The president’s overreach is an affront to the rule of law and the Constitution itself.
Tag Archives: amnesty
You’re supposed to be taking Migra, your Mexican Water Spaniel, on a 400–hundred-mile car trip. The dog’s 14–years–old if he’s a day, and who knows if he’ll live long enough to be reunited with the rest of your family. Plus, you can’t just motor out the driveway because that’s not a good idea where you live.
It’s one of those ‘transitional neighborhoods’ that you thought was transitioning into a community where people worry about their carbon footprint, but after the real estate crash it became an area where you worry about footsteps after midnight.
That’s why it’s never a good idea for the neighbors to know you’re leaving and taking the dog with you.
So you hide him under a blanket and as you back out of the driveway you’re waving vigorously to a wife that’s not home either. Ready to hit the open road, you remember about breakfast. But that’s why 7/11 was invented.
You drive up, crack a window and tell Migra to stay on the blanket and stop barking.
Inside the store you’re confronted with time–consuming decisions. At the counter you consider taking the slowly rotating trans–fat stick. Or will you settle for the dubious breakfast pastry that looks like it covered in scorched Play–Doh? Then it’s back to the coffee bar. What size, what flavor and will ‘Irish Cream’ dilution fluid clash with Sumatra Surprise coffee?
Meanwhile, back in the parking lot, some busybody in a Prius sees Migra licking the window. That’s what dogs do. Migra washes the inside and you wash the outside. Only she thinks it’s a cry for help from a dog dying of heat prostration.
So she runs into the street and flags down a passing patrol car.
But you’re still inside visiting the new bathroom; not knowing the extra minutes are digging you deeper in the hole. By the time you get back to the car the rear window has been smashed by Fire & Rescue, the busybody is wailing about abuse as the cop is issuing a summons and telling you the dog is going to be a guest of the county, until authorities determine whether or not you are fit to be an animal parent.
So much for white privilege.
By way of contrast if you were an enterprising parent in El Salvador and decided it’s high time to find out what your relatives are doing in El Norte, it’s only natural to deputize your 14–year–old and send him north on an 1,110 mile trek to Laredo, TX.
Pedro might go by foot, by coyote or by Mexican Death Train. He might be robbed, raped, sold into sex slavery, recruited into a gang or killed. But the important thing is he memorizes the magic words that will cause the government drone in Texas to consider him for asylum.
If he makes it to the border, after being helped northward by those nice government officials in Mexico, his free enterprise traveling days are over. Now he’s on Uncle Sugar’s tab. When Migra got to the pound the first thing the staff did was check his tags, check for disease and check his shots.
When Pedro hit the border he has no tags, no shot records and, of course, no parent. But that’s no problem! The US government is here to Pander & Serve! Instead of sending him back across the border to make his way home, Uncle Social Worker takes whatever vague family history and location for relatives that Pedro gives him and prepares to reunite the boy with the same people that had no problem dispatching him on a journey that would get a gringo arrested.
And that’s another contrast. When you go to get Migra at the pound you have to show photo ID and plenty of contrition for roasting your poor dog in the parking lot while you gamboled about in 7/11. When someone shows up for Pedro there’s no ID check, no criminal check, no fingerprint check and certainly no citizenship check. Uncle Social just aids and abets the original border offense.
The staff considers itself fortunate if Pedro doesn’t join the rest of his ‘relatives’ outside and participate in the ‘No Deportations’ rally.
This entire farce just emphasizes the only people who are ignored and actually living in the shadows here are the citizens of the United States.
Two particular items stand out in this latest crisis. The Mainstream Media is focusing on the children and the human tragedy, but no one asks what kind of parents use their children for pawns, other than the Kardashians? The second is the claim that the children are fleeing dangerous neighborhoods.
Well okay, but when you are frightened do you normally flee 1,200 miles? Most of us stop running when the get out of the bad guy’s range. And isn’t it convenient they only feel safe in the new Obama welfare state?
The other is the MSM continuing chronology problem. All teenagers aren’t children, unless you fit into a leftist talking point. Many of these ‘unaccompanied minors’ are tattooed gang members that know a scam and easy pickings when they see it.
It’s also interesting how the left never quotes the Bible when discussing homosexual marriage or abortion, but let an illegal appear on the horizon and it’s instant theology class. We Christians are told by people who I doubt even own a Bible that Christ told us to welcome the stranger and alien.
