Immigration Bill, Part 2

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand Bush staying with this so doggedly. Nor do I understand his taking on the "loud people" on talk radio that were largely responsible for his being president in the first place. I suppose the fact that he's a lame duck plays into it, but still it baffles me.

[/ QUOTE ]
You find this surprising? He's an intensely idealistic president, and he ignores advice like it's his job. He basically ruined his party's electoral prospects in '06 (and possibly '08) by refusing to draw things down in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush has to stay with this so doggedly because allowing the right to control this issue will ruin his party's electoral prospects far beyond '08.

The Tom Tancredos of the world are a cancer to the GOP. For the long term health of the party, President Bush essentially has to take on the rabid talk radio crowd because of the damage they're doing to the GOP's long term electoral prospects:

The WSJ chronicles the dilemma:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010263

<font color="#666666">"The longer term danger is that the GOP is sending a message to Latinos that it doesn't want them in the party. And if that message sticks, Republicans could put themselves back in minority party status for a generation or more. Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority in the country, and their voting numbers continue to grow. Hispanics were estimated to be 8% of the electorate in 2006, compared with 6% in 2004 and 5.5% in 2000. Census data show that the number of Latino voters could rise to 10% or more by 2008. The demographic reality is that the GOP can't be a majority party with Anglo-Saxon votes alone.

Like most voters, Hispanics care about more issues than immigration. But also like most voters, they take pride in their cultural identity and will reject candidates who send a message of hostility to their very presence in America. They know that when Tom Tancredo calls for an immigration "time out," he's not talking about the Irish. He means no more Mexicans, Hondurans or other Hispanics. If the GOP wants to be deserted by Hispanics for the next few election cycles, that sort of talk should do the trick."</font>


In essence, Rove and the forward thinkers in the party know that letting the GOP base control the party's immigration policy (and talking points) are a recipe for long-term disaster. Hence why Bush has to go to war with them.

The demographic math is written on the wall. Wooing Hispanic voters are integral to the viability of both parties going forward, and the Tancredo/NRO/talk radio wing of the right could do irreparable harm to the party going forward if they're allowed to control the agenda on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe so, but what about the notion of BOTH parties representing the will of the people (as they're generally supposed to, being, after all, representatives of the people)? I think most Republicans and Democrats (regular citizens, not Congressmen) favor enforcement of existing immigration laws and tougher controls on immigration. If both parties' representatives would take a stance of representing the majority wishes of the American people, neither party would suffer relatively to the other party on the issue.

I'd like to bring up an ancillary point that disturbs and puzzles me a bit, too: if either party takes a stance against illegal (or legal) immigration, the claim is that it will drive Latino immigrants away from that party. Maybe so. But immigrants are supposed to become Americans, are they not, with their primary new loyalty and allegiance being to America, is that not correct? That's what the immigration process is all about, isn't it? Yet if Latino immigrants tend to place their own ethnicity as a higher allegiance than their allegiance to America, how does that fit in with the ideal of immigration?

Further, Anglos in the USA seem to be bending over backwards to not be racist on such matters, but are Latino immigrants typically more concerned about allegiance to their own race/ethnicity than they are with allegiance to America or becoming Americans? If they are not more concerned with that, then how does the WSJ argument hold any water, that they will be driven away from a party that wants to enforce immigration laws? If on the other hand they are more concerned with allegiance to their own race/ethnicity than with allegiance to America, then the WSJ argument is totally correct, and they will indeed be driven away from the party that is not pro-immigration.

Does becoming an American no longer means having one's primary allegiance switch to America? I'm not saying that is true of most new Latino immigrants (legal or illegal), rather, I'm asking. If it is true, then the WSJ argument succeeds strongly. If it is false, then the WSJ argument suffers from some holes.

Please everybody think this through a while before responding, and please try to respond analytically. I'm posing these questions because some things really don't appear to be fully adding up. Thanks to everyone for reading and thanks for thinking this through with me.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In percentages how many votes do you believe this will cost the Republicans in 2008 among Hispanic voters????

[/ QUOTE ]
Very little, because:

1. This wasn't reported on as a partisan issue. Supporters and opponents came from both sides of the aisle.

2. Pro-immigration groups weren't thrilled with the bill either. They thought it was too tough on immigrants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, thanks.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand Bush staying with this so doggedly. Nor do I understand his taking on the "loud people" on talk radio that were largely responsible for his being president in the first place. I suppose the fact that he's a lame duck plays into it, but still it baffles me. A Republican president steadfastly sticking with this, insulting fellow Republicans, for a bill where the support came, basically, only from Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

First a caveat, I can be convinced that "securing the borders" is a lot of hype. You may have read this in another thread but I'll post it here because this is what's baffling me about Bush.


Something that's really bothering me about the "War on Terror" and Bush lately. Bush's support of the immigration bill before the Senate now seems to me to do basically nothing about "strengthening our border security" which means to me that this isn't a high priority item for Bush. In fact Bush isn't promoting the legislation on that basis at all. We can argue whether or not this bill does strengthen border security or not. We could also debate whether or not border security needs strengthening. No matter which side of these too questions your views fall on, I think it's clear that generally speaking people who support the "War on Terror" generally believe that strengthening border security is necessary and vital (I realize these folks are a subset of the people who have an agenda in opposing the immigration bill). I think it's equally clear that many who don't support the concept of a "War on Terror" believe that "stenghtening border security" at this point in time isn't a major issue. No matter what the politicians say about this immigration bill, it doesn't do very much more than is done now to make the borders more secure. Which brings me to my point (sorry it took so long) and if you're still with me, the leader of the administration that launches the "War on Terror" and indeed it's most ardent champion arguably doesn't put a high priority on border security. I find that to be a conflict that is unresolvable and puts more into question the motives of the president.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you trust some politicians some of the time, but not this politician on this issue?

