Over the last few weeks, the buzzword in politics has become “grassroots”. Even with a Daily Times editorial Sunday which tries to pooh-pooh supporters of a recent referendum petition drive – sniveling in part that, “Referendums are a pathetic tool for ensuring good government” – the strength of the masses, both in exerting their say on the city’s tax increase and in fighting the recent battle from outside the Beltway against the Bush/Kennedy/McCain immigation bill, has become too large to ignore. And I feel like a little part of it because of an article I ran across.
Writing in National Review Online (h/t to fellow MBA blog Going To The Mat), commentator Mark Krikorian notes that:
…every Senate office was inundated by phone calls and faxes — hundreds-to-one against the bill.
The role of blogs and columnists and think tanks in fueling and directing this outrage was essential (emphasis mine), with National Review Online and the Heritage Foundation deserving special honors. But senators can still write them off as part of the Washington game rather than real people and real voters. One of the key groups focusing actual grassroots outrage was Numbers USA, which soared past a third of a million members because of public anger over the bill — and these are real citizen activists busily phoning and faxing, not a tally of passive small donors.
It seems that the overreaching of amnesty advocates has politicized a lot of people, and not just conservatives, over the non-enforcement of the immigration law. And that’s a good thing too — if the White House concludes that amnesty is unattainable, there will be a strong temptation to end the enforcement show that’s been staged over the past six months or so, with workplace raids designed to bolster the administration’s credibility on the issue. A vigilant citizenry will be required to ensure that doesn’t happen — that enforcement is not only not discontinued, but that it’s expanded, so we can end the Bush administration’s “silent amnesty” and get to work implementing a real strategy of attrition through enforcement.
This is a case where the average folks got off their collective asses and made a difference. Guest-hosting on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program Friday, Roger Hedgecock opined that he hoped it would be only the beginning of a process where the grassroots begins regularly taking a stand when poorly written legislation is proposed. And I couldn’t agree more.
Further, the grassroots are voting with their pocketbook, snapping it shut when the national Republican Party comes calling. Actually, they are catching up to my philosophy on this because I’ve never donated to the national or state Republican party, only to candidates. (I will say though that so far Jim Pelura’s leadership of the Maryland GOP and emphasis on listening to us at the local level has impressed me for the most part, so that streak may end.) For our part, the Maryland GOP and Pelura drafted a statement in opposition to the immigration bill. States with similar stances have seen their contributions increase, while GOP supporters of the bill like the aforementioned Senator McCain and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham have provoked outrage, particularly Graham.
And while the local Salisbury referendum effort did not succeed (dooming Salisbury city property owners to a likely 14% tax increase), the national effort achieved its short-term goal of thwarting this particular immigration bill. So where will the people who wanted to see this bill pass go from here? While this rendition of the immigration bill is out, there’s no telling how it could be inserted into another more palatable bill or otherwise enacted in the proverbial dead of night. Among other things, this method is how we’ll get a minimum-wage increase as it was added to the supplemental appropriations bill funding the Long War for the next several months. Don’t be surprised if a amnesty-friendly Senator tries the same method to slide the immigration bill or certain parts of it through the Senate.
As for the immigration bill itself, I opposed it for two philosophical reasons. First of all, I don’t believe in rewarding illegal behavior – in most instances, these illegal aliens are sneaking over the border solely for economic reasons. Most come simply to work but on some occasions such as an impending birth, they take advantage of our lax citizenship laws. I’m not going to argue that there’s a lot of people in other parts of the world who wouldn’t do the jobs that Americans supposedly won’t do, but we have a method already in existence for these people to come into the country legally. Many seasonal workers at our local Ocean City resorts take advantage of these laws. Also, there’s a share of people who would fall into the category of trying to sneak into the country because of an oppressive government in their homeland; Cuban “boat people” being one example. These people seek to escape political persecution rather than migrate here because of a lack of economic opportunity in their homeland. Many of these people come here and readily assimilate into our culture, like those Cuban emigres in Miami or the Hmong people who scattered throughout the country after they were persecuted by the Laotian government for supporting us during the Vietnam War.