Which only proves that both the devil and the leftist can quote scripture. They just don’t quote it all. Exodus and Numbers on more than one occasion discuss how the alien should be treated and sure enough it is with equality and generosity. BUT and it’s a big but, Numbers 15:15 plainly states, “The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the Lord.”
So it’s clear the foreigner residing among us is to be held to the same rules or law as we are. When one’s first action in joining a community is to break the law, it would seem to me that the proper Biblical response would not be a warm welcome.
Obama now wants $3.7 billion to deal with the crisis he created, but only (!) $400 million of the total is to be spent on border–strengthening measures. The rest of the money will go to hire an army illegal alien facilitators, caretakers and expand the federal government.
The great Oklahoma senator and patriot Tom Coburn points out that it would be cheaper to fly the entire alien families home in a first class seat, than to let Obama sprinkle them around the country and create government jobs that cater to lawbreakers.
He’s right. It’s the sensible and Christian action to take.
Here’s a handy rule of thumb: If two of the four members of an immigration panel have Hispanic surnames you can bet it’s an amnesty panel in disguise. That was certainly the case at CPAC’s ‘Can There Be Meaningful Immigration Reform Without Citizenship?’
(This phenomenon is evidently peculiar to Hispanics. If two people named Schmidt and Kruger were on a panel it would be unfair to assume they enthusiastically support bomb damage reparations from WWII.)
Alfonso Aguilar and the Rev. Luis Cortes were joined by moderator Mercy Schlapp — a veteran of the Bush White House that was pushing amnesty until 9/11. The anti–amnesty speaker was Derrick Morgan of the Heritage Foundation and the afternoon’s advocate for the feudal system was Helen Krieble.
Schlapp set the tone when she remarked on the favor illegals were doing the economy by being here. Much like burglars boost an area’s GDP when they make the rounds of pawn shops.
Sbe was followed by Kreible, president of the Vernon K. Kreible Foundation, who said the debate should be about American principles: Equal treatment under the law, individual freedom and personal responsibility. So far so good, but then she reduced our choices to a false binary: Grant amnesty or do nothing.
The realistic option is removing the job incentive for illegals. But that is not a choice Kreible will ever entertain, because that would mean business can’t import serfs. She claims it’s wrong to set “artificial” limits on the number of workers you can hire. It’s Kreible’s belief that borders are a government matter, but workers are a business matter. In practice this means the federal government can keep Mohamed Atta out, unless he plans to mow your lawn.
What Kreible objects to is that ‘citizen’ word. She wants to implement a “red card” program that puts citizens in the penalty box. She would import workers without conveying citizenship or the right to remain after the job is over. This is similar to the wildly successful Turkish guest worker program the Germans had. Only problem is the Turks are still in Germany.
And while individuals should be “responsible,” American business is exempt. Right now if a US business thinks US workers want too much money, the business is free to open a subsidiary in Mexico and hire all the Mexicans it wants. But that’s a problem for agribusiness corporations, because shipping Alabama to Chihuahua would be a logistical nightmare. What’s more, sometimes the Mexican government seizes private business, you can’t trust the cops, ‘mordida’ cuts into profit margins and there’s always that decapitation problem.
So for Kreible the business solution is to flood the labor market by bringing Mexico here and let taxpayers deal with social costs.
Unfortunately for her there is no moral, ethical or conservative justification for bringing in foreign labor when unemployment in the US is over 7 percent and labor participation rates are at an all time low.
Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, evidently believes the word ‘conservative’ is a verbal spice you sprinkle on leftist policies to make them more palatable for genuine conservatives. He wants conservatives to “own” the immigration issue by out–pandering the Democrats.
Aguilar contends the entire illegal problem is a result of “big government” setting quotas and holding the quaint notion that US jobs should go to US citizens. He recycles every lame, reverse racist amnesty cliché he could find, beginning with illegals are doing the jobs Americans won’t do.
After that howler he became incoherent. Aguilar says illegals taking jobs here “creates jobs for working class Americans.” He claims that illegals did not disregard the rule of law because they didn’t come here voluntarily. Instead business brought them here. This was genuine news to me. Who would have thought coyotes were members of the Chamber of Commerce?
Aguilar also introduced the concept of “circular immigration.” Letting illegals come here and return to their home country as many times as they and Greyhound wished. Although something tells me the circle would stop abruptly in the US when it came time to collect Social Security.
