Why amnesty for illegal aliens MUST be stopped
NOTE: Fox News reports that House Republicans have nearly finished working on their version of an amnesty bill. Folks, please call and write your Congressman and your Senators and tell them that you will NEVER vote for them again if they sponsor, cosponsor, or vote for amnesty in any form.
It’s clear that, on illegal immigration, Republicans, like the Bourbons of the Restoration Era, have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. Republicans – including both classic RINOs such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham and supposed “conservatives” like Marco Rubio – are again pushing for amnesty. Things are being made worse by the fact that this time around, libertarians, led by Sen. Rand Paul, support them on amnesty. (Paul supports a “path to citizenship” if the border is secured – as determined by… whom, exactly? We don’t know.)
A few weeks ago, Marco Rubio, flanked by discredited RINOs John McCain and Lindsey Graham and by four Democratic Senators, announced his support for “bipartisan” immigration law reform that would include amnesty for illegal aliens after the border is “secured” (whatever that word means).
The next day, as Pat Buchanan points out, President Obama rejected these RINO’s surrender offer – their offer of conditional amnesty – reminding the pro-amnesty RINOs that those who surrender don’t dictate the terms of surrender.
These RINOs and other people tell us that the GOP must embrace amnesty for illegal aliens in order to win Hispanics’ votes. Embrace amnesty or perish, they tell us.
But they’re dead wrong. The GOP will perish if it adopts their proposals, NOT if it rejects amnesty. That’s because most Hispanics are natural liberals, and giving amnesty (under whatever name) to 12-20 million illegal immigrants from the Third World will create 12-20 million new Democrat voters.
Say there are only 12 mn illegal immigrants in America. Let’s assume they’re legalized and that Republicans achieve George W. Bush levels of the Hispanic vote (44%). That still gives the Democrats a net gain of 1.6 million new voters – 6.72 mn new supporters vs 5.28 mn.
Easy to see why the Democrats are for this. But why would a Republican Party that is not suicidally-minded support this?
If amnesty is passed, you can kiss the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and many governorships and state legislatures goodbye, forever. Republicans will never again be able to win any national election again. The Democrats will gain at least 1.6 mn new voters on net and will thus have permanent majorities in Arizona, Texas, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.
When Texas goes, America goes.
Consider: while 18 states that have a combined 242 Electoral College votes have voted Democratic in the last consecutive six presidential elections, cobbling together an EC majority has been increasingly difficult for Republicans. Republicans last did it in 2004, and completely failed to do so in 4 of the last 6 elections.
California, overwhelmed by immigrants (legal and illegal), is now stridently liberal. New Mexico is now also out of reach for the GOP. Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and Florida are increasingly problematic for Republicans. Only Texas and Arizona remain secure – for now.
As Pat Buchanan likes to say: when Texas goes, America goes.
If amnesty becomes law, there goes Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Virginia, and Texas, and there goes the presidency, forever.
The “natural conservatives” canard
In response, we always hear “But don’t worry, Hispanics are natural conservatives. They are devout Catholics, devout social conservatives, work hard, and want to achieve the American dream.”
This canard is utterly false. This description is true only of a minority of Hispanics – those whom conservatives usually meet. But the vast majority of Hispanics don’t fit that description at all.
As a demographic group, Hispanics are less likely than any other (other than Jews) to attend church or support conservative policies, more likely to support liberal ones, and more likely than any other group (other than blacks) to vote Democratic, achieve poor school grades, drop out of high school, commit crimes, end up in prison, have children out of wedlock, be pregnant during teenagehood (girls), be raised by single parents, and be dependent on welfare and other government programs.
This is the antithesis of a natural conservative.
The canard about Hispanics being “natural conservatives” is even more idiotic than the one about blacks being “natural conservatives”. At least blacks really are social conservatives – they simply vote Democratic anyway, ignoring the fact that the Democrats support abortion on demand (read: the Holocaust of black children) and gay marriage.
And as Ann Coulter points out, last year, Hispanics were almost alone in increasing the share of their vote going to Obama from 2008 to 2012. Only they and Asians voted for Obama in greater numbers in 2012 than in 2008. (The black vote for Obama remained, alas, unchanged at over 90%.)
Every other demographic group: whites, men, women, youngsters, Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews – gave a larger share of their vote to the Republican nominee in 2012 than in 2008. In fact, if the election were to be decided only by whites, or if the electorate had been as white in 2012 as it was in 1980, Romney would’ve trashed Obama by a landslide.
It is ethnic minorities – Hispanics, Asians, and blacks – who reelected Obama.
Profiles in Welfare
And what does a typical Hispanic (or black) voter look like? Pat Buchanan gives us the answer.
He or she is raised by a single mother. He/she, like his single mom, is completely dependent on the federal government and its cornucopia of social programs for survival.
His/her education is paid for, K-12, by the federal and state governments. For college, he can apply for federal student loans and other federal programs. For food, mom has foodstamps, and children get 2-3 federally-subsidized meals at school every day.
If mom works, she has no tax liability thanks to a high no-tax treshold and the Earned Income Tax Credit. If she doesn’t work, she gets welfare benefits, including 99 weeks of unemployment compensation.
For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.
And that’s the majority of Hispanic families. Why would these people vote for a party that pledges to cut taxes they don’t pay and promises to cut the government programs they benefit from? Wouldn’t logic dictate voting for a party that promises to let them keep this entire cornucopia of federal benefits and even to expand them?
The problem is all immigration – not just illegal immigration
We’re also being constantly told another cretinous canard: that legal immigration is fine, it’s just illegal immigration that’s problematic.
But this is also utterly false. Legal immigration is also a huge drain on the Treasury and a huge political threat to the GOP. The problem is not just illegal immigration; the problem is immigration, period.
