Skip to comments.Levin: Krauthammer, GOP Pundits Embarrassing Themselves On Immigration (audio)
Posted on 11/08/2012 7:42:15 PM PST by i88schwartz
click here to read article
You forgot Reagan amnesty and GWB leaving the borders open. Lots of generations from illegals now. And they love the sweet talking hip Obama.
I hate Sen Grahamnesty. He is very dishonest. He pulled that constitutional amendment crap last year just to screw the idea of ending birthright citizenshiip.
Advocate a pro-immigrant policy of low immigration.
Republicans need to provide the American people with their own comprehensive immigration reform plan, i.e., give people a reason to vote FOR something rather than just attack the other sides proposals. Such a plan should contain the following elements:
Formulate a merit based immigration system that brings in the skills and talents to keep us competitive in the global economy;
Reduce immigration levels based on need more closely approximating 300,000 a year;
Eliminate extended chain migration, i.e., family reunification, limiting it to the nuclear family,
Secure the border;
Enforce existing immigration laws to reduce the current illegal alien population and limit future illegal immigration, i.e., attrition thru enforcement. Enforcement would include: (1) ending the job magnet; (2) increasing coordination at the federal level by eliminating barriers to information sharing among agencies; (3) leveraging state and local enforcement resources; (4) fully implementing the US-VISIT Program to track and deport visa overstays; and (5) make mandatory and improve such programs as E-Verify and 287 [g] authority to assist employers and law enforcement in identifying illegal aliens;
Eliminate birthright citizenship and the visa lottery program;
Ensure that anyone who enters this nation illegally is not rewarded by being permitted to stay and work here; i.e., no amnesty;
Streamline the processing and adjudication of immigration cases;
Promote pro-immigrant measures that help newcomers assimilate and embrace the values and principles of our Founders and the Constitution.
That is a good plan.
But as I mentioned Grahamnesty purposely got on Sunday TV suggesting, not even proposing, a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship just to kill the idea.
Legally you dont need an amendment as the US doesnt give that to everyone born here even now.
The Reagan amnesty of 1986 (Simpson-Mazolli) was a major mistake and Ed Meese has said as much. It was supposed to be a one-time amnesty never to be done again. The USG estimated that 1 million would apply and the true number turned out to be 2.7 million. The process was rife with fraud. The enforcement portions of the bill were never implemented. It was supposed to solve our illegal alien problem, now we have 12 to 20 million illegals waiting for the next amnesty.
Bush 41 was just as bad as Bush 43 on immigration. Bush 41 signed legislation to double the annual numbers on legal immigrants. When you reward something, you get more of it. If there is a second amnesty, there will be another one, which will be far easier to pass because of the changed demography.
Graham, McCain, Jeb Bush, and other Reps are part of the problem. Boehner bottled up E-Verify legislation coming out of Lamar Smith's Justice committee and wouldn't even allow it to come to the floor for a vote. The GOP leadership is bought and paid for by the Chamber of Commerce. We are bringing in 125,000 LEGAL FOREIGN WORKERS A MONTH RIGHT NOW, which includes permanent immigrants with green cards and those here on temporary work visas. At the same time, 23 million Americans are looking for fulltime employment.
We will continue to fight the immigration at the state level despite the recent SCOTUS decision on AZ 1070. The majority of the American people want our immigration laws enforced. Unfortunately, we have cowardly and bought off politicians from both parties blocking any real immigration reform.
I won't go into all the details here, but it is a legal issue that may eventually have to be decided by a Constitutional amendment, but that is the last resort. I know all of the legal background and history on birthright citizenship.
If Congress were to pass a law eliminating birthright citizenship, there is no doubt that it would be challenged in the courts and eventually go to SCOTUS for resolution. If SCOTUS upholds the challenge, then the only recourse is to change the Constitution.
We have 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies born each year in this country. Most are paid thru Medicaid and most are on food stamps and receive other welfare benefits, which they are entitled to as an American citizen. One in every 10 births in this country is to an illegal alien.
But they are reproducing here at a far faster rate than whites and the GOP needs a strategy relating to them or 2004 will be the last POTUS victory.
So my original point was to find some thing to offer them that Dems cant give them(which is obviously not welfare, this was misunderstood), in the past I have suggested at least ads to turn them off from voting.
But ignoring a growing problem like that is suicide,
Look Ryan offered those over 55 amnesty on his medicare reform to clearly keep their vote, that was pandoring for sure, but you should of seen all the *conservatives * supporting that bad idea.
No it wont because such an amendment will be ratified. No amendments will be ratified anymore, esp that one, so such fantasy talk just turns me off.\
We don't give citizenship to diplomats kids. So why illegals? You are right about the courts being a problem though. The wise latino.