He was followed by the Rev. Luis Cortes who is the president of Esperanza. The organization’s website motto is: “Strengthening our Hispanic community” meaning it’s La Raza with a Bible. Cortes’ solution is to make citizens of anyone who ranks Cinco de Mayo ahead of the 4th of July. Otherwise, “it gives Democrats an issue.” And afterwards Democrats won’t need an issue because with 9 million or so new voters they’ll never lose another presidential election.
The most insulting aspect of the panel was how the pro–amnesty participants evidently believed using the word ‘conservative’ to describe leftist policies would somehow convince a gullible audience.
A conservative immigration reform would be built on trying something new: Enhancing the law we have now. Make it a felony to hire an employee that failed an E–Verify check or hire an employee without checking E–Verify. And strictly enforce the prohibition against illegals enrolling in any welfare or social programs.
Drying up the job market will accomplish two goals. First many of the illegals will self–deport. Second it will raise wages for US workers and lower the unemployment rate. Right now many jobs go unfilled by citizens because they aren’t willing to accept the prevailing wage scale in Juarez because they don’t live in Juarez. If employers were forced to pay wages high enough to attract US citizens, more citizens would work.
That’s a conservative, free market solution that’s good for the country and preserves the rule of law. Unfortunately the ‘C’ in CPAC now appears to stand for ‘capitulation.’
Mathematicians have long contended that if you give a million monkeys a million typewriters and an infinite amount of time, eventually the simians will produce the King James Bible. Maybe so, but why inflict such a difficult challenge from the get–go? It could severely damage monkey morale.
I suggest assigning monkey scribes the task of producing the House GOP leadership’s “Immigration Reform Principles.” They should be able to knock that out in about a day — even with frequent banana breaks — and if they don’t replicate the document exactly, what the monkeys produce can’t be much more incoherent than the steaming pile the House leadership authored.
The document begins by stating: “Our nation’s immigration system is broken and our laws are not being enforced.” Naturally, their solution is to jettison the law. I’ve already outlined why amnesty is a bad idea for Republicans in an earlier column located here. So I won’t belabor that point, but what I would like to do is analyze Boehner & Company’s strategy for any evidence that it will accomplish their misguided goals.
Based on statements to the media and the “Principles,” Speaker Boehner’s concerns focus on three main areas:
- Negative media coverage of Republican opposition to amnesty
- Pressure from farmers and corporate America who want cheap imported labor that considers insultingly low wages a big raise from what they got back home
- Overwhelming Hispanic voting support for Democrat politicians
What Boehner does not appear to be worried about is the loss of support from the GOP’s conservative base after amnesty is passed.
So to achieve his goal of improving the Republican image, getting lobbyists off his back and showing Hispanics that he’s a verdadero amigo, Boehner wants a “step–by–step” process that constitutes an incremental surrender to Democrats and other tribal advocates. Boehner’s document begins with a list of bromides the House GOP leadership uses in an attempt to pull the wool over conservative’s eyes: “zero tolerance,” “visa tracking,” “employment verification” and I think an end to chain migration, but the “Principles” are so vague on that point it’s hard to tell.
I guess we will have to await clarification from the monkey’s version of the document.
But the linchpin of the “principles” is the statement: “There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation’s immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law.”
Instead Boehner unveils a grand public relations coup: Republicans propose to let illegals stay in the U.S. as Untermenschen. Whoops, sorry, I mean as legal residents but not citizens. They must pass background checks, pay “back taxes,” speak English (unless stopped by a policeman), give up any and all “rights” to welfare and be able to read the Constitution in Chinese. (No wait, that’s only if they want to vote in Alabama.)
This is like a land owner telling a trespasser who’s been on squatting in the house for years that he and his family can stay in the house he doesn’t own, but you won’t give him a clear title.
As they say in The Game of Thrones: You know nothing John Boehner.
After decades of being media whipping boys, elected Republicans not only don’t know how to advance an argument, they don’t even know how to avoid a public relations disaster.
Boehner — not the monkeys — will have recreated Exodus with Hispanics in the role of the Israelites. And just like the Jews trapped in Egypt, they can work all they want and the generous GOP will even give them straw for the bricks, but they will never have the vote or the dole.
And God help us, Chuck Schumer gets to be Moses.
As soon as the ink is dry on their 2nd class citizen documents, the formerly illegal are going to be demonstrating against Republican Apartheid. It’s going to be the story of the decade for the Mainstream Media and John Boehner gave it to them on a platter.