Since 1965, a million newcomers have immigrated to America every year on average, the vast majority of them from dysfunctional, socialist Third World countries like Mexico.
It is thanks to THESE immigrants that California and New Mexico are now out of reach and why CO, NV, FL, and VA are increasingly problematic for the GOP. It is thanks to THESE legal immigrants that Obama was elected and reelected. If they hadn’t been present in the US, Obama would’ve never been elected, let alone reelected after a disastrous first term.
Therefore, not only should Republicans stop amnesty dead in its tracks, they must also severely restrict legal immigration when they retake the White House and the Senate. This must include eliminating chain immigration, a 10-year moratorium on legal immigration, and then, allowing only highly-educated, English-speaking immigrants who will be able to find a job and will not become a drain on taxpayers.
Statistics from the Center for Immigration Studies prove that when legal immigration grows, illegal immigration grows with it; and when the rate of legal immigration is reduced, illegal immigration declines concurrently.
Remember: the problem is not just “illegal immigration”, the problem is immigration, period.
A matter of life and death
As Ann Coulter points out, massive immigration – both legal and illegal – has turned California into such a liberal state that no Republican can win statewide in California anymore. Not so long ago, this state gave America great Republican Senators and Governors such as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.
New Mexico has now gone the same way. The GOP nowadays can’t even win presidential elections in CO, NV, FL, or VA. Only Arizona and Texas remain secure – for now.
And as Pat Buchanan says, when Texas goes, America goes.
We conservatives must not allow that to happen. Amnesty must be stopped dead in its tracks, and legal immigration must be severely restricted.
This is literally a matter of life and death, for the GOP, the conservative movement, and the Country.
Why can’t we use the same tactics that Eisenhower used in the fifties to send illegals home?
The elephant in the living room is Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Family Reunification Act. Legals are abusing this (personal observation), so you know the “new” Americans will do the same.
The Act allows the Newbies to bring over mom and dad and all the other “close relatives”. If they are of retirement age, they immediately go on Social Security. If they are disabled, they immediately go on SSDI. None of them have paid a penny into the system. Next the politicians will say they have to raise SS taxes as the fund is running dry earlier than expected.
Please remember, SS benefits are based on one’s lifetime earnings in the SS system, and ONLY begin if/when one has earned 40 “credits” (essentially, 10 years of working in the US). So parents of immigrants do NOT qualify for standard SS benefits.
There are OTHER reasons to be concerned, just pointing out that THIS argument won’t wash.
Thanks for your comment. As a contract programmer, I have worked throughout the US as well as overseas via US companies. Any time that I talked with those foreign-born who have become citizens, one of the first things brought up was how they got some parent(s) over here and on Social Security. (It was in “this is a great country” context, not how they screwed us.). When I brought up your point, they clammed up.
I guess I will have to dig into the details of the Act, but after seeing US workers run out of unemployment and easily sign up for SSDI, I have to wonder if that 10-year provision is even considered when it comes to immigrants.
With the possible revision of the ‘processing’ aspect, there is NOTHING WRONG with our Immigration LAWS as written… What is wrong is NOT ALLOWING law enforcement to ENFORCE it…”Ike” brought people together, he saw the job drain & Americans coming home from war could not find work. 1953 brought us his “Operation Wetback” (not a slur, reference to Rio Grande river) It would be a big help IF we had leadership, but BEFORE anything is done Our borders MUST BE SECURE!! Here are some dollar figures that if anyone needs it, sources are available. Welfare=$11-22 BILLION a year,Food Stamps, WIC free lunches $22 BILLION, medicaid = $5 BILLION, education (inc. bilingual teachers)=$12 BILLION,Incarciration (jail)+$3 Million plus…..IF we foolishly grant amnesty, what would make this burden any less?….Nothing!!!
Now if the reasons that ZM & these finances don’t provide you with a reason to help stop this madness, consider that 75-100 legal Americans are victims of violent crimes daily!! The Drug Cartels have meshed totally into the gangs like M-13 & are in almost Anytown, USA…maybe yours??? Texas, alone, in 2007 had 7200 Sex Offenders in prison…..
Give Rubio et al, credit for trying to tackle a rough, touchy issue, but please STOP AMNESTY’ there is already a ‘path to citizenship’, let the focus be there & only there.
Related point: there’s a court case in the news this week, about Houston wanting to ONLY provide ballots in non-English languages on request (rather than mailing 4-5 different versions to ALL voters, automatically).
Silly me, didn’t the Naturalization rules say one has to be conversant in English before one can become a citizen? So why do we have to print ballots in ANY other language, EVER?
If we give up on assimilation, on expecting ALL citizens to be functionally literate in ENGLISH, then we are giving up on the concept of “America as melting pot” and giving in to the proponents of “multiculturalism” – and giving up on a truly distinctive America as the land of the free.
Something critical which this discussion doesn’t seem to consider is the CHILDREN of those immigrants: while their parents’ status may be legal or illegal, the children born in the U.S. *are* citizens.
Since “self-deportation” clearly is not a workable option (like it or not), the GOP MUST chose to reach out to the immigrants in this country, with its strongest tool for doing so being the creation of a viable path to legal residency in this country. If not, then the CHILDREN of these immigrants will BY DEFAULT be pressed into the camp of the Democrats, since the GOP will be continuing to deny that these people should be here at all.
Whether Hispanics in particular are “natural conservatives” or “natural progressives” can be debated. From a practical standpoint, however, I would MUCH rather be in a position to try to win over the hearts & minds of immigrants to a conservative viewpoint, beginning with a meaningful resolution to their legal status. To ignore this IS to expect that we WILL end up deporting them….or else seal the GOP’s fate as a washed-up power on the national political scene.