Longtime readers may know that some of my readers are on the opposite side of the immigration issue as I, and the other day one sent along a report attempting to convince me of dire consequences if the GOP doesn’t follow the Democrats as the party of amnesty. One of the findings of this report by America’s Voice is that Latinos distrust the GOP on immigration and switched over a four year period from being Bush voters to Obama voters. Then again, one needs to question the mindset of the group when the report is released in a press conference with:
The America’s Voice report “The Power of the Latino Vote” was released yesterday during a telephonic press conference with Eliseo Medina, Executive Vice President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Janet Murguía, President of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR); and Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice.
Undoubtedly, each of these groups has an interest in unfettered immigration, particularly the SEIU – you don’t think they’d love to organize these low-skill workers for the millions in union dues they can shift to the Democratic Party?
Given that backing, it’s no wonder they try to convince Republicans they have the wrong view; but in truth even if the GOP completely changed its position to advocate for amnesty they’d be better off attempting to woo voters in downtown San Francisco. In many respects the Latino population is like the black population and will likely languish in poverty the same way, just with poverty pimps who speak Spanish.
On the other hand, the base that the GOP counts on doesn’t want amnesty, and it’s a stance which appeals to those union households who were the backbone of the Reagan Democrats.
A Zogby poll conducted in November asked a cross-section of Americans their views on immigration with specific attention paid to business executives, union households, and small business owners. As documented by the Center for Immigration Studies, these groups overwhelmingly believe that amnesty is not the way to go.
Something tells me that a number of these people also comprise a goodly portion of TEA Party activists – the ones who stayed home on Election Day 2008 because they were disillusioned with a GOP candidate who was perceived as pro-amnesty in John McCain. Yet even the pro-amnesty side concedes that:
Last week, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) sent a political warning to his fellow Democrats: if immigration reform doesn’t pass, as promised, Latinos won’t vote.
Thus, the threat posed by the pro-amnesty side may be a hollow one, and I’d rather take my chances on not losing the votes of the TEA Party people who have been ready and raring to go to the polls by stopping amnesty than worry about Latino voters who may or may not show up – chances are that the heavily Latino districts would vote Democrat anyway just as heavily black districts do.
Do we need immigration reform? Yes, we do. But the first steps need to be making our border more secure and verifying that illegals aren’t getting the jobs Americans can do, along with reforming the visa system to help us root out scofflaws who overstay.
The question becomes whether we are a nation which sacrifices the rule of law for the almighty buck, and allowing those who cross illegally to become legal citizens without significant penalty flies in the face of those law-abiding immigrants who went about chasing the American Dream the right way. While Ronald Reagan was a great President, one of his biggest mistakes was agreeing to amnesty for millions of illegals in 1986 – it was the root of the immigration problem we have now.
Actually, from my understanding of it, unions have historically been opposed to pro-immigration measures as they offered competition to the inflated wages paid to union members.
As for immigration reform, increasing enforcement has to be one of the last steps, not the first. The United States shares almost 2000 mile sof border with Mexico (and even more with Canada). Beyond that, there are 29.6 million businesses in America and they employ almost 120 million people. True enforcement is, whether we like it or not, a logistical impossibility.
Meanwhile, the legal immigration system is absolutely insane. It can take up to 28 years to legally get into the country and become a citizen. And looking at Mexico, the only place in the entire country you are allowed to apply for a visa is Ciudad Juarez, probably the deadliest city in Mexico. And that’s not even touching on the thousands of dollars in application fees and other expenses it costs to move through the system.
True immigration reform needs to acknowledge the realities of the impossibility of enforcing our curent immigration code, take into the account the inherent of freedom of movement, and hearken back to the American tradition of unlimited immigration (but limited citizenship), and start by removing, or at least lowering, the barriers to legal immigration. Only when our laws are both moral and feasibly enforceable do we have any business thinking about how to make sure people are obeying them.
And, as an aside, the suggestion that the Republican Party should base its policy positions of the whims of desired voters or the base is awfully dangerous. It has to stand on a principle, and that principle must be liberty and the free market – and that includes the liberty of a man to travel where he will and contract with whom he chooses.
The main point of this report was that the number of Latino voters is growing and if the GOP continues to embrace anti-immigrant demagogues, it faces a bleak future. Latinos simply won’t embrace a party which has such an anti-immigrant stance. But, you’ll say, the GOP isn’t “anti-immigrant,” it’s only opposed to illegal immigration. Maybe. But the only thing that most Republicans stress is to deport illegal immigrants. Latinos, and many others, realize that this is not only unrealistic but also inhumane. They rightly question the type of politician who would embrace such a ridiculous policy. Either the politician is a liar, since that politician knows it’s unrealistic to deport all illegals but supports such a policy to be elected, or a fool. Plus, there is a lurking racism and xenophobia behind such sentiments. Add it all up, and it’s going to be hard to win over Latino voters.
Yes, many TEA Party people embrace the “deport ’em all” mentality. I find it difficult to see how they can do so when they say they have a desire for limited government, but whatever. But just because some voters hold misguided views is no reason to base public policy on them. Politicians are elected to be leaders, not demagogues. Furthermore, if the GOP is to ever win any election it must reach beyond its base. It’s current anti-immigration views ensures that Latinos will never vote for it and also turns off many others, such as myself. I would never vote for a candidate like Pat McDonough or Tom Tancredo or any other Republican whose main issue is illegal immigration. I’m not alone.
Immigration reform involves much more than border security. In fact, unless we have true reform to allow guest workers in the nation and more low-skilled workers to immigrate, then all the border security in the world won’t work. It’s amazing that conservatives who recognize that government agencies such as the Post Office, the IRS, the boards of education, and the like don’t work well somehow think the Border Patrol or ICE are different. If you want to stop illegal immigration, then make it legal for people to come here to work. The only reason people cross the border illegally is because they want to work and people want to employ them. If you make it legal for them to do so, then you won’t have illegal immigration.
And the point that failure to deport illegals would be “sacrificing the rule of law” is wrong. If we change the law to allow them to stay, then that’s the law, so what’s the problem? Furthermore, the idea that laws should be respected in and of themselves is ridiculous. There are plenty of bad laws. The stimulus bill is the law of the land. I suppose you support that wholeheartedly because it’s the law? In the past, the Fugitive Slave Act was the law of the land. Were those who broke it really doing anything wrong?
The fact is that coming into this country illegally is a misdemeanor. If you want to get technical, then I’ll support a law that would allow anyone who has broken this law to come forward, receive a punishment in line with other misdemeanors (such as a fine or a suspended jail sentence) and then be on their way. The rule of law lives!