Every Election Day the 2nd classers will be demonstrating outside Republican polling places, yelling and brandishing signs for concerned network correspondents.
Queremos que el voto y lo queremos ahora! (We want the vote and we want it now!)
Estoy soñando con el voto (I’m dreaming of the vote)
Segunda clase es la ciudadanía apartheid (2nd class citizenship is apartheid)
Dicen a la familia a venir del Norte (Tell the family to come North)
Then there are the human tragedy stories that bring home the cost of Republican heartlessness courtesy of NPR. The grownup anchor babies who have to tell madre y padre they can’t go to the polls today and vote like they did in Venezuela under Chavez, because John Boehner says they’re less than citizens.
And don’t forget the groundskeeper who lost a foot to a runaway weed beater while working on some one percenter’s estate. He and his family are living in a Kelvinator box under a bridge abutment because he can’t work and he can’t collect U.S. disability checks thanks to Ebenezer Boehner. With tears in his eyes, Piers Morgan will tell viewers, “He was good enough to mow the lawn, but he’s not good enough to cash a disability check.”
That’s the kind of publicity that will have younger citizens leaving their Chipotle burritos uneaten as they run to the nearest party headquarters so they can register to vote Republican and grind the brown man down.
My prediction is six months max and Boehner will be throwing himself on Nelson Mandela’s grave and begging Obama to sign his Full Amnesty with Added Reparations bill.
Why endure the agony of an incremental amnesty? You can’t be half pregnant and you can’t pass a half citizenship bill. Boehner needs to either surrender now and line up a nice lobby job or finally start listening to his own disenfranchised conservative base.
See more A.F.Branco Cartoons here
92 Million people forced out of the job market and they say we need amnesty to fill jobs that Americas won’t do?
See more A.F.Branco Cartoons here
House Republican leadership is preparing to betray the base. Again. To illustrate the magnitude of the sellout I was going to use a hypothetical analogy with Democrats and their base. Initially I was going to posit that Sen. Tim Kaine (D–Secular) had changed his mind about abortion.
For years Kaine has said that although he’s personally opposed to abortion, he is not willing to impose his beliefs on a ‘woman’s right to choose.’ Essentially confessing that his Catholic faith is not strong enough to get in the way of his political ambitions. (In his last campaign he became even more weaselly, saying he didn’t want to stand in the way of a woman exercising her “constitutional choices,” unless the choice involved a handgun.)
In my hypothetical Kaine would announce he had decided that what the Catholic Church teaches and the Bible says is the truth and he will no longer support any abortion unless it is to save the life of the mother. Kaine would also declare that he will no longer vote for any taxpayer dollars to be given to Planned Parenthood since both his beliefs and opinion polls show Americans don’t think tax money should pay for or help support abortion facilities.
It’s a great analogy but it has one problem: No one would believe it. The analogy is too fantastic for even temporary suspension of disbelief. Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica, put it nicely this week: “So what’s the difference between Boehner and Pelosi and McConnell and Reid? Answer: The Democratic leadership honors its promises. Republican leaders have abandoned theirs.”
This House GOP leadership betrayal is passage of an amnesty bill, probably before the November election. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R–Sellout) says leadership supports an amnesty bill for 12 million illegals that includes tighter border enforcement as a sop to conservatives.
Boehner pays far more attention to agitation from people who shouldn’t be in the country than they do to conservative citizens. And unprincipled businessmen who want a steady supply of imported serfs are far more influential than mere voters.
National Republicans are forever pursuing the ‘independent voter’ at the expense of the base. Democrats on the other hand solidify their base first and then move to the independents. You think that might be why they win elections?
Besides the betrayal of the base, which is bad enough, what political goal do these masterminds in House leadership (to borrow an adjective from Mark Levin) think they are going to accomplish?
Boehner has picked an issue that was a failure the last time Republicans supported it. Ronald Reagan signed a one–time–only–amnesty–that–will–also–seal–the–border–tighter–than–a–teenage–miniskirt.
The results of that amnesty were fourfold:
- Granted citizenship to people who came and stayed illegally
- Produced millions of new votes for Democrats
- Legalized low–skill labor for employers & reduced wage rates for citizens
- Attracted another 12 million illegals who want their amnesty now.
