Archive for the 'Immigration' Category

Elsewhere, using Phyllis Schlaffly, I wrote about crass politics and the Hispanic vote. Now, hat tip to Kathryn Jean Lopez over at the Corner (NRO), here is confirmation. Does this just make you sick, or what? Sigh … [the Captain’s head shakes sadly … he wonders how this could be happening in America … and what kind of country he is turning over to his children and grandchildren]

From an April 2, 2006, article in the Los Angeles Times (bold is mine):

During the 2000 election, Bush previewed a campaign video from ad-maker Lionel Sosa that used emotion-laden themes to woo Latinos.

As he watched, Sosa recalled, Bush’s face lighted up. “How much do you need for this?” Bush asked as the two men sat with Rove in the governor’s mansion in Texas, Sosa said.

Sosa replied that it would take $3 million. According to the ad-maker, Bush then turned to Rove, saying: “Give him five.”

Four years later, Sosa produced a variation of that video for the 2004 campaign that was mailed to Latino voters across the country.

The video includes images that would probably rile those who today are calling for the most restrictive immigration laws. At one point, Bush is shown waving a Mexican flag. The footage was shot, Sosa said, during a Mexican Independence Day parade in San Antonio in 1998, when Bush was running for reelection as governor.

The five-minute video, narrated by Bush, opens with an image of him fishing on his property near Crawford, Texas, as he essentially described millions of Americans who populate his home state as the true foreigners in someone else’s native land.

“About 15 years before the Civil War, much of the American West was northern Mexico,” Bush says in the video. “The people who lived there weren’t called Latinos or Hispanics. They were Mexican citizens, until all that land became part of the United States.

“After that, many of them were treated as foreigners in their own land,” Bush adds.

He says the “Latino spirit” was fueled by “strong conservative values” of family, a strong work ethic, faith in God, patriotism and personal responsibility. “These values are my values,” Bush says. “I live by them, and I lead by them.”

As Bush speaks in the video, the background music — a Latin beat — grows louder. The president is pictured waving the Mexican flag, hugging a Latino woman, and then holding a Latino baby.

Political strategists in both parties said the video illustrated how Bush, unlike other Republicans, had forged a personal relationship with Latino voters largely on his ability to convey empathy and invite them into his party.

I have been toying with the idea of writing a piece called “Ten Reasons why John McCain will Never be President of the United States,” but I am having a hard time culling the list down to ten.  For now, one will have to do.  See the informative piece “US Border Patrol Agents Angry with McCain.”  McCain will not win as an independent, he will merely draw away enough voters to make one of the two other parties lose who would not otherwise have lost.  He will certainly not run as a Democrat for President — he is too conservative.  Finally and most important, he will not win the Republican nomination because he is a RINO (Republican in Name Only).  His shameless trips to “rub shoulders” with the Christian right will not play well to the Christian right.  I know, I am the Christian right.

I have spoken on immigration before here, here, here and other places.  I have tried to point out how the financial burden for the poverty problem in Mexico will end up being shouldered by the American middle class (the employer gets the benefit, a form of corporate welfare).  Well, Phyllis Schlaffly’s piece over at Townhall on immigration makes the point better than I can.  She points out concerning the Senate bill that:

… the 795-page bill announces its “temporary guest worker” plan. Those words are lies because the fine print in the bill converts these workers, who are given H-2C visas, into permanent residents with the right to become citizens after five years.

The plan will start by importing 200,000 H-2C workers in the first year. The H-2Cers can immediately bring in their family members on H-4 visas, without any numeric limits and without being required to have a physical, and they will also get permanent legal residence and citizenship.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill would import 7.8 million immigrants, and convert another 11 million current immigrants, legal and illegal, into U.S. citizens over the next decade. The Heritage Foundation estimates that 66 million new citizens will be added to the current population over the next 20 years. The number would accelerate as the racket called family chain migration allows more new residents to bring in more and more relatives.

