Skip to comments.7 Political Questions for Republicans Who Support Amnesty
Posted on 01/22/2013 4:03:56 AM PST by Kaslin
Republicans who support amnesty are like global warming alarmists. They can't answer the most basic questions about what they believe. Since the Republican Party is now once again considering going to war with itself over amnesty instead of trying to move the ball forward for conservatism, it seems like a good time to ask some of the crucial questions that always seem to be conspicuously ignored because the pro-amnesty side has no answers.
1) How many net votes would the GOP lose if illegal immigrants become citizens? Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney 73% to 27% with Hispanic voters. Given that illegals are poorer, less educated and less law abiding than Hispanic Americans, we'd be VERY lucky to get more than 20% of their votes. So, if there are 12 million illegals, that means Democrats would have 9.6 million new potential voters while the GOP could add 2.4 million, leaving a 7.2 million vote gain for the Democrats. When Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama by a little less than 5 million votes, how can allowing the Democrats to pad their totals by another 7.2 million potential votes help the GOP?
2) Why don't Hispanic voters already support the Republican Party since Reagan backed an amnesty in 1986? The only way the GOP could be helped politically by backing amnesty would be if our numbers with Hispanic Americans went through the roof as a result of the policy. Well, guess what? This concept has been tested in the real world. In 1984, Ronald Reagan received 37% of the Hispanic vote. Then, in 1986, he backed a "one-time" amnesty for illegal aliens. The result? In 1988, George Bush received 30% of the Hispanic vote. If the exact same thing happened again with 12 million illegal immigrants, it would be like the crack of doom for the conservative movement.
3) Doesn't the GOP's experience with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 suggest Democrats would get all the credit for an amnesty? The Republican Party has ALWAYS been the party of Civil Rights while the Democrats were the party of slavery, the KKK, poll taxes and Jim Crow laws. However, diehard racist Lyndon Johnson backed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for political reasons. Percentage wise, more Republicans in Congress voted for it than Democrats. Yet, who got all the credit? The Democrats. This time around, we also have a Democrat President while percentage wise, Democrats would support amnesty wholeheartedly while the majority of Republicans would oppose it. Why wouldnt Hispanic Americans rightfully give Democrats credit for the amnesty instead of Republicans?
4) Why do Democrats want to make illegal aliens citizens if it will help Republicans? We've often heard that Hispanic Americans are "natural" Republican voters -- and maybe they are. It would be nice if someone, make that ANYONE in the Republican Party would abandon gimmicks like amnesty and actually do real, sustained outreach to Hispanic voters to convince them to vote for us. That being said, since 1980, Republican candidates for President have captured somewhere between 21% and 40% of the Hispanic vote. In other words, whether immigration was a hot issue or not, whether the GOP backed amnesty or not, or whether the candidate was Ronald Reagan or Mitt Romney, the Democrats have taken at least 60% of the Hispanic vote. That means what we're really debating is how many more people we're going to add to a demographic group that the Democrats are practically guaranteed to win. It only makes sense politically for Democrats to back that policy. Republicans? Now that's a lot harder to explain.
5) Is making 12 million illegals American citizens good for the country? That may be a quaint, seldom asked question in Washington D.C. these days, but the voters still seem to care about whether policies help or hurt the country. While immigration is certainly good for America, it's worth asking: Why would we want 12 million illegal manual laborers as American citizens as opposed to legally bringing in more scientists, engineers and computer programmers? At a time when 47% of Americans aren't paying income taxes, what percentage of these illegals would be contributing more to the tax base than they'd take out in services and welfare programs if they were allowed to become American citizens? Very, very few -- after all, don't the proponents of illegal immigration claim that they're doing crummy jobs for low pay that Americans just won't do (Yes, that's a phony argument, but still ). Furthermore, given how poor the job market is today, does it really make sense to give 12 million foreigners free reign to compete for jobs with American citizens who are desperate for work? Whatever happened to American politicians putting America first? Moreover, if we have a second "one time" amnesty, why wouldn't we have a third, a fourth, or a fifth? Obviously, the Democrats will want as many amnesties as possible for political purposes and the corrupt businesses that make a killing on illegal immigrant labor while passing on the costs to everyone else will keep pushing their stooges in the GOP to bring in more illegals. All that is aside from the fact that the moment you make 12 million illegals American citizens, both parties will have to pay attention to them. Naturally, the first thing they're going to want is to legally or illegally bring as many of their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, cousins and friends as they can to the United States. The first amnesty covered 2 million illegals. This one would be 12 million. It wouldn't be a surprise if the next one is 20-30 million.
6) Is it worth having a terrible 2014? Typically, incumbents face a "sixth year curse" that's phenomenal for the opposition. "In nine of the ten sixth-year Congressional elections since 1910, the presidents party has lost seats in the Senate and in the House. The average loss in the Senate has been 8.6 seats and in the House it was 30 seats." Is it worth putting all that in jeopardy by starting the same sort of interparty war that helped drive George W. Bush's approval rating down in the twenties? Do you want ugly, amnesty-driven primary challenges all across the country with millions of conservatives staying home because they're disgusted about being sold out by the Republican Party yet again? No matter how many things the Republican Party does right over the next two years, it's entirely possible that pursuing amnesty could put the Senate out of reach in 2014. Is it really worth it to give the Democrats their extra 7.2 million votes?
