Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Looking to November: Will immigration be the fulcrum?
Popped awake, got up to look at Super Tuesday results, and now I cannot help myself. I cannot shake the idea that even though both parties seem set to nominate immigration softies, candidate John McCain will end up moving to the right on the issue between now and November.
Among the Democrats, neither Hillary nor Obama can afford to alienate Hispanic voters even if they were so inclined. This makes it impossible for either of them to move to the center on the question of Mexican immigration until one of them has the nomination sewn up. Until that happens, will they compete in their rhetorical willingness to create incentives, rather than disincentives, for Mexicans to come here illegally? I believe that the winning Democratic nominee will have to say things on the subject of Mexican immigration that will make them vulnerable in November.
Among the Republicans, apparent frontrunner John McCain also happens to be the leading dove on immigration matters. However, he has had to harden his position on border security to get this far, and he knows that he cannot win in November without repairing his relationship with conservatives. A decisive commitment on immigration, as his been discussed on The Corner all night, might do the job.
John McCain, however, is not, as Senators go, prone to retreating on issues that he regards as matters of principle. That will make it difficult for him to say everything he needs to say to placate conservatives for whom immigration is a top issue (as regular readers know, it is far from my top issue). McCain has a difficult decision to make.
McCain's position is made all the more difficult by this rather obvious point: The Republicans really have no big issue to run on in the general election other than immigration. The economy may or may not be as bad as portrayed, but it is not a vote-winner for Republicans. Americans are tired of the war, and not just Iraq. They want to believe that Islamic terrorism is not a real danger to the homeland. They are aided in this by both the Democrats and the mainstream media, who have essentially decided that the absence of a second attack on American soil has nothing to do with the Bush administration's foreign policy or homeland security programs. And, with the exception of immigration from points south, the big culture war issues have essentially been decided by the center of American politics. None of the other issues that animate conservatives have the potential to turn enough votes to hand victory to John McCain in November.
Except immigration.
If John McCain takes his new status as frontrunner seriously, he will realize that there is no issue other than immigration that has the power to drive a sufficient number of votes to the Republican side. By moving to the right on immigration, declaring himself wrong now, he can both placate conservatives and rally the party while the Democrats are still taking shots at each other. John McCain, border state conservative, can win by grabbing the only really big issue left to Republicans in this campaign -- the defense of our border and our culture from a surge of Mexican immigrants. That would move a lot of votes and give McCain a chance in the fall. It is hard to see what other issue can deliver victory.
The problem, of course, is that an anti-immigration "reform"/secure-the-borders campaign will seem like old-style nativism to a lot of people, a charge that Republicans have been susceptible to since they absorbed the "Know-Nothings" just before the Civil War. It will also alienate most Hispanics from the Republican party for at least a generation.
Finally, for those of us for whom immigration is a minor issue, the elevation of the subject to the top will make for a very tedious and possibly nasty general election campaign. Nobody will feel good about the result in November.
But is there another route to Republican victory in the general election?
32 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Wed Feb 06, 08:19:00 AM:
Oh Golly TH - rarely do you and I differ singificantly, but on this post I do.
McCain's candidacy revived precisely because, in my view, he is viewed as the most credible national security candidate. There really is no other reason to vote for him above the others. To say that between now and the general election, immigration will take center stage is, I think, a little off. Let's face it, precisely what alienated alot of republicans on immigration will help move moderate democrats and independents in his direction. With Huckabee as his VP candidate, he captures a highly motivated conservative vote. And he has already pledged to support extending the Bush tax cuts - a huge sop to Romney conservatives.
Even in Arizona and California, places where the immigration issue is a hot button for Republicans, McCain won the day. Given his overlap with Bush on the issue, he is probably fine in Texas too.
I think McCain has carved out a position which is a potential landslide winner in the general election. It could be like '72.
By 
, at
Wed Feb 06, 08:58:00 AM:
There are, undoubtedly, Republicans who voted for McCain for the reasons that CP gave; that is "true", but only in a limited sense.
The Republican field was/is weak; how else do you explain the success of someone like....Huckabee? The Republican "base" was not and is not motivated in this primary season; totals for voting in most states are significantly less than in the 2000 primary season.