The bill gives these temporary workers some preferential rights that U.S. workers do not have. These new temporary workers can’t be fired from their jobs except for “just cause,” they must be paid the prevailing wage, and they can’t be arrested for other civil immigration offenses if they are stopped for traffic violations.

The bill assures the preference of in-state college tuition (something that is denied to U.S. citizens in 49 states), and certain types of college financial assistance will be available to illegals at the state’s option. As minorities, they might even get affirmative action preferences in jobs, government contracts, and college admissions.

After the so-called temporary workers and their spouses become citizens, they can bring in their parents as permanent residents on the path to citizenship. Although the parents have never paid into Social Security, they will be eligible for Supplemental Security Income benefits, and in 46 states they will be eligible for full Medicaid benefits after five years. Siblings and adult children (and their families) will be given preference in future admissions.

The demographics of the so-called temporary workers are expected to be similar to those of the illegal immigrants already in our country. More than half will be high school dropouts, they will work low-paid jobs that require payment of little or no income tax, they are 50 percent more likely to receive taxpayer-funded government benefits than natural-born households, and they have a 42 percent rate of out-of-wedlock births (all of whom, of course, will be granted automatic U.S. citizenship).

Estimates of the cost to the taxpayers of this gargantuan expansion of the welfare state are at least $50 billion a year over the long term. U.S. taxpayers will pay for entitlements to these tens of millions of low-income families, including Medicaid, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Earned Income Tax Credit (cash handouts of up to $4,400 a year to low-wage households), public schooling and lunches, the WIC program, food stamps, public housing, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

In the beginning I could not decipher why Bush would spend his political capital on what I call his “loser” immigration policy.  Now I see why after reading Phyllis.  It is as naked, crass and unadulterated a political move as I think we have ever seen or experienced in America.  We have seen some crass moves by the pols, but the problem here is the enormous cost associated with this new class of people.  It is a class that the pols know will be the new “minority,” who will eventually have the vote — if the pols have their way — and who will be the recipient of endless give-away programs and subsidies and the subject of countless social engineering experiments.  In short, as long as the middle class is funding this whole endeavor, the votes will keep coming to the GOP.  Or so the thinking goes.

It might be a jaded and dark view of this administration (to whom I have given the benefit of the doubt), but it appears to me that this is all about the vote.  It is as simple as that.  As for the Democrats, they see it as all about the vote, make no apologies and just want to go faster.  It is a choice between dark and darker.

To make this vision even more bleak, since the middle class American will be shouldering the burden, we might be watching the beginning of the end of the middle class in America.  I know this sounds reactionary.  If you think so, go back and re-read Phyllis.

Just watching the Beltway Boys and I went AARRGGGGGHHHH!!! when I heard Mort make the point that by standing firm on immigration the GOP is handing the Hispanic vote to the Democrats for the foreseeable future … and Fred agreed and gushed over the Bush plan.

Time after time polls have shown that the current Hispanic citizens are either split or leaning towards strong immigration control. So what is Mort talking about? Here is the hidden presupposition. In the end, the Hispanics will get across the border and be accepted as citizens (and hence get to vote), i.e., the amnesty provision(s) of the Senate bill will prevail over the House version of immigration reform.

Now. This is what logicians call reasoning in a circle (begging the question, or petitio principii). Mort has posed the argument thusly: in the end amnesty will prevail, so the GOP should go for amnesty and therefore get the Hispanic vote. It begs the question. No one has demonstrated that amnesty will prevail yet. If it doesn’t, then there are not newly sworn-in U.S. citizens to go to the Democrats (and further, the GOP might just have shot itself in the foot with currently registered Hispanics).

Mort! Think a little more clearly. Fred! You are on the verge of being a Rebublican first and conservative second (or third, or fourth). Please re-think your positions … you and William Kristol at the Weekly Standard. Good grief. It is hard enough to battle the liberals without having these internecine wars within our own camp.