There is simply no way a Republican is going to “out-Democrat” a Democrat by competing on the basis of who can give away the most. Republicans will lose every time. It is a failed strategy at its core.
Read what I said again.
OK you've got a problem with Limbaugh, I get it. But Limbaugh's accuracy rate wasn't really my point.
Anyone who is serious should have a problem with Rush.
Yes they are pre-disposed to being attracted to gubment goodies but Rush is wrong when he says they dont want amnesty.
Obama’s Dream act exec order for those who look like victims brought here as kids is generally popular with voters.
If it wasnt he wouldnt have used it as an election year ploy.
You see Mitt arguing against it once he won the primary? Of course not. He read the polls. And who here demanded that he should? Certainly none on this thread who jumped on me for just defining the problem.
Look, Rush is usually wrong and denying reality is not a solution.
The majority of Hispanics (54%) self-describe themselves as white. Hispanics can be of any color. We should be rejecting such classifications. Mexicans are far different from Columbians, Salvadorians, Brazilians, etc. And the same holds true for Asians. The GOP has a minority problem, not an Hispanic problem.
Ronald Reagan said, A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers. I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
We have allowed the Democrats to define us. We are constantly on the defensive.
The Republicans need to expose the Democrats as the real racists and bigots who provide people, including newly arrived immigrants, with special rights and privileges based on race, ethnicity, and gender. For example, the definitions of Hispanic and Asian under Virginia minority business set aside laws are ludicrous. They make no sense. What do Japanese, Chinese, Indians, and Filipinos have in common except being from the same geographic region of the globe? Similarly, Hispanics encompass all of Latin America and the Iberian Peninsula, i.e., the former colonialists. These types of classifications are reminiscent of those under apartheid in South Africa, which had four main groups with a number of sub-groups and even honorary whites. Republicans should take the lead in abolishing these discriminatory programs in post-racial America and use immigration as an example of the unfairness of these laws.
There are other significant demographic changes that transcend race and ethnicity. The Republican Party should focus on those changes rather than its quixotic outreach programs. By 2030 one in every 5 residents of this country will be 65 and overtwice what it is now. The vast majority of these people will be on fixed incomes with Social Security being the sole or a major portion of their retirement income. As a result, taxes will become more and more of a concern among older voters. State and local taxes will have to fund much of the education and social welfare costs for immigrants and their children as the U.S. population continues to increase. Since the federal government only funds about 13 percent of the education costs with state and local governments funding the rest through mainly property taxes, an aging population on fixed incomes will balk at increased rates of taxation. And senior citizens vote at a higher percentage than younger voters. Even immigrants grow old and will vote their pocketbook.
And then there are younger voters who must bear the brunt of the out of control federal spending that will balloon the current debt servicing costs, which consume $200 billion annually of the federal budget. With entitlement programs increasing to more than half of the federal budget, it will leave declining amounts of money for discretionary items, including defense. In 1950, there were 16 workers for every retiree, today it is 3.3, and by 2030 it will be 2 workers for every retiree. As a result, the young will also become increasingly concerned about taxes and the costs of mass immigration that will require huge amounts of money for increased infrastructure requirements, higher energy needs, schools, hospitals, water treatment and sewage plants, etc.that will be needed for a nation approaching half a billion people and is the worlds biggest debtor nation. The Republican message of limited government and lower taxes will resonate with the young and old alike.
That may be a result of losing two elections to Obama, and congress in 2006.
Failure says something.
Fantasy talk? In your first sentence you say that such an amendment will be ratified and then you reverse yourself. The idea that there will never be another amendment to the Constitution is the real fantasy talk. I think that it will depend on what kind of public support such an amendment would get.
There are only 33 countries in the world that have birthright citizenship and only two developed countries, the US and Canada. Ireland was the last country in Europe to get rid of birthright citizenship and it did so thru a constitutional amendment. Again, it would be the last resort. Let's see if we can get Congress to pass a law first. Several Congressman has proposed legislation to that effect, including Steve King who was just reelected despite a major attempt by the Dems to defeat him.
I really don’t think most illegals want or care to be citizens. They don’t want to pay taxes, but they do want to vote for the bennies and not get kicked out. They want to roam freely back and forth over the border.
So far it has worked pretty well for them. LOL
Let’s hope failure doesn’t lead us to the wrong conclusions. If the GOP thinks that becoming more like the Dems will win them elections, they are sadly mistaken. If they do move in that direction, there will be a third party formed by disaffected conservatives, tea party people, and libertarians. Such a political realignment will help the Dems in the short term, but given the impending and ongoing collapse of the welfare state, the future will not belong to the Dems.
