Posted on 11/12/2012 6:42:12 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Having suffered not one but several humiliating defeats on Tuesday, Republicans are in danger of embracing “comprehensive” immigration reform — which is to say, amnesty — out of panic. The GOP does need to do better among Hispanics and other voters, but this is not the way to achieve that — and, more important, it is bad policy. A formal policy of refusing to enforce the law is not obviously the best substitute for an informal policy of refusing to enforce the law.
But first, credit should be given where it is due: The Obama administration, by keeping economic growth at anemic levels, has managed to control illegal immigration better than most of its predecessors. The Reagan-era Immigration Reform and Control Act conferred amnesty upon some 3 million illegals in exchange for promises of stepped-up enforcement at the border and in the back office, but the sanctions never quite materialized. Even though some improved security measures were implemented after 9/11, the Bush years saw a 40 percent increase in the population of illegals, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
Legal immigration, which is largely driven by our government’s preference that the extended families of previous immigrants be able to join them here, does not closely track the fortunes of the economy. Illegal immigration, on the other hand, is very strongly correlated with the availability of work. It may turn out not to be a growing problem in Obama’s second term, so long as we can count on the Obama administration to provide relatively few employment opportunities for illegal immigrants, along with legal immigrants, the native born, and everybody else not attached to the AFSCME or Big Wind.
Our immigration system is in need of deep reform, but amnesty is not the first item on intelligent reformers’ to-do list, if indeed it belongs on the list at all.
All decent people have a measure of sympathy for those who, driven by desperation, come illegally to the United States seeking work to provide for themselves and their families. That they so frequently work at low wages in miserable conditions and that they are vulnerable to every kind of abuse is reason for deeper sympathy still. But the solution to their plight is not to abandon the law, any more than the solution to the plight of Les Misérables is to legalize the theft of bread. The rule of law exists to alleviate misery, not to mandate it.
We know from historical experience that immigration amnesties serve only to encourage yet more illegal immigration, and the suffering and disorder that go along with it. Illegal immigrants constitute a permanent underclass, the growth of which is in the long-term interest of neither the citizens of the United States nor of those immigrants who aspire to citizenship. Stopgap measures such as “temporary guest worker” programs simply convert that underclass from de facto to de jure.
There are many steps we can and should take toward improving our national immigration regime. It should be easier for those with job offers — particularly highly skilled, English-speaking professionals — to gain long-term residency in the United States and to embark on a path to citizenship if they so choose. And for those who are here illegally, especially those who were brought here as young children, our policy options are not restricted to amnesty or round-ups and mass deportations. As anybody who has ever missed a credit-card payment can attest, we have more than sufficient information technology to identify whether people who are cashing paychecks, renting homes, or transacting ordinary business are in fact legally authorized to do so. Until the borders are physically secured, our most effective and most humane option is steady, consistent, judicious workplace enforcement. We do not lack the national means to enforce the law, only the political will to do so. And even if our immigration system is broadly liberalized, the law still will need to be enforced. Non-enforcement simply is not a viable permanent state of affairs. Law enforcement would be as necessary after an amnesty as it is today.
Republicans who believe that amnesty would buy them an electoral advantage with Hispanics are deluding themselves. That Hispanics are a natural Republican constituency because of their Catholic and family-oriented traditions is wishful thinking. Hispanics are not uniformly in favor of amnesty for illegals — polls have shown that a segment of the Hispanic population ranging from a large minority to a small majority oppose the policy. Polls also show that a substantial majority of Hispanics support Obamacare, and that Hispanics voted accordingly on Tuesday. Those who see in Hispanics a potential bloc of socially conservative voters should consider that polls consistently find blacks to be slightly more anti-abortion than whites, but they are not exactly lining up behind Rick Santorum. There is very little reason to believe that Hispanic Catholics are any more likely to vote like social conservatives than non-Hispanic Catholics. For that matter, the majority of Hispanic evangelicals voted for Obama in 2008.
The amnesty signed into law by the charismatic and popular President Reagan did not bring Hispanic voters into the Republican party; Republican congressional leaders who believe that sending one to President Obama would redound to their benefit are engaged in a defective political calculus. Nor are Hispanics the only group of voters to consider. Blue-collar whites do not appear to have turned out for Republicans in the usual numbers last week. Support for amnesty will not bring them back. If the policy advanced the national interest, that consideration might not matter. It does when supposed political advantage is the argument for the policy.
The Republican party and the conservative movement simply are not constituted for ethnic pandering, and certainly will not out-pander the party of amnesty and affirmative action. Republicans’ challenge is to convince Hispanics, blacks, women, gays, etc., that the policies of the Obama administration are inimical to their interests as Americans, not as members of any collegium of grievance. That they have consistently failed to do so suggests that Republican leadership is at least as much in need of reform as our immigration code.
Immigration reform won't get the Hispanic vote for the 'Pubs. Neither will amnesty. The thing that will get votes of Hispanic for 'Pubs can be expressed in two words: free money. Like other officially sanctioned victim groups, Hispanics think they are aggrieved and injured by white society and as recompense are owed free stuff from da gummint.
Faced with that truth, how do the 'Pubs deal with it? They may as well forget competing with the 'Rats for giving away free stuff and free money. That won't get them votes. There already is a party out there that specializes in giving free stuff to official victim groups. We don't need another one. Better look elsewhere, but that is the catch, those things that make sense to rational people (self help, personal achievement) don't appeal to aggrieved victims.
He also restored food stamps for legal immigrants! He sucked on ice!
The democrats have created an awfully volatile mixture that could blow up in their faces if shaken the right way.
Sure its playing dirty but we need to pit these groups against each other. Teach one group that another group is cutting into their freebies. Show them how expensive environmental regulations is just skimming off the top of their cut of the freebies.
There are already some fairly large divides between public and private sector unions. That’s why the big pro union ballot proposals were crushed so soundly in Michigan. The private sector union members saw it as a public sector power grab and voted against it.
Those are just a couple of examples but the democrats are juggling more than they can safely handle.
That’s what I mean. Bush was a big spender. He gave them stuff.
Jeb is also a big spender, and he can wave the Mexican wife and kids at them.
I think the GOP is pretty happy. They can run Jeb in 2016 and try to get the new immigrant and women’s vote that went Democrat in 2012. They’ll go pro choice and pro amnesty and say see, we’ve dumped the rigid conservatives. I’m not sure how they think all that will get them past Hillary.
Rubio is a Bush playboy. Abandon him.
This article is misleading at best. The only thing to really agree with is the statement that Republicans need new leadership. For a conservative solution to the immigration problem see www.offgridblogger.wordpress.com. Unfortunately the best way to accomplish these goals would be to secede—see my other blog: www.freetexasconstitution.wordpress.com.
The neoconservatives at the Weekly Standards are not conservative and have supported amnnesty from day one. They want to change America. They just refuse to understand what that would do to them.
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.