McCain has been chosed by name recognition, as the "safe" candidate by my primary voters.
Hillary Clinton and her retinue have a great ability to polarize and alientate voters. That is the Republican's biggest hope for victory in November of 2008. A strong, clear, principled stand on immigration policy, beginning with a firm committment to "CONTROL" of the border would be a start, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Can't anybody play this game?
-David
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 09:29:00 AM:
"But is there another route to Republican victory in the general election?"
There could be another terrorist attack, and Americans will vote for whoever will blow up the most stuff overseas.
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 09:43:00 AM:
I don't think immigration is an issue McCain should emphasize. Why remind the peons of his attempt to jam amnesty down are throats?
By Dan Kauffman, at
Wed Feb 06, 10:00:00 AM:
"absence of a second attack on American soil has nothing to do with the Bush administration's foreign policy or homeland security "
Make that THIRD attack please, let's not forget we gave them two shots at the World Trade Towers.
But your point is well made
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Feb 06, 10:04:00 AM:
A point was made above that I kind of agree with but with an alternative - the MSM will absolutely chnage the subject as regards foreign policy in the run up to November. But Bush can win this for McCain/Huck by rattling the saber on Iran. Against Hill or Obama or both, I think that makes McHuck a winner.
I think McCain unites the conservative coalition by giving Huck the VP nod, firing up the Bible Belt and grabbing the south.
Thank about this conservative doomsayers. With Huck as the VP nominee, McCain can hold those places that Bush dominated, and grab an awful lot of Blue territory.
McHuck '08...
By davod, at
Wed Feb 06, 10:16:00 AM:
McCain may well move to the right on immigration. But lets not kid ourselves that he will stay to the right if elected.
Divided government is the only way to go. We need conservatives (whether Blue Dog democrats or conservative Republicans voted in in 2008.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Wed Feb 06, 10:43:00 AM:
When you look at the way Hispanics voted on the Dem side, with most going to Hillary despite endorsements for Obama by major Latino newspapers and grassroots leaders, if Obama beats Hillary then he'll have to cowtow to Hispanic voters. So yeah--McCain can move to the right. But what does "move to the right" mean? The fatcat wing of your party loves illegals. Cheap labor, no healthcare, a nice hedge against surly blacks--but for MS-13 and La Eme, it's a good deal! The Huckabee types and the people who voted for McCain yet appreciated Ron Paul--not so fast. That populist streak (recall I said in an earlier biting ant comment that the reason a lot of voters don't like Mitt--and why TH endorsed Mitt hehehehehe-was that Mitt reminded them of the douchebag who laid them off and then took the parachute. I think McCain will indeed rebel against that paradigm during the campaign and in office should he win).
Perhaps instead of posting items deflecting from the internecine shannigans in the GOP, you should re-focus on the Democratic Party's bizarre dilemna, as Pat Buchanan of all folks related early this morning. Irony surges here. In Obama, a black man, the Dems have a candidate who...zounds!...appears to have captured the imagination and either outright or grudging support of WHITE MALES--from the west, to the heartland, to the east and yes, even in the south. Yet you have a party apparatus, Clinton machine and white females who seem loath to give the man a chance. Despite all of that--and Super delegates under Clinton control--he can take this nomination. History in the making on so many levels. Buchnanan still "supports" Hillary, but I never thought I'dlive to see the day when the 1968-72 architect of the "Southern Strategy"/divide the nation cynicism was "impressed, intrigued and invigorated" by progessive young black man. Of course his sister Bay is a harridan...
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 10:57:00 AM:
I'd suggest that the "fulcrum" is going to be whatever the MSM decides it's going to be.
Like usual.
BTW, TH, I have an update on the "home states" question. There appears to be a tacit agreement that every politician has two home states -- assuming he isn't politicing in his actual home state, which surprisingly few politicians do. Why isn't Hillary a senator from Arkansas? Why didn't Mitt run for governor of Utah? Why wasn't Fred a senator from Alabama? Of their two "home states", it would appear their actual home state is more-or-less irrelevant -- except to the MSM, of course, with its love for labels.