No, that amendement wont even get through a congress let alone the states. The idea is DOA..
If congress wont even pass it as a law how can it possibly be a successful amendment?
LOL. Now you are getting silly. If Congress doesn't pass a law, there is no way it can be challenged in the courts. Again, reread what I sent to you. I said a Constitutional amendment was the last resort if SCOTUS upheld a challenge to a law passed by Congress.
Considering that I just watched many here truly beleiving that Mitt would win in a landslide (unlike me) I can imagine lots of ‘wrong conclusions’
Look, its not just illegal immigration but its massive legal immigration for the last 12 years that has caused a HUGE prob.
And the new legal immigrants and their kids that are here now dont seem receptive to the ‘they must wait in line too’ arguments especially since so many jumped ahead of the others on family visas.
This is a disaster for sure
I am referring to legal hispanics who vote, not illegal ones who supposedly aren't supposed to vote.
Prop 187 was supposed to deny illegals many of the benefits they were/are currently receiving and it had the support of the hispanic community in the most radically pro illegal state in the union - until the democrats made it an issue of whites vs browns. And then 40% still supported it (a higher percentage than supported Romney)
Legal hispanics have the same financial concerns that the rest of us do, and that includes having to pay for wanton illegal immigration. If the GOP ignores this and goes ahead the Rubio/Bush/Krauthammer route it will be the final nail in their coffin.
Actually I don't think another nail is needed, its over.
Now you know that would never pass today in CA. Come on. Producers are fleeing CA in droves.
I am not talking 20 years ago, I am talking NOW
Family visas can case the same problems are illegal immigration the way it is is donre.
Now you got it. It is legal immigration that is the bigger problem. The 1965 Immigration Act changed this country forever and will eventually lead to its destruction. We are just beginning to realize the electoral implications. But if the GOP thinks that giving amnesty will resolve our problems, they are sadly mistaken. It will just hasten the process of making the Dems the permanent majority party.
And the new legal immigrants and their kids that are here now dont seem receptive to the they must wait in line too arguments especially since so many jumped ahead of the others on family visas.
By 2019--7 years from now--half of the children 18 and under will be minorities as classified by the USG. Each cohort that reaches voting age, 18, will be increasingly minority and Democrat. By 2042 half of the country will be minorities. These are just irrefutable facts. And by 2050 one in five will be foreign born. For most people, their political party is inherited in much the same way they inherit their religion. Here are the Bureau of the Census projections on what will be our future demographically.
" In 2050, the nation's population of children is expected to be 62 percent minority, up from 44 percent today. Thirty-nine percent are projected to be Hispanic (up from 22 percent in 2008), and 38 percent are projected to be single-race, non-Hispanic white (down from 56 percent in 2008).
The percentage of the population in the "working ages" of 18 to 64 is projected to decline from 63 percent in 2008 to 57 percent in 2050.
The working-age population is projected to become more than 50 percent minority in 2039 and be 55 percent minority in 2050 (up from 34 percent in 2008). Also in 2050, it is projected to be more than 30 percent Hispanic (up from 15 percent in 2008), 15 percent black (up from 13 percent in 2008) and 9.6 percent Asian (up from 5.3 percent in 2008.)"
The future of this country will become more and more dependent upon Hispanics and blacks who have out of wedlock birthrates of 50% and 71% respectively and the highest school drop out rates. Our competitiveness in the global economy will depend on this workforce.
Not just NOW, I always got that. I am living it here in Maryland where the voters JUST Tuesday approved public tuition breaks to illegals and gay marriage in two referendums, after massive LEGAL immigration here for a decade or so .
Dont jump to conclusions about people. Politely ask them what they are talking about and you will sometimes find your assumptions are wrong.
Please don't lecture me. I have been working on the immigration issue fulltime for over 5 years. I lobby on the Hill and in Richmond. I have been civil in my discussion with you, as difficult as it is to ignore some of your snide comments. Have a good day. We have gone around this tree enough times.
I’m not sure what your argument is, not even sure we disagree. But my original point stands.
Speaking of "wrong conclusions," Back to the subject of the thread. In 2007, Krauthammer (I think sincerely at that time) strongly opposed the GWB amnesty. But here is what (probably also sincerely) he said after the 2012 election:
I think Republicans can change their position, be a lot more open to actual amnesty with enforcement. Amnesty, everything short of citizenship. And to make a bold change in their policy. Enforcement and then immediately after, a guarantee of amnesty. That would change everything. If you had a Rubio arguing that it would completely up-end all the ethnic alignments.
