Skip to comments.Arizona Calling: The brewing immigration backlash.
Posted on 11/09/2004 9:19:58 AM PST by xsysmgr
Slate recently featured an article on the "unteachable ignorance" of the Bush red states, in light of the dismaying (from its perspective) election results. On immigration, we should talk about the "unteachable ignorance" of America's political and media elites. Nothing will convince them to take the issue seriously.
The latest sign that the public wants the kind of immigration enforcement that politicians simply won't give them comes out of Arizona. Proposition 200, a measure to tighten up enforcement of existing laws relating to illegal immigration, passed with 56 percent of the vote. It requires that someone provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and valid ID when voting or applying for public benefits. Since it is already against the law for illegals to register and vote, and illegal for them to receive welfare, it is astonishing that Proposition 200 became as the media always puts it "controversial."
What Proposition 200 exposed is this: Our elites have very little intention of enforcing immigration-related laws, and they are outraged at the notion that they should. All the great and good in Arizona lined up against the proposition. Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, Republican Sen. John McCain, the Service Employees International Union, the Catholic bishops and the Chamber of Commerce all opposed it.
They were universally outraged at an initiative aimed at getting the public officials among them to do their jobs. "We haven't changed any law," says state Rep. Russell Pearce, a supporter of Proposition 200. "We're changing the verification process to make sure that the current laws are enforced."
Opponents took to complaining that the proposition would unfairly burden state and local workers with verifying the citizenship of the people they deal with. But is asking for an ID really such a burden? The clerks at Blockbuster somehow manage to do it. Proposition 200 backer Rusty Childress recalls that within an hour of publicly announcing the initiative, opponents held a rival press conference denouncing it as what else? racist. "All they can do is name-call on this issue," says Childress, "because we are on the right side of the law." And the racist argument didn't wash. Childress explains: "Most people said: 'Showing ID? That's not racist. I show ID all the time.'" According to exit polls, 47 percent of Hispanics voted for the initiative.
Thanks to tightened enforcement elsewhere along the border, most illegal immigrants now come across the Arizona-Mexico border. Proposition 200 won't have much effect on that flow, but might have a mild deterrent effect if illegals were to realize that the laws on the books won't be ignored, according to Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies. Proposition 200 gets at an enormous part of the illegal-immigrant problem, which is the welcoming environment created for illegal immigrants by lax enforcement. So long as illegals know they can live as quasi-citizens here, they have every incentive to keep coming.
Special interests want to keep it that way. "There are two groups who benefit from illegal immigration," says Pearce. "Those groups who benefit politically because new immigrants vote Democratic. And those business groups that benefit from the cheap labor." The public in general is the loser. Estimates of the costs to Arizona of illegal immigration go as high as $1.3 billion a year. "People say to me, 'Immigration is a federal responsibility,'" says Pearce. "But I say, 'It's our health-care system, it's our schools, it's our neighborhoods.'"
That populist sentiment is very real, and elites ignore it at their peril. President Bush recently said that he wants to spend political capital in his second term. If he tries to spend much of it on his misbegotten proposal for a quasi-amnesty for illegal aliens, he will risk political calamity. The message from Arizona and elsewhere on Election Day, when immigration-skeptics picked up strength is to try increased enforcement first. Who knows? Once we begin to enforce the law, we might even learn to like it.
Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
As a nuisance? No.
Perhaps we should kill everything that moves and
plant radioactive isotopes in a wide path along
the Rio Grande?
You can play your good cop, bad cop thing with these two beltway parties all you want. That's old BS. The fact is, many of us are wise to the pandering of this coast to coast lawlessness by both parties. Only an certified idiot can't see this, and only a liar wouldn't admit it.
I see that anger managemnt class is not the only
thing you failed.
You can dance around this all you care, and attempt to make me the issue. Your BS is weak.
Your IQ is weak.
LOL! Care to address where I'm incorrect?
You are a persistent SOB, I will hand you that.
Race ya to 2006! First party to cross the illegal immigration border wins!
Feel free to answer #57. Take your time Fred.
Hmmm. The issue is...you have a problem
w/ both parties wrt/ immigration reform.
Doesn't leave you much, does it? I guess
you can whine and cry.
I am convinced that immigration reform will
be taken care of in time.
Let's address your issue. What do you
think should be done and how should it be
Thats it? You decline to point out where I am incorrect? Now you want to start asking questions? Hehe. Oh and it's now the what's your solution thing eh? What utter BS.