The second part of my opposition lies in asking a very simple, common-sense question: if we’re not enforcing the Simpson-Mazzoli laws (among other immigration stautes) already on the books, what makes anyone think that we won’t be back at this problem trying to come up with a new “solution” in 10-20 years? To be quite blunt, I have a serious problem with the attitude those in our Maryland General Assembly or in Congress share that an issue is solved simply by enacting yet another law or regulation. Most of the time it just creates more of a hassle than the situation beforehand ever was. The only law that seems to work properly in these cases is the law of unintended consequences. In the case of Simpson-Mazzoli we granted an amnesty to 3 million or whatever number of illegals were in the country at the time, and instead of solving the problem it just encouraged more of the same as people banked on the government going by its precedent and giving the new generation of illegals a “get out of jail free” card. In essence, that’s what the Bush/Kennedy/McCain bill is supposed to do. All of the fines, penalties, “touchback” provisions, etc. go into effect only if a) citizenship is sought, and b) the law is enforced. Just try to make an illegal immigrant (oh, sorry, “undocumented worker”) go by these provisions in a “sanctuary city”.
And it was the grassroots, aided by the internet and by talk radio, that came to understand these issues in a big hurry once the word got out. Obviously, the Senate seeking to ramrod this bill through practically in the dead of night was a clue to their intentions, but fortunately the lawmakers were called on it and the reaction started to pour in from concerned citizens. However, this backlash we had against the amnesty bill can and should be just a first step in holding the people we elect accountable.
If there’s two things that I’d personally like our elected representatives to remember, it’s these:
- Number one, it is OUR money that you’re playing with. Spend it wisely. And, given the way of the world right now, a border fence that can stop much of the illegal inflow is a good investment of our taxes.
- Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution spells out your duties, and the Tenth Amendment therein tells you that the powers not explicitly granted to you at the federal level belong to the states and the people. Please bear this in mind the next time someone comes up to you looking for yet another entitlement or expansion of federal power.
It’s a view I hold and I’m pretty certain that a lot of Americans share that view with me. Once people get away from an obsession with how Paris Hilton is holding up in jail or the latest date some musical diva had, they can manage to catch on pretty quickly when someone’s trying to put one over on them. So I welcome all of you to the real world, where vigilance is the price of freedom.
Mike, you write “but we have a method already in existence for these people to come into the country legally.” That’s where you are wrong. Our current system does not allow nearly enough people into the country to fill the demand for work. That is why we have people coming across the border to fill those jobs. Do you really think that these folks would risk their lives to sneak across the border if there was a way to come here legally to work? Of course not. But the current system tries to artificially shut off the borders when there are willing workers and employers willing to hire them. The law should recognize this reality and be adjusted accordingly. The law proposed by the President wasn’t perfect, but it is certainly better than the system we have now.
And I find it amazing that this was the issue where the grassroots decided to come alive. We had a variety of legislation that is quite harmful to our country — Medicare Part D, out-of-control appropriations bills, etc. — pass in the past few years and you heard nary a peep from folks. You had an effort to reform Social Security and the grassroots did nothing. Now, on an issue to change our laws to reflect economic reality, the grassroots goes wild? It boggles my mind that people get so outraged about some Mexicans who want to come here and work but they sit on their butts while Congress and the President destroy the fiscal health of the nation.
Also, as I stated in my previous comments, this is a pretty poor issue politically for the GOP grassroots to take a stand on. It’s pretty easy to perceive the opposition to this as a bunch of racists (again, I’m not saying it was motivated by racism, but the perception is certainly out there). By doing this, the GOP risks alienating the largest growing minority group in the nation. As happened in California with Prop. 187, Latinos may be a lost cause for the GOP for at least a generation because of the irrational hatred some in the GOP have for illegal immigrants.
But Marc, there is a system for people to come in legally. The problem to you is that there’s not enough slots for all of those who are willing to work, and some adjustments can and should be made to some of the visa programs. However, we also need to stop the inflow by physically securing the border and cracking down on employers who hire illegals.