Does Boehner expect amnesty to attract Hispanic voters? California Hispanics now make up the largest ethic group in the state as a result of amnesty and Democrat failure to seal the border. There is not one Republican statewide official. California is a GOP desert as Hispanics proved singularly ungrateful.
Does Boehner think amnesty will improve the party’s image? A Gallup poll lists a total of 3 percent of the populace ranking immigration “reform” as a top priority and I’m guessing all their names began with Jesus.
Does Boehner think amnesty will mean more contributions from big business? Possible and it may last a cycle or two, but once the amnestied voters gravitate to Democrats, Republicans will start losing. And the Business Roundtable doesn’t back or finance losers for long.
Immigration polling, which has evidently frightened the GOP leadership, is dishonest. Respondents are offered unrealistic or nebulous choices. For instance the Public Religion Research Institute proclaims, “Support for a path to citizenship has remained unchanged…an identical number (63%) supported a path to citizenship for immigrants currently living in the United States illegally.”
Yet their poll offers three choices that are false or too general to be useful: “become citizens provided they meet certain requirements,” “become permanent legal residents but not citizens” or “Identify and deport them.”
“Certain requirements” is not defined and therefore is useless in determining public policy. Poll respondents can interpret “certain requirements” in a number of ways ranging from “learn to speak English like Tom Brokaw” to “stand in a long line for an autographed photo of Obama.”
“Legal residents but not citizens” is an outcome that creates a permanent helot class that won’t survive the first Democrat Congress. And no sane conservative has ever advocated mass deportation. We believe they got here under their own power and they can leave the same way.
I have yet to see a poll that asks a question that offers a conservative choice. For instance: Do you support a step–by–step approach to the immigration problem that begins by removing the economic incentive for illegal immigration thru a law that makes it a criminal offense for employers to hire illegal aliens?
If illegals can’t work and they can’t collect welfare or rebates from the IRS then the invasion will begin to reverse. Presto the “immigration problem” solves itself! Sure the bill won’t pass the current Senate, but so what? It offers a conservative alternative to the amnesty now crowd and it preserves the rule of law, but that pales in comparison to Boehner’s dreams of campaign contributions from the Business Roundtable.
Before elected officials — Republicans again — got cold feet in Prince William County, illegals were fleeing after an anti–illegal enforcement act was passed. The county saved millions as they fled to nearby “sanctuary” cities and states. The same can happen in a nation that takes its own immigration laws seriously.
Unfortunately that is not this nation and it’s not this Republican Party.
Libertarian Fox News contributor Michelle Fields. Photo author unknown.
Fox News’ Latino website has recently published an opinion piece by libertarian FNC contributor Michelle Fields, who therein attacks conservative columnist Ann Coulter for pointing out the inconvenient truth about amnesty’s consequences and the majority of Latino immigrants. Fields believes Ann Coulter’s written remarks are xenophobic and based only on stereotypes.
Essentially, Fields’ claims, and her attacks on Coulter, can be summed up as follows:
Claim #1: Latinos are not a bunch of government dependents, but mostly a community of hardworking taxpayers, and they do not support Big Government or liberal/socialist ideologies. They share many beliefs with Republicans, such as faith and belief in hard work, and could very well vote GOP. Thus, the GOP is to blame for its failure to win over Latinos.
Claim #2: Amnesty will not kill the GOP.
Claim #3: Rejecting “immigration reform” because it could harm the GOP is unpatriotic and unjust.
All of her claims, without exception, are dead wrong. I’ll show you why.
Firstly, while I don’t want to generalize, and while not all Latinos are government dependents, the vast majority of them are. The typical Latino family in the US is led by a single mother. If she works, her income is so low she doesn’t pay any income taxes and receives the Earned Income Tax Credit – effectively a subsidy from US taxpayers. If she doesn’t work, she receives various forms of welfare, including 99 weeks of free unemployment compensation.
For food, mom gets food stamps and other aid, while her kids get 2-3 free meals at school every day.
Her kids are educated at taxpayers’ expense K-12 and can receive student loans, college aid, and in-state tuition rates.
For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare. (Latinos have the lowest insurance rate of any demographic group in the country.)
Why would those people vote for a party (the GOP) that pledges to cut taxes they don’t pay and reduce the government programs they do live off?
Wouldn’t self-interest dictate voting for a party that will let them continue receiving all the current giveaways from Uncle Sam, and perhaps give them even more?