You are out of your realm Fred. I suggest you find a thread about Scott Peterson, or some other earth shattering issue.
When will all of you realize that nothing will be done about this?? There will be no sealing of the border, no increased security, no cut off of illegal benefits. The GOP has already made a done deal with the FTAA and its headed in the other direction. THAT is why nothing is done and this isn't discussed by our "leaders". We complain and complain and not a peep from the GOP. In fact when Bill O'Reilly asked Bush about troops on the border he looked shocked as if he had never heard of the idea. He said "No, no, family values don't stop at the border".
What does that tell you? We are in for a Meximerica and we seemingly have NO say in it all.
We will follow like good little sheeple and elect another RINO in the next election because we are afraid of the crazy liberal the demoncats run. Same old story.
Speak for yourself.
Funny, I was just about to say the same thing about
you. Perhaps wrt/ UFO cover-ups and Kennedy
assassination conspiracy theories.
My candidate won last Tues! Deal with it!
Go stew w/ the libs!
I have no problem with someone obeying the rules and coming to America to try to make a better life for themselves.
Coming here illegally is another batch of fried fish altogether.
Politicians should listen, or ignore the growing tumult at their own risk.
No, this last election cycle was proof enough he's correct.
Why should America be careful of hurting the feelings of a country who has invaded us? Why should we care what this parasitic, corrupt country thinks? Who are you, Karl Rove?
I agree and I don't think anything is going to change unless some of the folks in the grassroots legal reform movement can figure out a way to make these politicians personally liable for violating their oath of office to the people.
It has to do w/ alienating a nascent republican
voting block. That was what I was getting at.
I wasn't talking about Mexico! Read the entire
Gee, if I were Karl Rove I would have my ticket
punched for my asking price.
I think we are way past that possibility. Everyone in the "game" knows that to play in the big leagues you have to go along and get along. So...no one wants to stick their neck out. You have Tancredo and a few others who dare to speak on this, aside from that nothing. We have zero chance of getting a real conservative in the White House. The party has been hijacked by big business RINO's.
Sometimes when I put on my tinfoil hat I think its possible that Kerry was a stool pidgeon to allow Bush re-election. Sounds crazy but who knows nowadays. I can almost imagine Ted Kennedy and Bush working out a deal. In you're best drunken Mass accent:
"Ahh Bushie, I got ya a great candidate to run against, he hasn't got a chance! just pass these bills for me and you're in there for another fooouur yeeaars!! hiccup.."
OK but seriously, don't you get the feeling we are all screaming and NO ONE is listening? Ever wonder why that is?
He's a party boy, light weight. Don't waste your time Janet.
MEXICO CITY - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said Tuesday that President Bush (news - web sites) will place a high priority in his second term on granting legal status to millions of migrants who live illegally in the United States.
Contact every congresscritter and demand that they force every Fedaral Agency to enforce the 1996 Welfare Reform Act passed overwhelmingly by Congress and (un)willingly signed by the Slickster Himself.
These guys run every 2 years so they are somewhat accountable to the voters but they get their really big money, and therefore loyalties from businesses who insist on replacing their legal employees by illegals, where they can.
These turncoats need to be brought to their knees by the electorate and don't forget WE CAN DO IT!!!
About 30 percent of Americans of Hispanic origin voted for Prop 187 -- that after months of clever, lying TV ads screaming Racist! Racist! at Prop 187.
47 percent of Americans of Hispanic origin voted for the Arizona initiative.
Some one please tell that mule Karl Rove to stop insulting Americans with his Mexipandering!
When FTAA gets cranked up agian watch, and see who is pushing it. I have been in Grijalva's local office speaking against FTAA, the aid couldn't find anything on Grijalva's position, but he thought Grijalva would oppose it, he usually opposes free trade agreements, which is true.
Add one more. Real estate. How many mortgage lenders are pandering to ILLEGAL aliens? No social secuity number required for a loan.
Ms Malkin's government source told her that there may be 40,000 ILLEGAL alien homeowners in the Denver area alone.
Does President Bush's (it ain't amnesty) guest worker program allow "guest workers" to own homes?
From what I hear FTAA is due to be in effect early next year....don't know if it's a treaty or a free trade agreement. One thing I'm watching closely is what type of effect it will eventually have on our Constitution and legal system. If they attempt to mirror the EU, I know there are now serious concerns among people in those countries about how much national sovereignty was relinquished as a result of signing on to the EU. New commissions created to govern the EU supposedly have the power to hammer any country that does not toe the line on their initiatives which will be interesting considering they're working on a new EU constitution.