7) Politically, doesn't it make a lot more sense to take a security first position and do outreach? There's a reason that even John McCain started claiming he had a security first position on illegal immigration: It's because it makes perfect sense politically. We have almost universal agreement that the border should be secured. So, why not build the fence, get e-verify or the equivalent working and secure the border first? If the border (and our VISA system) is secure, then we don't have to worry about more amnesties. If the illegals that are here are locked out of employment, they'll start to go home. Although it's highly unlikely that we'd have any sort of real labor shortage driven by illegals, if we do, we could always pass a guest worker program. The end result of all of this would be that the venom would be taken out of the issue. No one would have to worry about whether politicians are telling the truth about securing the border because it would be done. Many of the illegals that are here would self-deport without work and the less illegals that are here, the easier it would be to come to a compromise over giving them some kind of legal status. There's a world of difference between dealing with 2 million people here illegally as Reagan did and 12 million, like we have today. In the interim, the GOP could start doing something it should have been doing all along, which is Hispanic outreach. Waiting for Hispanic voters to come to the Republican Party hasn't ever worked and probably never will. It's time for the GOP to go to the mountain instead of waiting for the mountain to come to us.
A feral organism is one that has changed from being domesticated to being wild or untamed. In the case of plants it is a movement from cultivated to uncultivated or controlled to volunteer.
As with any introduced species, the introduction of feral animals or plants to non-native regions may disrupt ecosystems and has, in some cases, contributed to extinction of indigenous species.
These are Feral Aliens.
Villaraigosa said recently here in the Los Angeles Times that there are 4.3 million immigrants in Los Angeles.
Doug McIntyre said recently in the Daily News that there are 750,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles, or 19.6 percent of the population.
Our population increases by 5 people, one is an American of American parents, The other 4 are foreign born or their offspring.
73 percent of Asians and 75 percent of Latinos voted for Obama.
Back when Regan made the first amnesty proclamation I told everyone who would listen that that was a grave mistake because now, millions of Mexicans would flood into the U.S. knowing that some time in the future another amnesty would occur.
My predictions were right on the mark.
America, as we know it, is over. Political Correctness, sensitivity, diversity, civil rights, the welfare system and a whole host of other parasitic maladies upon freedom and Constitutional laws has made a lawful and organized society a thing of the past.
We have crossed the line and will not be coming back over it again.
The Gelding Old Party likes their cheap labor and cheap tarts. Look no further than the Bushie’s housekeepers and the SchwarzenRat mistress.
I don’t support amnesty but I was wondering how many of those that received it before became citizens and are now allowed to vote?
Seems that amnesty and citizenship are two different animals. In order to become a citizen and vote you have to do stuff. Stuff I am sure the left will give them assistance to accomplish.
No pathway to citizenship for illegals, period. Legalization yes. Full rights including voting for the Welfare State, no.
That is the penalty for breaking the law.
The question intentionally misrepresents the position of most Republican’s.
Most are NOT for “amnesty”, and certainly NOT for “Citizenship”!
The author is among those who continue to insist sending them home is a viable option, and therefore, anything short of that is labeled “amnesty”.
What ever is done with people who came here illegally, it must NOT include the right to vote.
This is not only to punish those who violated US law, but to respond to politicians who looked upon these people as future supporters.
I agree completely
Assuming there are 30 million illegals in America, its enough to create some 50 new primarily democrat congressional districts. Just the basic administrative costs per district probably run into the 10s of millions of dollars. Then we can start adding the hundreds of billions of dollars in pork and earmarks those democrats will vote for and you begin to see the scope of the problem.
Illegals are nothing but government growth hormones.
I don’t even want to think about what all those new democrats will do to social issues.
The Republican Party is the division of the National Democrat Party that serves as the Designated Opposition. Of course, Republicans who are in on this arrangement want Amnesty. It will cement the Democrat Party as the Permanent ruling party int the USA and will hasten the conversion of the USA into a Social Democrat totalitarian socialist state. That subject is the dividing line between conservatives who might be actually opposed to the Social Democrat State and “conservatives” who are acting in the role assigned to them. These faux Republicans and conservatives think they will have a place in the coming Nomenklatura but part of their roles as Opposition includes being early defendants in the inevitable show trials.
If you look at my posts, you’ll see that I’m not some troll. My bonefides are here.
Seriously — how exactly are you gonna ship ‘em all home? Do you understand that you could put them on a never ending stream of buses to Mexico, and the stream would never stop?
Amnesty, no. But so far I haven’t heard conservative people offer any other solution besides “send them home”. And I’m waiting.
AT the very least, ICE should be reformed so someone from either Mexico or Canada is processed in weeks instead of months, and so that it can be done w/o huge legal expenses.
1) How many net votes would the GOP lose if illegal immigrants become citizens?
2) Why don't Hispanic voters already support the Republican Party since Reagan backed an amnesty in 1986?
So path to citizenship should not be considered until the GOP amnesty club explains exactly how they will get those votes.
Amnesty now would result in O getting all the credit.
The House should offer to make Os Dreamer EO into law in return for enforcement measures.
Some illegals did not take up the offer and are still illegal. They thought it was a scam to deport them.
Stop birthright citizenship. No public benefits of any kind without proof of citizenship. Most would return home.
Like Kaslin, I agree completely. Also, to compare today with the political scene when Reagan was in charge back in the early 1980's just doesn't apply now. It used to be that immigrants who came to the US did so with the idea of being assimilated into our culture...to be a part of it. Today's immigrants want to take over a neighborhood microcosm and make it grow until they can create an area that replicates their old culture. Look at the efforts of Muslims in particular: they move in, densely populate an area, and then start pushing to establish their own laws (Sharia law) in that area.
I don't have an answer, but preventing illegals from voting sure takes the carrot away from a lot of politicians who see them as nothing more than "buyable voters". Free cells phones? Why the hell are my tax dollars paying for that if not to buy votes. I'm so PO'ed I could spit.
Last I heard, the illegals were all headed home due to our ‘rough’ economy.
Things got better and nobody told me?
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.