Yesterday Bush spoke again on immigration, pushing the same policy we have heard from him day after day.  Where does this come from?  Is Rove such a inept political adviser that he has not warned him off of this policy?  The AP reports:

“There are those here in Washington who say, `Why don’t we just find the folks and send them home,'” Bush said. “That ain’t gonna work.”

He said although it sounds simple, it is impractical to insist that the 12 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in the U.S. leave and come back legally.

As I have said in earlier posts, this is a smokescreen.  A ruse.  A decoy.  If you punish employers who hire illegals, the illegals will go home on their own.  As for the practicality of insisting, I cannot find any reason that it is impractical to insist anything.  In fact, I insist right now as I write.  I insist that Bush stop pushing his loser immigration policy.  There.  It worked.  I successfully insisted something.

If he means that it is impractical to make it happen, of course, this is a lie.  It’s easy.  Put employers who hire illegals in prison.  The practice of hiring illegals will end immediately.

Here is a prediction in two parts: (a) few if any Republican House members up for (re)election will support Bush’s loser immigration policy, or (b) any Republican House member who is up for (re)election and who does support Bush’s loser immigration policy will lose.  Why?  Because it is a loser immigration policy.

Update: Some blogs seems to suggest that because of low voter turnout, this election means little to nothing.  Sure.  What do you think would have happened had Bilbray’s position on immigration been directly contrary to the ten points posed below?  Does anyone honestly think the result would have been the same?  Moral of the story: Republicans have no love for the liberal position Bush is taking on immigration.  Neither, in fact, do liberals.  Bilbray took the position on immigration that every Republican should take before and after the upcoming November elections.  In other words, if there was low turnout, then the democratic base turned out, and the republican base turned out.  Now.  Imagine a position on immigration contrary to the one Bilbray took.  Does anyone really think he would have won?  Would the base have turned out?

Brian Bilbray, candidate for House in California, wins, running on the following platform:

Over the next year I will endeavor to commit as many candidates as possible to join me by pledging their support to ten essential border security and immigration reforms. These ten items are:

1. Ending the current “Catch and release” policy by making expedited removal of illegal aliens mandatory and to require the completion of the US-VISIT entry-exit system.
2. Authorizing the deployment of the military on the border to assist in controlling illegal immigration.
3. Construction of a border fence along the U.S.-Mexico border extending from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, starting with the most heavily trafficked border crossings.
4. Mandatory employer verification of worker eligibility to work in the United States.
5. Stiff penalties for knowingly hiring illegal workers, not fines that are considered “a cost of doing business.”
6. Make clear that local and state authorities are authorized to apprehend illegal aliens in the conduct of their routine duties, a legal uncertainty that has prevented untold thousands of illegal alien captures.
7. Prohibit illegal aliens from any access to Social Security benefits. Unbelievably, current U.S. law allows a loophole for illegal aliens to receive social security benefits. This practice must end.
8. Removing employer tax deductions for wages and benefits paid to illegal aliens.
9. Limiting birthright citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.
10. Comprehensive border and immigration enforcement legislation to end countless other loopholes that benefit illegal aliens and those who profit from their crime of illegal presence in the United States, to give law enforcement the tools and permission to enforce the laws and to compensate states for the financial impact of illegal immigration.  

Hopefully, the balance of the House, having watched what happened in liberal California, will take heed.  Perhaps the Senate should listen too?

Bush, 6/6/06, to the Border Patrol in New Mexico: “In order to secure the border, we have to make sure that people don’t feel like they need to sneak across.”

So far many people don’t get it.  A close-off of the border to illegals, all the while allowing massive numbers of “legal” guest workers will not solve the immigrant problem.  It just makes it all legal.  The public (primarily the middle class rate-payer and tax-payer) will still be responsible for the economic overhead that comes with Mexico’s poverty problem being exported to the U.S.

Here is the question: will the House of Representatives fall for it?

Bush discussed his “comprehensive immigration”plan with the U.S. Department of Commerce; the speech can be found here.