Most Hispanics in America today are born out of wedlock to teen mothers. Hispanics are more likely than anyone else except blacks to be born out of wedlock to a teen mother, to do poorly in school, to drop out of high school, to be unemployed and on welfare, to commit crime, and to go to prison. (Of course, the former social ills lead to the latter – children born out of wedlock, especially to teen mothers, have their lives screwed up at the start, if you pardon my language.)
Therefore, it is not surprising that the vast majority of Hispanics overwhelmingly supports Big Government. According to very recent polling by Pew Hispanic Polling, the Kaiser Foundation, and others:
- An overwhelming 75% of Latinos prefer “a bigger government with more services” to “a smaller government with fewer services”; in other words, 75% of Latinos believe the federal government isn’t big enough! Among first generation Hispanic immigrants, 81% believe so, as do 72% of second-generation and 58% of third-generation Hispanics.
- 55% of Latinos want more government spending as a way of stimulating the economy; only 31% say taxes should be cut.
- Latinos also support Obamacare, the one government program all Republicans agree should be repealed immediately (and would be if they controlled the Senate and the White House). In fact, “Latinos are among the biggest backers of Obamacare.”
While this is the first time I agree with Rachel Maddow on anything, Maddow was nonetheless absolutely right to note that:
“There’s no great mystery here. Latino have the lowest rates of health coverage in the country, and strongly believe public access to affordable care should be a basic societal guarantee.
In other words, most Latinos believe the exact opposite of most Republicans. The GOP wants to eliminate the Affordable Care Act in its entirety; Latino voters want it protected. Republicans want to gut Medicare and Medicaid; Latinos see both programs as critical.
“This is going to hurt Republicans,” Matt Barreto, cofounder of Latino Decisions, a nonpartisan national polling firm, told Levey. “When Republicans keep saying they will repeal the health law, Latinos hear the party is going to take away their healthcare.”
Since the 2012 election, we’ve heard repeatedly from Republicans that Latinos are a natural constituency for the GOP and, if the party could only use more effective language, Latino voters would gravitate to the conservative party. And yet, the evidence to the contrary is increasingly overwhelming.”
Or, as the LA Times has noted:
“As Republican leaders try to woo Latino voters with a new openness to legal status for the nation’s illegal immigrants, the party remains at odds with America’s fastest-growing ethnic community on another key issue: healthcare.”
According to other polling by Pew Hispanic Research and others, Latinos aren’t any more conservative on social issues, either. In fact, they support gay marriage and abortion by wider margins than anyone else except Jewish Americans, women, and youngsters (themselves also traditional Democratic electorates).
For example, a June 19th, 2013 poll by Pew found that 52% of all Hispanics, including 54% of Catholic Hispanics, 57% of “native-born” Hispanics, and 59% of those Hispanics for whom English is their first language, support gay marriage legalization. Among ethnic groups, only Jewish Americans support the legality of gay marriage and abortion by wider margins.
So Ann Coulter was absolutely right, and Michelle Fields was dead wrong, about Hispanics’ political views: the vast majority of them ARE strident liberals, ARE dependent on the federal government from cradle to grave, and DO support Big Government. Those are not stereotypes. Those are facts.
And Republicans can’t woo these people. You can’t convert a Big Government liberal to free-market conservatism anymore than you can convince an Islamist to forego jihad.
The GOP cannot win the Hispanic vote unless it becomes the second party of Big Government and social liberalism. But that would defeat the party’s purpose, and the Dems will always outdo Republicans in the “handing out taxpayers’ dollars” game.
But remaining (or making the GOP again) the party of limited constitutional government means foregoing the vast majority of the Hispanic vote. That is a fact. Latinos love Big Government.
Miss Fields claims that the Latino vote is winnable for the GOP. But that is impossible for the above reasons. And all election results show that.
In fact, in 1984, while the general American populace voted for Ronald Reagan in even greater numbers than in 1980, Hispanics voted for Walter Mondale in even greater numbers than they had for Jimmy Carter: 61% for Mondale versus “only” 56% for Carter.
In other words, Latinos missed the Carter Administration so badly that they voted for Walter Mondale, an advocate of the “nuclear freeze” and tax hikes, in even greater numbers than they had for Carter!
Ronald Reagan won only 35% of the Hispanic vote in 1980 and only 37% in 1984.
But Republicans passed, and he signed, amnesty in 1986. Didn’t Latinos reward Republicans for amnesty thereafter?