Soon, I expect to see the usual mainstream "mediots" to start their standard mass conditioning process replete with their unending numbers of "experts" who will have a laundry list of reasons why our Constitution is too outmoded for the new paradigm as well as the need for a "modern" legal system to replace our current one.
I do know what the answer is, and it's the government doing its job and providing for a common defense by securing our borders, instead of trying to do good with all kinds of stupid entitlement programs.
But it'll be cold day in hell before we shut down the borders. Until the government does do its job, I'm all for the vigilantes. At least someone is defending the country.
The Rats will paint it as racist no matter what he does.
Might as well do the right thing. And Hispanics are far more divided on this issue (lean our way, in fact, from what I've seen) than the liberals would have us believe.
But doing the right thing won't happen because the campaign donations to both parties roll in from businesses that depend on the illegal worker.
Obviously, you don't have the same problem as many of our ranchers in the Southwest do. Our family has a ranch near Douglas and continually have to clean up the mess left by illegals entering from Mexico.
Forget about having the Border Patrol doing its job. If they are not getting a rake-off, then they are simply under-manned and incapable of doing the job.
And the local police are reluctant to do anything also. So we have a mess and unless our politicians don't start enforcing the laws, we will become another part of Mexico before 2010.
Very likely long-time American citizens --- but that's not who we're discussing when it comes to illegal and massive immigration from Mexico. No one is criticizing the Americans who have been here for many generations or who never even immigrated --- not all hispanics are immigrants nor are illegals nor are or ever were from Mexico.
Only if you believe certain exit polls --- but if you believe exit polls you also have to believe that Kerry won the election.
For one --- when I voted, there was no place on the ballot to mark race or ethnicity. For another the exit polls that you're referring to aren't usually done in the barrios and colonias where the Mexican citizens live --- they're heavily slanted because the exit polls overly represent the suburbs --- and of course the English speaking voters.
For $1.86 you can send this to your Reps twice a month!
"Not Yours To Give"
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.
We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---
"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."
"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.
"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'
"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'
"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?
"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.
What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.
If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'
"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'
"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'
"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.
"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'Not Horatio Bunce?'
"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."
"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came up to the stand and said:
"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
Col. Crockett later died defending liberty in the Battle of the Alamo, in the War for Texas Independence.
Here's an interesting article --- which makes you wonder why people who were so angry at the exit polls which claimed Kerry won would suddenly believe they're the Bible if they show something else. Only a precinct by precinct analyis will show what really happened --- and in this are that would show little support for Bush by hispanics.
At least when it comes to Hispanics, those exit polls were just as wrong as they were with their overall analysis of the vote.
Latinos across the country voted nearly 68% to 31% for Kerry, about the same percentage as Al Gore got against Bush in 2000, says Antonio Gonzalez, director of the Texas-based William C. Velasquez Institute. The institute conducted its own exit polls both nationally and in Florida.
According to Gonzalez, the polls used by the national media are overly weighted to suburban voters, and since Latinos are the most urbanized of any population group and mostly concentrated in 14 states, the usual exit polls completely undercount Latino voters in the cities.
True --- but who will Bush listen to --- the American people or the buffoon Vicente Fox? Fox doesn't care about our election results or what the American people want.
The Mexican government has also released statements expressing its rejection of certain propositions passed in certain border states.
Arizona's Proposition 200 will stop undocumented immigrants from being able to vote or collect state welfare.
California voters rejected a bill that would allow undocumented immigrants to apply for driver's licenses in the state.
The FTAA has to be signed by the end of January. If it is signed we will be made to give up some segments of our Constitution. Yes, it is a free trade agreement. I believe it also states in the trade agreement, there will be no borders between Mexico an Canada
So we are in dangerous times, we are now an import nation,because of the outsourcing, we are now not an export nation.
So if we go into a recession it will not be good.
IMHO the best way to defuse this issue is to begin a program to assimilate the six border states of Mexico as the next 6 members of the United States of America. Begun by Bush, it would guarantee Republican leadership there, would end the border crisis, releive Mexico of an obvious burden, and provide an American "frontier" for development.It is more constructive than sitting around waiting for a RINO to grab the issue and enforce immigration laws-a very dicey political move for Bush and the Republican Party, and does NOT serve the cause of individual freedom.