Overall I think a lot of the problems are caused by those who don’t come here to work but simply to take advantage of our generous benefit system. And even those that work do nothing to assimilate into the culture. If you were to go work in France I assume you’d make some effort to learn French before you go. But I walk through Wal-Mart and a good percentage of the customers are jabbering in Spanish a thousand miles from the border. Sad thing is that Wal-Mart caters to them anyway; then again, money talks loud in any language.
As an answer to your final argument, we in the GOP have a choice to make. We can run the risk of alienating a group of people who may or may not become citizens and if they did would likely vote Democrat anyway (as most poor minority folk seem to do) or we can certainly alienate an existing base of voters who have the concern that the GOP doesn’t have the backbone to stand up and demand that this new wave of immigration act like our forefathers did and adapt to the American culture. As far as why the grassroots took its stand now, perhaps the sight of Mexicans marching through L.A. (and many other cities) waving their national flag but demanding rights that should be reserved only for American citizens may have had something to do with it.
This bill was an attempt to adjust those slots to allow people to come and work here legally. That was opposed by the grassroots.
I agree that some illegal immigrants come here solely to take advantage of our government benefits. Most, however, come here to work. It would be a much better solution to simply cut off government benefits from any illegal immigrants, however, instead of trying to keep all of them out.
As to the language and assimilation issue, Latino immigrants assimilate the same as any other immigrant group. The first generation usually keeps its native language, the second generation is bilingual, and the third generation is monolingual. Those who are coming here for a short period to return home usually don’t assimilate. That was true with Italian immigrants last century and its true now. Furthermore, I don’t know why people get so upset by the fact that some people speak Spanish in public. They aren’t hurting you, so why does it offend you to hear Spanish spoken in Wal Mart?
As you say, the GOP did have a choice to make. It made the wrong one. It disappointed members of its libertarian wing (such as myself), its business wing, and it offended a growing Latino electorate. The GOP has to expand and adapt to the changing demographics of our nation. Simply appealing to grumpy old white guys (as it did here) dooms the GOP to minority status. Furthermore, taking xenophobic stands like this alienates younger voters like myself who are much more comfortable with the changing face of the nation than it seems our older brethern are.
i believe it is not so much as filling slots, but filling cheap labor… illegals keep wages low in both countries and do everyone a disservice. period. reduce citizenship time to 7 years and institute a worker program through a sponsorship program within the host country… supported by employers who pay the whole cost of hiring in the native currency for a limited time… and then send them back to get paid. worker protections can be set and regulated on both ends of the spectrum and internal pressures within the host country will affect change there.
jmho.
teeman
it is not xenophobic to protect the american culture… yes we have one… individual rights, equal protections, and the rule of law… which means following them all, being citizens or not.
we are the only country to open up our way of life for every one on the planet to aspire… and the only place worthy of the name “superpower”.
it doesn’t just mean military might. we share our blessings with the world, we ask only that the world appreciate what we give by playing by our rules.
teeman
Filling labor slots, filling cheap labor – whatever you want to call it – is extremely poor reasoning to base immigration laws on. It assumes basic fundamental work like growing food, cleaning streets, construction work, etc. is inferior, which it isn’t. This will further segregate American society according to worker status and, with the overwhelming numbers of Latinos taking these “inferior” jobs, race.
In addition, I would argue that much of so called “cheap labor” satisfies the elitist and extravagant lifestyles of Americans. The pompous and vain American primps himself in his Ivory Tower whilst the dark skinned folk dig about the gardens and polish the automobiles. Can’t people do a little gardening and auto care themselves? Do people really need all the widgets that business production rolls out?
Michael said:
“if we’re not enforcing the Simpson-Mazzoli laws (among other immigration stautes) already on the books, what makes anyone think that we won’t be back at this problem trying to come up with a new “solution” in 10-20 years?”
Exactly. The law is there. It just isn’t enforced.
Lastly, in addition to all the problems with immigration mentioned in posts above, there is an overpopulation problem which should be addressed. With too many people wanting too much stuff, the result is simple – imbalanced lives cause all sorts of difficulties.
That’s why the immigration problem will never be solved adequately, because Americans are addicted to wanting quantity over quality. Politicians want the illegal’s vote, business people and consumers want the cheapest price, and the quality of life suffers with every street corner filled with 6th grade education Latinos and every store swamped with Mexico and China made junk.