At least he says "amnesty" rather than "comp. immigration reform." But I think, and maybe both of you would agree with me that
1) "actual amnesty with enforcement." is the same foolish promise as the McCain/GWB 2007 amnesty
2) "Amnesty, everything short of citizenship" may be based on good intentions, but that part of any proposed law would be fought not only prior to passage and signing, but endlessly in the courts, new proposed amendments in congress, EOs, etc. And who would be fighting to uphold the "no citizenship" part of such a law? The same people who didn't show up to vote in 2012?
3) Krauthammer's notion is tantamount to a delayed surrender, even if he wrote the entire law himself.
If the GOP thinks that becoming more like the Dems will win them elections, they are sadly mistaken. If they do move in that direction, there will be a third party formed by disaffected conservatives, tea party people, and libertarians. Such a political realignment will help the Dems in the short term, but given the impending and ongoing collapse of the welfare state, the future will not belong to the Dems.
Whatever political parties come to power, the current GOP leadership is losing on all fronts. But also, despite all of Obama's outrageous abuses, those supposedly angry, motivated anti-Obama voters did not show up.
The Tea Party was a wonderful thing, but today, more than ever, with cell phones taking videos, honesty in a candidate is a liability exploited by ruthless professional politicians.
In the contest between traditional conservative values, and DEMographics, the latter won this time. As Kabar and sickoflibs have already stated, it's not just illegal immigration, but also legal immigration is also importing a huge number of leftist voters.
My being a punching bag on this thread by a bunch of the frustrated last night didnt help. The whole Mitt thing and election losss is driving many nuts.
And the cries for amnesty isnt helping.
There is one who was particularly obnioxus to me here and he just got skinned alive on another thread.
Worse yet,’pro-amnesty’ leftist voters because many were put at the front of the line on family visas when others have to wait close to 10 years to get one legally, and others just jump in illegally and bring their kids with them creating a huge political problem,.
Correct, but there are more ways than one to deal with that situation. "Path to Citizenship" doesn't have to be on the table.
Not splitting families up does as does having an actual functional workable outreach program which doesn't seem to currently exist.
It can be done, but it will take time and effort and money and specific targeting.
Big lesson from the O Campaign: Demographics and Microtargeting.
Start with the small business owners. There are lots of them. Win them over. Enlist them to talk to their community on your behalf. Run THEM for office. Get THEM into the local Chamber of Commerce. Standard drill stuff there.
In short, we have 30 days to learn how to become Union Organizers and get a nationwide Machine into place or we are going to be behind the 8-ball forever.
But you know that any good idea in theory will be screwed up by the Feds.
The family member free pass policy wasnt bad when legal immigration rates were reasonable but the massive increase this past decade or so from cultures so different than ours has caused a huge political problem wrt this.
If everyone followed the same rules then legal immigrants might be offended that others get to jump in line ahead of them (faster than them) by coming illegally, but so many family passes let so many immigrants legally jump in line and they feel empathy for others who cant.
One immigrant I know here in Maryland personally got his whole family in on family visas, as he came in himself when young, and he ABSOLUTELY worships Obama (who he relates to because of Os dad) and he calls lack of a legal green card ‘nothing but paperwork’. He absolutely relates personally to illegals living in Arizona.
This is a disaster.
Nobody is saying it is not a disaster. But its coming and we have to be able to deal with it. Boehner will cave and give it all up if left to his own devices. Limit what he can give up.
Its time for creativity and limiting damage. We know its coming. How can something "humane" be done that does the least damage?
More specifically you mean amnesty to those who are here illegally.
Well you are going to hear more and more of that if Rs keep losing elections and if that happens a amnesty bill will pass by Dems and RINOs and this nation will be a huge California.
We better figure out a way to beat Dems then and fast to stop that. OH, and its not nominating Romney's or McCains who will do that either.
HA-HA, I am getting lectures by both sides today on this here :)
I dont think I am making anyone happy.
I got beat up by about 3 or 4 last night for suggesting that we try to get more (legal) hispanic votes somehow, and not by out-Deming Dems, I sounded more like you.
They seemed to hate them now and hold them in utter contempt now because O got re-elected(and Rush was working them up for this too) . They talk like they dont care anymore what happens, and maybe its just too soon after MRs loss to talk about it.
I'm not making them happy either and I'm being tossed about and beaten like a rag doll myself.
People don't realize that "being smart" does not mean giving away the store. It doesn't mean out-Deming the Dems. It just means being smart and not going out of your way to antagonize people or turn them off.