Here's a line I just read on RedState:
"Romney slightly underperformed. He won his home states of UT and MA and he showed his continued success at caucuses..."
THIS JUST IN:
Ever the curious one, I went over to Wikipedia to read up on Mitt and discovered:
"Willard Mitt Romney was born on March 12, 1947, in Detroit, Michigan."
I'd been hearing Utah described as his "home state" for so long I'd just assumed he'd been born there. Instead, he went from Michigan, to Palo Alto, CA (Stanford U.), to France (missionary work for LDS), then to Utah to finish college, then off to Massachusetts.
So add to the list of home state definitions, "went to college there."
By current definition, if an Army brat grew up to run for office, he'd be able to claim he won "11 home states" on election day.
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 11:16:00 AM:
I think running on immigration would be a fatal error for Republicans. There are a ton of other issues that would suffice. I would suggest taking it to the democrats and challenging them on their vision of government and society. We are at a fork in the road, people are debating the way forward.
Conservatives need to realize that they stand for other things besides being anti-Mexican. At least, if they every want to have a say in how the country is governed.
Lastly, there are irreversible demographic trends in play here. The American Family now includes hispanics in sizable numbers. I think that being conservative means among many other things, being decent and generous and not eating your own.
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 11:30:00 AM:
For me being conservative means taking a rationale accounting of what the bigger issues are at play. The simple fact is that there are trends at play that we either address honestly, or set future generations up to suffer with.
Social Security is badly fouled. There's no fix, and it's not even part of the dialogue. That sucks.
Taxation is big for me, and the country can't keep going to the "rich" thinking they should solve government's spending problem. The border issue needs to be recharacterized. It's not anti-Mexican to call for immigration reform. It's about securing the border and taking control of who comes here, from where, and who we're providing the zillions in freebees to. There's over 6 billion non-Americans, it's not unfair to decide how much of Mexico comes here. If you can't lock down the border, then you can't deal with healthcare and the host of other drains on the tax revenues. From what I've read, the majority of the uninsured aren't citizens. So why should I care, and why should my taxes pay for them?
... and it's about the war on terrorism. There's a war, becoming France or sitting down with the Muslims isn't going to solve that. We fight, or we surrender. Obama is vulnerable here.
IMO, the rest of the typical issues (abortion, gay marriage) are whipped cream on dog sh*t compared to these.
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 11:38:00 AM:
McCain already has moved to the right on immigration. Here in Central California, we have been inundated this weekend and through election day with endless robot calls and ads emphizing that McCain will "build the wall first", etc. McCain wanted very, very badly to be seen as an ardent, true conservative among primary voters in our area.
I hope he would not pick Huckabee as VP. It would turn off a lot of principled conservatives, as well as moderates. Wouldn't Thompson also be acceptable to evangelicals? We really don't need two people on the ticket with a reputation for promoting policies which, while idealistic, haven't been thought through completely.
The Dems are pushing for comprehensive universal health care coverage (mandatory in Hillary's case) even after the failure of the California plan. McCain could boost his "smaller government" credentials by making all health care (not just insurance provided through employers) payable in pre-tax dollars, with an emphasis on catastrophic coverage and medical savings accounts which could be rolled over into retirement benefits. Adopting Romney's emphasis on federalism would allow more people to come up with creative ideas.
I like this approach for people now enrolled in Medicaid:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/poor_not_dumb_common_sense_ref.php
By Ray, at
Wed Feb 06, 11:53:00 AM:
Yeah, except by moving to the "right" on immigration matters, McCain would lose people like me.
Treating immigrants, illegal or not, like fellow human beings who deserve a good shot at life is a point of principle. And given that the "no amnesty" crowd (where amnesty is now defined as charging a hefty punishment fee and pushing somebody to the back of the line, a definition that would embrace tickets as 'amnesty' for speeding) has now defined itself to a point where it will accept no less than mass deportations, preluded by concentration camps, and a Berlin Wall along America's southern border, I don't see that there's any more room for McCain to give without betraying that point of principle.
