Immigration Update
As you know, I've been a staunch supporter of getting a solid enforcement-first immigration bill. That's the only reason why I wanted the Senate bill to pass. I've been clear that I want the Senate to move more towards the House bill than vice versa. Gary Bauer is today's columnist with the
Washington Times. He's done a far better job of outlining an acceptable bill than I could have.
I think that Mr. Bauer reminds us of some important things in terms of Hispanics. Let's not forget that Hispanics gave President Bush 44 percent of their votes, mostly because they're culturally conservative. It's also true that they're traditional law-and-order people, too.
Doing that also likely means that they'd lose control of Congress for a decade. That seems pretty stupid to me. Understand that I'd be upset if the conference legislation more closely resembled the Senate's bill than the House bill but the thing to remember is that we can always return to clean that bill up. We wouldn't have that option if Democrats controlled Congress.
Democrats' idea of compromise on immigration is to let border fences to be built as long as the legislation also contained an open borders provision. Simply put, that's totally unacceptable.
Posted Thursday, June 1, 2006 12:34 AM
April 2006 Posts
No comments.
But as lawmakers consider various immigration reform measures, they should take a hard look at the reams of polling data that show that standing strong on conservative values, not giving in on amnesty, is the key to winning the hearts, minds and votes of Hispanic Americans. First off, Hispanics are much more conservative on immigration than is commonly believed. An August 2005 Time poll of Hispanics revealed 61 percent considered illegal immigration either an "extremely serious" or "very serious" problem. In addition, 41 percent thought the U.S. was not doing enough to secure its borders against illegal immigration, while 19 percent felt it was doing "too much." Moreover, a 2005 Pew Hispanic Center poll showed a majority of both American-born and foreign-born Hispanics opposed increasing the flow of legal immigrants from Mexico and Latin America. A majority of Hispanics (53 percent) even supported building vast border fences and stiffening penalties for illegal aliens.The Pence legislation is another example of this rising Republican star's gravitas. I think that his provision to allow "illegals to obtain guest worker visas" for a maximum of 2 years is sound policy.
As an alternative to amnesty, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence recently presented the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act, which would require all illegal citizens to leave the country, obtain a visa and re-enter legally. Essentially, the bill includes all of the important border security measures of the House bill passed last year, and adds a provision, allowing illegals to obtain guest worker visas for a duration of two years. Mr. Pence's plan would also create private worker placement agencies to link specific workers to specific jobs for specified time periods in the United States.
I think that Mr. Bauer reminds us of some important things in terms of Hispanics. Let's not forget that Hispanics gave President Bush 44 percent of their votes, mostly because they're culturally conservative. It's also true that they're traditional law-and-order people, too.
But if, in attempting to capitalize on these powerful electoral realities, Republicans capitulate on amnesty, not only will they give their conservative base reason to stay home on Election Day, but they may alienate a growing constituency that shares those core conservative values of family, hard work, respect for the rule of law and patriotism.This is the part that I disagree with Bauer. Even if "Republicans capitulate on amnesty", that still isn't a legitimate reason for the base to stay home. It's incentive for the base to get more pushy in 2008. Staying home elects Democrats who'd impeach the President, dramatically increase taxes, spend worse than the Republicans in control of Congress now and who wouldn't let a John Roberts type judge out of committee. And they'd push the President hard on cutting-and-running in Iraq, too.
Doing that also likely means that they'd lose control of Congress for a decade. That seems pretty stupid to me. Understand that I'd be upset if the conference legislation more closely resembled the Senate's bill than the House bill but the thing to remember is that we can always return to clean that bill up. We wouldn't have that option if Democrats controlled Congress.
Democrats' idea of compromise on immigration is to let border fences to be built as long as the legislation also contained an open borders provision. Simply put, that's totally unacceptable.
Posted Thursday, June 1, 2006 12:34 AM
April 2006 Posts
No comments.
