Jump to navigation
No Difference? Elections Matter
R. Alex Whitlock
Before I get started on this post, I want to mention that I am not interested in debating the merits of the "immigration reform" (bill's full text
here) that looks like it just might become law. I don't want to hear about the alleged nefariousness of the immigrants nor the alleged racism of the border hawks. I am more interested in this as a procedural matter. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the current bill is a really, really bad one.
Over at Instapundit and in other border-hawk circles, a whole lot of anger is directed at Bush and the Republicans in congress. That's fair enough since without their support it the bill wouldn't be able to go through. I see conservatives asking what the point of voting Republican is when they let things like happen. I hear claims that 2006 should have been a wake-up call on the issue, but that the Republican leadership isn't listening.
Frankly, I agree. If they'd been stronger against immigration congressional Republicans might have saved the Republican majority (temporarily, anyhow).
It's worth point out, however, that there is no reason to believe that this bill would be going through if the Democrats hadn't gained control of congress. Bush has been rallying on this issue for some time now. Suddenly, within six months of a Democratic congress, things are starting to happen. Coincidence?
How many conservatives stayed home in 2006 or even voted Democrat because the Republicans "aren't any better"? How many got on their high horse about refusing to support a party not strong enough on this and other issues, only to hand congressional control over to the other party?
This should serve as a reminder that elections matter. Unless I can be convinced that a Republican congress would have passed this (and the record says otherwise), voters that stayed home or hedged their vote share the blame for this getting through.
For my part, I voted Democrat in my congressional election. But then again, I oppose the "conservative base" on this issue. Even though I think the bill is a bum deal, too (albeit for different reasons), I'm not losing nearly as much here. And the bitter pill of a bad law is at least washed down with a certain amount of satisfaction of the agony of people that want to turn the Republican Party into something I refuse to be a part of.
Update: Well. No sooner do I write this than the Senate
puts it on hold. Since I don't like the bill I don't consider this an altogether bad thing. It does seem increasingly lightly that something that the border hawks detest is going to pass. The question at this point is how bad the bill is going to be.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Observations
Your assessment is based on a false presumption, I think.
In at least half the races, the prevailing Democrat had a platform on illegal immigration that was as strong as, or stronger than, the Republican they defeated. Where are they now? Apparently in lock-step with their party, which means their strong positions during the campaign were the usual politicians' lies.
All that this shows so far is that no matter which party is in Congress, we will get sold down the river.
I do find it rather ironic that at the same time those who are not for illegal immigration are decrying the bill's problems, the advocates for illegal immigration are claiming it's too tough. We will simply have to wait and see if that is the case at the end (Bush and Kennedy already stripped out the requirement that back taxes be paid, and who knows what else will be dropped).
Regarding: "Suddenly, within six months of a Democratic congress, things are starting to happen. Coincidence?"
A lot of observers/pundits have been positing this question lately, based on the fact that Bush held off on firing Rumsfeld until after the election. Firing Rumsfeld might have saved a few seats, but Bush stated he "didn't want to influence" the election with it. Why did he not? At the time, many thought he was just being stupid. He cultivates that appearance very well. There is a sizable and growing group, however, that are prepared to believe Bush was pushing to get the Democrats into power just to ram this "reform" down an unwilling America's throat.
I'm also disappointed in this statement:
"people that want to turn the Republican Party into something I refuse to be a part of" - which sounds an awful lot like you're accusing them of being racist, or some other pejorative, and that's just not the case. Frankly, the accusations of "racism" on this issue are getting to the point where something similar to Godwin's Law probably ought to apply.
By the by: one of my co-workers got her LEGAL immigration finished last month - she and her husband are now officially citizens of the US.
Another two co-workers (and a pair of friends of yours, FYI) are working through the legal immigration process right now. Chances are, if this bill passes, illegal aliens will manage to get citizenship ahead of them. I don't know if that means anything or not.
/In at least half the races, the prevailing Democrat had a platform on illegal immigration that was as strong as, or stronger than, the Republican they defeated./
I don't think the issue is with the swing votes, I think the issue is with the respective party leaderships. I think Pelosi and Reed (and their committee chairs) let things happen and pushed for things that Boehner and McConnell wouldn't.
/I'm also disappointed in this statement: [...] which sounds an awful lot like you're accusing them of being racist, or some other pejorative, and that's just not the case./
Except that I never said "racism" or any derivation (or synonym) of the word "race" in that paragraph. I made a point not to. I simply said that I will not be a part of a party that takes the views on immigration that many within the conservative base wish it would. That's not an accusation or an opinion, that's simply a fact.
Do I think ill of much of the border-hawk movement? I do. Is this ill-will reciprocated? Sure is. Will anything be gained by my extrapolating on that? Not that I can think of.
>>If they'd been stronger against immigration congressional Republicans might have saved the Republican majority (temporarily, anyhow).<<
I'm not sure why you say this.
It didn't work out very well for J.D. Hayworth or numerous other Republican candidates who mistook a faction of very loud, angry people in the GOP for more than it was and more than it could deliver politically:
http://www.reason.com/news/...
http://www.usnews.com/usnew...
We could ask Pete Wilson how his remaking of the California Republican Party as "tough on immigration" has gone, of course, but I don't know that he's doing much politically these days after destroying Ronald Reagan's party in his state. Of course, he has the gratitude of the loud, angry faction of the GOP in California. That has to amount to what, at least a couple dozen votes. :|
Publius:
Funny how you mention that name - Hayworth is precisely one of those I was talking about. Immigration was a non-issue, not because it wasn't important, but because Mitchell had almost precisely the same platform on it, including a major crackdown on hiring of illegal aliens:
http://harry2006.com/Issues...
http://www.azcentral.com/ar...
Meanwhile, on procedural matters, the bait-and-switch has already begun.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POL...
CNN had a poll stating "A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll taken in early May found 80 percent support for creating a path for illegal immigrants to seek U.S. citizenship, provided they had a job and paid back taxes."
The back taxes provision has already been removed from the bill by Ted Kennedy at Bush's request - even though Kennedy stood up and lied through his teeth this morning, claiming that the new version still required the payment of back taxes.
Expect a lot more of this as things go on. If a bill does pass, the likelihood it's going to be anything near what it's being advertised as is slim at best.
I think that the GOP was struck with a lack of a motivating factor. I think there's a solid case to be made that an anti-borderhopper campaign would have helped for a cycle or maybe two. Wilson's measures passed and he was re-elected, though it did eventually catch up to him and the California GOP.
Please note that RAW360 is not a "free speech zone" and not all expressions of political views are acceptable. Except in extreme cases I will not delete comments based on what viewpoint is expressed, but I will do so on how it is expressed. The point of a comments section is to facilitate discussion, not to engage in venomous attacks on individuals or groups.
HA HA HA.
"on how it is expressed" - meaning you delete everything by anyone who disagrees with you.
Should you decide to look around AMRM, you'll see that the comments are rife with disagreement. I even have substantial disagreements with my cobloggers. It actually pained me somewhat to delete your comment, but I will not have my site become a springboard for "Mexican Invasion" hysteria. I specifically said at the top of the post that I did not want this to devolve into a discussion about how worthless illegal immigrants allegedly are or how racists border-hawks allegedly are. You failed to abide by my request.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