Bush continues to propagate myths about immigration that are so brazenly and obviously illogical and wrong-headed that it is amazing that he can do it with a straight face.  For instance, one such illogical statement was that illegal immigrants are “beyond the reach and protection of American law.” I’ll tell you what.  Go to China, preach Christianity on the street corner, and upon being arrested and imprisoned by the police, tell them that because you are not a citizen of China, you are “beyond the reach of Chinese law.”  See how this argument fies (no, I am not suggesting that the U.S. become like China – I am using hyperbole to make a point).  There is another argument routinely proffered: any bill that does not include “comprehensive” measures (what Bush defines as comprehensive, such as a guest worker program, eventual amnesty for those who are here now, etc.) is unrealistic and doomed to failure.  Again, I’ll tell you what.  Go and talk to the Chinese and see how easy it is for “enemies of the state” (e.g., Christians) to get out of the country.  See how effective border guards and fences are for the Chinese.  There is absolutely nothing that makes it necessary to have a guest worker program in order to seal our border.  This is a non sequitur.  But the worst possible quote follows:

There’s a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program that requires every illegal immigrant to leave.

Let’s word this a little differently:

There’s a rational middle ground between granting complete immunity from prosecution and freedom for every felon and requiring each and every felon to go to prison.

How does this last paragraph strike you?

Good Lord.  What could be possessing Bush?  Why does he waste what remaining political capital he has left pushing his immigration policy?

Hat tip to Polipundit for the commentary by Gary Bauer in the Washington Times here.  I am not so sanguine as Gary about the alleged conservatism of Hispanics.  The so-called values-based issues (such as abortion) are based on their Catholic tradition.  On the other issues the numbers are far less impressive than values-based issues.  (By the way, I hate the phrase “values-based” or “values-oriented.”  It presses to the conclusion that some issues are not value-based – a notion with which I disagree.  Your value system should inform every decision on every issue.)

However, I do believe that there is a slight to moderate difference between the Hispanics who are here now (and who have been in the U.S. for years) and the ones coming (or who are about to come).  The ones who have been here are at least accustomed to hard work.  The ones who are still in Mexico and other Latin American countries are still in the middle of some of the most strongly entrenched socialism in the world.  And … there is every reason to conclude that they will vote this way upon being granted with citizenship.

Here I wrote about the coming political earthquake due to immigration, both legal and illegal.  Some objections have come up that deserve a little bit of attention.  Some respond that socialist subsidy and give-away programs are a function of our society, rather than the fact that an employer hires immigrant workers or illegal aliens.  Change the laws to undo the socialism rather than the hiring practices.  Some also respond that not only does the employer benefit from reduced wages paid to the low-skill worker; we benefit as well due to lower prices on common food stuffs and other products and services.

[Breath … sigh].  The fact that our society has socialist give-away programs does not justify adding to the rolls of the recipients.  Besides, either way you cut it up, in terms of the productive worth of the unskilled or low-skill worker, America’s economy will not benefit long term from people who are capable of only manual labor (picking crops, mowing lawns, landscaping).  We have denuded our industrial and manufacturing capability in America.  For instance, to get large-scale steel fabrication and welding done, one must go overseas (e.g., Japan, the Rotterdam shipyard, etc.).  If we have only intellectual capital and services to market, we are not helping ourselves by bringing in people who cannot even speak English.

Regarding the second argument, let’s cover this once again … more slowly this time.  The employer is in favor of illegals because it helps his bottom line.  Period.  There isn’t any more to it than that.  The financial advantage he gets from illegals does not all go to reduce the price for goods.  If it did, then the employer would have no advantage in hiring illegals (since we would get all of the benefit), and he wouldn’t do it.  The employer is the primary recipient of the benefit of hiring illegals.  And once again, the costs associated with these illegals (health care, auto insurance, welfare, medicaid, social security, high rates of prison occupancy by hispanics, gang activity, teaching English, etc.) redound to the tax-paying, premium-paying public.  This is corporate welfare on the backs of the middle class, pure and simple.

A friend reminds me of a quote by Frederic Bastiat:

“But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”—from The Law

Indeed!