Its probably too early and people are likely going to be smarting for a while. The none-too-bright ones will double down on stupid or cave to Dem demands. The smarter among us are studying their strategies and trying to work out how to adapt their strategies to our cause.
Obviously they're winning. We need to even the playing field but not by absolute pandering and not by surrender.
Well Obama and Grahamnesty are not here so I guess you are the best they got to sit in for them, put on your firesuit :)
If Romney won did they really think he would stick to his primary positions? If he believed in anything we dont know what it is.
If Mitt won they (and we) would be cursing him to hell for proposing immigration reform and everything else.
But now its coming. People can flame me all they like, that's fine.
Flaming me doesn't stop it from coming. It just distracts them from being able to either stop or modify it.
Everything is your fault :)
Yeah, I made the comment last night that ignoring this problem and electing Dems will eventually bring FULL amnesty and a endless Dem government (when they get the vote.)
We are fast approaching a Demographic mixture where Reagan himself couldn't get elected. The white male baby-boomer Rush fan club versus everyone else with 'head in sand' is one reason Obama gets another term. Not the only reason obviously.
We've been there for a few years already. We are also at the point where even the Democrats can't buy enough votes to keep it up much longer anyhow. In four years, the major Federal Entitlement Trust Funds are run dry.
With interest rates at zero, a major recession, reduced tax revenue -- they can't get a return. Poof, they all get used up.
With no real way to buy votes, what happens then? I have no clue but it will not be pretty.
IMO the best result is for the Dems to own it all with the clocks ticking down on the entitlement trust funds. We know higher taxes don't get squat more. Witness California taxing itself into less revenue every month.
Reboot is coming. I'd prefer they be in charge when it happens. Better for us that way since then we can sift the ashes.
Have you seen Obama's face recently? The guy looks like he is in total paranoia mode. If we know about the entitlement trust funds running down, you know he does too.
Why the rush? I think it has to do with that. Your thoughts?
You make some thoughtful points.
But also if he can get a deal on entitlements with Rs now when he doesn't have to worry about his base turning out to vote anymore he gets his cake and eat it, spend now and cut later. That is how I read it,
That is why I am worried about what the Rs in the house may do.
Then Cut our SS and Medicare later (delayed)
Make O a success.
It may sound paranoid but Rs have a talent for failure.
So we were noticing the same things.
Yes, which is why I am hoping that Boehner is willing to stall or break things into smaller chunks.
Deal with the Fiscal Cliff this year. Delay everything else until next year.
By that time, the Petraus thing should have hit big-time and will go back and pull forward the other scandals with any luck.
If that happens, and if there is enough there, we're looking at Nixon in 1973 and that ends up consuming everything.
If I'm right and if we're lucky, that is.
The rats are already bailing out of that ship. They don't bail out unless there is a reason. I am hopeful. The look on Obama's face speaks volumes.
In 2010 I warned here about Rs winning congress and allowing Obama to blame them for everything and get re-elected.
So the other day I tossed this out, Feel free to politely tell me the flaws(as it wont be tried):
You see the market reaction to his win?
Wouldnt it make sense for the House to not pass any tax cut extensions or spending cut repeals that Reid can get through the Senate? In other words :no more closed room deals?
Take a hard line but dont brag about it in public, just do it. In public talk about how O is in charge of everything.
Having won the election O is free to work with Boehner to do stuff that his lib base opposes like entitlement reform ..as Clinton did.
If this is the path he takes House Republicans could work to make him look like a bipartision success, as with Clinton. I really think this would be a disaster for this country
The Bush blame excuse ended on Os successful election day as O inherits his own accomplishments and so working with him to make him look successful seems self defeating, unless Boeher gets a really sweet deal. Like something O specifically campaigned against and his base absolutely hates.
And stop the Rs public statements that telegraph their punches, like bragging that they wont do stuff that they are forced to cave on later anyway. This was the behavior of delusional losers.
You've seen my take on abortion rhetoric. You have my full support on this. Its a winner.
Bob Woodward threw Obama under the bus with his book about the debt ceiling talks. Boehner could easily get away with stretching this out, letting things fall of the cliff, and just saying the Obama did it to him again. He went to the table honestly, laid his cards out, and got a deal. Then Obama came back and like Darth Vader at Bespin, "altered" the deal.
There is complete cover in Bob Woodward's book about the original debt deal. Heck, Boehner could even reference it at the press conference when he declares an impasse and recommend it to people who want to know what kind of fruitcake he is dealing with.
Game, set, match. Obama loses and Bob Woodward provides the cover. Nobody - I mean - NOBODY - in the media will consider the possibility that Woodward put out anything less than Holy Scripture in that book.
But that's too sneaky for Boehner to think of, really.