I think they are all theives and liers. I keep it simple.

[NeBlis]

Bush has held some sort of guest worker card idea out as part of his platform since before he even announced a presidential run. Its not like its some kind of nefarious scheme he and Rove cooked up. He actually believes this is important.

He is correct but is going about it all wrong as usual.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush has held some sort of guest worker card idea out as part of his platform since before he even announced a presidential run. Its not like its some kind of nefarious scheme he and Rove cooked up. He actually believes this is important.

He is correct but is going about it all wrong as usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus it's no fun being a politician if they all agree, it is much more fun to argue incessantly, accomplish nothing productive, add miles of additional red tape and drive taxpayers deeper into the dirt, while carrying the air of legitimacy about yourself.

That's the real draw at being a politicain. You get to control people, talk [censored], contradict yourself all the time, do dirty deals behind closed doors... and walk down main street having people clammer about you wanting to have you kiss their babies and have their pictures taken with you.

With each passing day I become more and more perplexed at how many people not only accept the system but argue for it.

It's legalized mafia. That's it.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush has held some sort of guest worker card idea out as part of his platform since before he even announced a presidential run. Its not like its some kind of nefarious scheme he and Rove cooked up. He actually believes this is important.

He is correct but is going about it all wrong as usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've come to the conclusion that he's not a very astute politician (have your fun with that one guys). Why some Democrats want to sack Karl Rove is a mystery to me. This idea that Karl Rove is some kind of political genius just doesn't add up to me.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
I've come to the conclusion that he's not a very astute politician (have your fun with that one guys). Why some Democrats want to sack Karl Rove is a mystery to me. This idea that Karl Rove is some kind of political genius just doesn't add up to me.


[/ QUOTE ]


Well its complicated.... You see Rove / Bush completely outsmarted the Dems and totally tricked them into the Iraq war. So obv Bush / Rove compared to the average Dem is a genius and therefor a huge threat.

new DNC slogan: "Bush lied and we fell for it .. now who is the idiot?"

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Immigration into the US is utterly racist. If you're white or educated or otherwise law-abiding you are subject to draconian regulation and huge legal expense as well as the overhanging threat of deportation. If you're poor and brown, well, no worries. This is part of what Americans object to.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. First off, immigrants from Latvia who immigrate illegally face exactly the same risks of deportation as Mexicans. The reason why many get entangled in bureaucracy is because they try to follow the rules. Mexicans who immigrate legally face the same problems. I'm sure far more Mexicans are deported than Europeans.

Second, the US government operates a lottery which awards tens of thousands of green cards to immigrants from countries that don't send many people to America. On top of this, to immigrate to America on an H1-B visa, you need to have high value skills. How many Mexicans do you think have these skills? Our immigration policy is biased toward Westerners, the only reason more Latinos immigrate is because the demand is much greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get yourself a little real world color. Find out how browm illegal aliens are treated after a DUI arrest. Then get one yourself or check out a H1B visa white boy go through the DUI court process. The asymetry is real, obvious and racist. There are dozens of other similar asymetries. It's very much easier to ignore them than it is to call them what they are.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand Bush staying with this so doggedly. Nor do I understand his taking on the "loud people" on talk radio that were largely responsible for his being president in the first place. I suppose the fact that he's a lame duck plays into it, but still it baffles me. A Republican president steadfastly sticking with this, insulting fellow Republicans, for a bill where the support came, basically, only from Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

This convinced me that Bush has gone round the bend. Yes, it took 6 years.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Immigration into the US is utterly racist. If you're white or educated or otherwise law-abiding you are subject to draconian regulation and huge legal expense as well as the overhanging threat of deportation. If you're poor and brown, well, no worries. This is part of what Americans object to.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. First off, immigrants from Latvia who immigrate illegally face exactly the same risks of deportation as Mexicans. The reason why many get entangled in bureaucracy is because they try to follow the rules. Mexicans who immigrate legally face the same problems. I'm sure far more Mexicans are deported than Europeans.

Second, the US government operates a lottery which awards tens of thousands of green cards to immigrants from countries that don't send many people to America. On top of this, to immigrate to America on an H1-B visa, you need to have high value skills. How many Mexicans do you think have these skills? Our immigration policy is biased toward Westerners, the only reason more Latinos immigrate is because the demand is much greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get yourself a little real world color. Find out how browm illegal aliens are treated after a DUI arrest. Then get one yourself or check out a H1B visa white boy go through the DUI court process. The asymetry is real, obvious and racist. There are dozens of other similar asymetries. It's very much easier to ignore them than it is to call them what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad your a hyppocrite and only want to talk about what you perceive as racisim against white people (as if there is something special about the color of one's skin) and things like that. People might actually take you seriously if you didn't come off like such a bigot in the politics forum.