touted "Hispanic vote." No wonder your voice isn't heard, or heeded.
(Kenric Ward is opinion page editor of the Vero Beach Press Journal. E-mail ken.ward(at)scripps.com)
For your ping list.
Ravenstar
I think it is so great the republicans lost. I know the democrats will be so much more receptive to my concerns.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
You probably do since you seem to not have any concern about an illegal alien invasion.
I know the democrats will be so much more receptive to my concerns.
Your and George Bushs concerns, whatever that may be.
I suspect there was a missing /s.
The pols ignore us because we aren't making enough noise.
We need a DC demo to end all demo's..all us conservatives and middle class need to get off our collective backsides and demonstrate.
If you can't do that Fedex your senator a brick..and say build the wall...
Umm....exactly which debates have we been included in? ;)
The pols ignore us because we aren't making enough noise.
We need a DC demo to end all demo's..all us conservatives and middle class need to get off our collective backsides and demonstrate.
If you can't do that Fedex your senator a brick..and say build the wall...
One reason the GOP lost in 2006 is precisely because a good number were more concerned about earmarks than using their ears to listen to voters concerns.
There's some of these types here at FR too.
" Left out of immigration debate: You"
I am angry that our elected representitives are REPRESENTING the illegals over the legals. Most state Constitutions have a clause similar to Marylands which reads:
"Article 1. That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient."
"Art. 6. That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
It is time to "reform the old, or establish a new Government" before its too late.
The pols ignore us because we aren't making enough noise.
We need a DC demo to end all demo's..all us conservatives and middle class need to get off our collective backsides and demonstrate.
If you can't do that Fedex your senator a brick..and say build the wall...
In case you had not noticed, WE CAN'T EVEN RAISE A LOUSY 70,000 FOR THE QUARTERLY FREEPATHON.
WE ARE IMPOTENT.
Maybe someone needs to start a "did you vote republican or dem - and why?" thread so we can have a point of reference.
(the number of pro-illegal immigrants on FR is minuscule, or less, and the number who voted against a republican is probably limited to some of those represented by hard over RINOs or conciliators.)
"We need a DC demo to end all demo's..all us conservatives and middle class need to get off our collective backsides and demonstrate."
Hell, the illegals can do it and force their employers to shut down so they can march. Why can't we?
Anytime both political parties agree on anything....the public LOOSES!
Money talks and bull$hit walks.
Or by the golden rule, he who has the gold rules.
We can't raise a crummy 70k for the freepathon and you think the congress should listen to us.
Thanks for the laugh.
Amnesty will just about guarantee Republican election defeats throughout the rest of this century.
Thanks for a completely irrelevant response to your initial post. But I guess that's all you've got left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.