Actually, no, they didn’t. Just two years later, they voted for Dukakis in even greater numbers (69%) than for Mondale (61%) and Carter (56%)! George H. W. Bush won only 30% of the Hispanic vote in 1988.
But he made it easier to immigrate to the US, created the Diversity Visa Lottery, and eliminated the English language test on the naturalization exam. Didn’t that earn him the Hispanic vote?
No, it didn’t. He won only 25% of the Hispanic vote in 1992 – even less than Mitt Romney did in 2012. Bill Clinton won 61% of the Hispanic vote in 1992 and 71% in 1996.
But didn’t George W. Bush show Republicans can win the Hispanic vote?
No, he didn’t. He won only 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and only 40% (not the 44% Miss Fields claims) in 2004. Even then, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Al Gore (62%) and John Kerry (58%).
Even America’s loudest advocate of amnesty for illegal aliens, John McCain, won only 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008; Latinos backed Obama then by 67%.
But most outrageously, four years later, Latinos thought Obama deserved a second term, and they voted for him in 2012 in numbers even greater than in 2008 (71% vs 67%). This is consistent with their entire history of overwhelmingly backing stridently liberal presidential candidates: Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama. They’ve never met a strident liberal they didn’t love.
(Source: Pew Hispanic polling.)
And now, very recent polling shows that if Joe Biden was the Democratic and Marco Rubio the Republican nominee, Biden would handily beat Rubio – a leading advocate of amnesty and a Hispanic himself – 60% to 26%, i.e. Rubio would receive even less of the Hispanic vote than the strongly anti-amnesty Mitt Romney, despite being a Hispanic himself!
The Latino vote is utterly unwinnable for the GOP. Therefore, it is in the Party’s and the Country’s interest to halt further immigration (from all countries of the world, not just Latin American ones) and to ensure that the illegals already in America are deported.
Ann Coulter is also absolutely right to point out, and Michelle Fields dead wrong to deny, that amnesty will kill the GOP.
Just look at Miss Fields’ home state of California to see what would happen to the GOP.
Massive immigration – both legal and illegal – from Latin American countries (mostly Mexico) has turned California into such a liberal state that NO Republican can be elected statewide in California anymore. Not so long, it gave America such great Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S.I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.
But now, California is such a liberal state that the Dems have the governorship and supermajorities in both houses of the state legislatures, allowing them to raise taxes anytime without limits. In 2010, Californians chose Babsy Boxer and Governor Moonbeam over two bright conservative women – Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman – one of them pro-life, the other pro-choice, and rejected a proposal to suspend California’s cap-and-tax scheme until the state unemployment rate shrinks.
Last year, Californians gave the Dems a supermajority in the State Senate.
Similar stories are repeated throughout the country. New Mexico, like California, is lost forever. Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and Virginia haven’t voted Republican since 2004. Only Texas and Arizona remain secure – for now.
When Texas goes, America goes.
As Ann Coulter rightly points out, if amnesty is passed, the entire country will have the electorate of California. And there will be no going back. Look again at the Hispanic voting patterns of the last 33 years to see what electorate America would have. An electorate 71% of which thought Barack Obama had done a good job and deserved a second term. An electorate 61% of which missed the Carter Administration so badly that it voted for its vice president. An electorate 69% of which voted for Michael Dukakis.
But it would actually be much worse than that: as Sarah Palin points out, amnesty would be a heinous betrayal of working-class Americans, who would see their jobs stolen by illegal immigrants.
Thus we come to Miss Fields’ last claim: that rejecting “immigration reform” is unpatriotic and unjust. A patriot is one who does what is good for his country.
Amnesty – as Miss Fields herself has noted – would be very bad for the country. It would reward lawbreaking and put a huge new strain on American taxpayers. It would also turn the entire country into California. That would be disastrous for America.
Thus, by blocking amnesty, House Republicans are doing the PATRIOTIC thing. They’re doing the right thing for the Country and the Party.
To conclude, Miss Fields is dead wrong on all counts. The vast majority of Latinos ARE government dependents and DO support Big Government. Amnesty would kill the GOP, and conservatism in general, forever. And stopping it is the patriotic thing to do.
If Miss Fields is the classy young woman I believe she is, she should and will apologize to Ann Coulter. She’s certainly a knowledgeable and intelligent person and has been right on many issues. But on these, she’s flat wrong.
Courtesy of Legal Insurrection
Courtesy of Net Right Daily
Courtousy of Legal Insurrection
More A.F.Branco Cartoons at CDN
Amnesty without border security first may spell big trouble for the GOP party. Not only can they lose votes from their conservative base, but add many more votes to the democrat party.
Shortly after last year’s presidential defeat and at the beginning of the Great Republican Panic of 2013, I wrote here about what a bad idea morally and legally amnesty for illegal aliens is. Guess what? It still is.
In a sane universe “immigration reform” would be specifically designed to benefit the citizens of the nation passing the law, rather than be a law that only benefits non–citizens who came here illegally at the expense of the citizens.
But that hasn’t stopped Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL) from eagerly joining the Gang of Ocho’s efforts to pass a “comprehensive” amnesty bill. After being trapped in a room with both Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–Publicity) and Sen. John McCain (R–Media Loves Me, Unless I Run for President), Rubio has evidently developed Stockholm Syndrome. He claims this amnesty bill does not have any amnesty provisions. Instead is has a “path to citizenship” where the length of time before amnesty kicks in somehow makes amnesty more tolerable for conservatives.
Yet I have a simple test for supporters of any immigration reform bill. If removing the portions that deal with granting citizenship to people who came to the US illegally causes Democrat support to vanish, then what you have is an amnesty bill and not a “reform” at all.
During her testimony before Congress in support of the bill, Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Incompetano said the 844–page bill has many benefits, including stricter accountability for employers and improving border security. Yet you can accomplish both of those goals without legalizing 12 million illegal aliens and doing so might just reduce the number of illegals here now.
Opponents of actually enforcing immigration law claim the government can’t deport 12 million people, but no one I know is advocating that. In fact this is one of the areas where I prefer a libertarian solution: the illegals got here on their own without government assistance and they can leave on their own, too.
In a true magic beans moment, Rubio is so proud of the 13–year “path to citizenship” — as if a slow motion surrender to illegality is an improvement over an immediate surrender. Maybe he thinks during this cooling off period Republican outreach teams can contact the newly legal and persuade them they are really naturally conservative and should be voting GOP.
But I’ve got news for Marco: it’s not going to happen. His 13–year path is going to be the civil unions of the immigration fight. As soon as Rubio’s bill is passed Democrats will begin complaining about second–class citizenship for brown people. As Neil Munro has written, the bill already has 400 “exemptions, exceptions, waivers, determinations and grants of discretion and even better will be administered by the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!
We will be lucky if the 13–years lasts 13 months.
Democrats will get their immediate temporary permanent status for the illegals and the increased border security will never happen. The same goes for employer sanctions.
We heard the amnesty and border security shuffle when Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million (Gee, wasn’t he a Republican?). Amnesty was immediate and border security was absent, which is why we are preparing to legalize 12 million now.
The fines Rubio dreams of (much like the $1,500 fines the Commonwealth of Virginia was going to impose of indigent drunk drivers) will never be collected and the English proficiency test will be found to be culturally insensitive. Instead, illegals will get a waiver for the fine and if they can look at two photos and distinguish George Washington from Simon Bolivar their English is good to go, too.
You think I’m exaggerating? Ha! The Democrats in charge of the District of Columbia are preparing to introduce legislation that would require pharmacies, and possibly doctor’s offices, to provide translators — at business expense — for any customer or patient who does not speak English. That in a nutshell (apt phrasing, that) is the Democrat philosophy on immigration.
And by the way, I was being conservative when I said 12 million illegals would join us. According to NumbersUSA it will be more like 33 million, because “comprehensive reform” doesn’t manage to reform one of the major failings of current immigration policy called “family reunification.”
You probably think unifying families makes sense, because parents should be able to bring their children into the country. But you are wrong, that policy would be the reform. Current Democrat policy defines “family” as grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, kissing–cousins, step–relatives and BFFs. So 33 million may be a conservative estimate.
Tea Party favorite Rubio is flacking for a bill that will only encourage more illegal immigration in the future, will not provide increased border security, will cost taxpayers billions, will depress wages for lower income workers, will burden the welfare system and — according to a report from Emily Schultheis in Politico — give Democrats 11 million so new voters, which is about the voting population of Ohio.
This leaves conservatives with a choice of opinions regarding Marco Rubio. One, he’s either too gullible to ever be allowed in the Oval Office or two, he’s a Democrat sleeper agent.