By davod, at
Wed Feb 06, 11:59:00 AM:
If you want to know why Hillary is getting the Hispanic vote look no further than - Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment .
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 12:10:00 PM:
Ray ... if all foreign countries got together and exported millions of people here, would it be a point of principle to take them all in, give them citizenship, entitlements, etc.? what if all of them were severely ill and overtaxed our healthcare system? how about if many were criminals?
There's almost 7B people. Why should we open our arms to millions of Mexicans rushing the border when there are so many from other countries who want in? what's your plan for the millions of folks caught up in the H1B system, honoring the laws of our land, and waiting their turn?
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 01:02:00 PM:
it's not clear at all that legal hispanic imigrants are for open borders. mccain can easily finesse the issue by promising to hold a national referendum on immigration, within xxx days of taking office.
By Ray, at
Wed Feb 06, 01:08:00 PM:
Spikemeat, why don't we deal with the situation that currently exists, rather than a hypothetical?
The current situation is simply, that approximately 1/5th of Mexico's population wants to come here. Not much more than that -- logistically, excepting the Mexican border, our controls are adequate to prevent greater illegal immigration inflows, since, well, it's hard to do mass smuggling through an airport or seaport.
I agree we need better border security; our currently open border poses a long term security risk that various adversaries might exploit. But in itself, that is insufficient and likely to remain so, short of putting up a very ugly Berlin Wall on the border, in the face of the enormous economic incentives at work.
It is fantastic, and callous, to believe that the 30 million or so (that's an upper bound, I believe) illegal immigrants already here will simply go home if we ask them to politely, or even if we changed the incentives some here in America.
Their crime, if you want to use that word, is nothing more than to seek a better future for their families in a land of opportunity. That would be a crime committed for a far worthier cause, and with consequences far less severe on average, than those of Americans who get drunk and drive on New Year's.
I think there are many things we can do to equalize the unfair competition they offer American workers, but after all the things that can humanely be done have been done, many of them are still going to prefer to stay here, instead of returning to the corrupt and misgoverned lands they fled.
The ones who stay then (and I estimate there will be millions of them, if not the full twenty million) will have endured more adversity, worked longer hours, and endured conditions it is our fortune not to even imagine, except in broad strokes.
Are we, then to continue to leave them to be maltreated by employers, degraded, cast aside, like the Algerians in France or the Turks in Germany, or are we to be true to the spirit of a country which grew rich off the virtues of impoverished illiterate immigrants of centuries past, and offer them a path, however arduous, to acceptance in our country?
The much-derided McCain-Kennedy bill would have offered them that. A place at the end of the immigration line, following a hefty fine that is an enormous fraction of their disposable income (even if it seems paltry by the standards of those with plasma-screen HDTVs), and a requirement that they adhere to standards of civic conduct far more stringent than those we apply to our own citizens for the many long years of their application process.
I think, personally, those standards are set a bit high, but there is no question that such a process would yield extremely hardworking, supremely dedicated citizens who earned their citizenship a harder way than any, excepting those who serve in the military.
By randian, at
Wed Feb 06, 01:34:00 PM:
The Dems and their enablers in the mainstream media have spun the immigration issue as conservatives being (1) racist pigs and (2) anti-Mexican. That couldn't be further from the truth. We're against uninvited guests coming to stay in our house, and in many cases stealing from us on top of that (see the large numbers of illegals swamping border-state hospitals for free medical care). Is that "nativist" (as if that were an insult)? Yes it is. If you don't have control of your borders, who lives in your country, and who gets to partake of public benefits, you don't have a country. The problem is our Republican "leaders" are cowards who take the MSM claims at face value instead of tirelessly confronting them for the lies they are.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Feb 06, 01:40:00 PM:
randian -
The issue of legality and whether somebody is "invited" presuppose an agreement on cultural issues. For example, we could simply say that the immigration quota for Mexico is 4,000,000 people per year. That would put an end to "illegal" immigration, shifting the argument then to cultural issues. So I think that when people on both left and right discuss this, it is disingenuous for either to take refuge in "legality" or lack thereof, as if that were the only question.
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 01:55:00 PM:
OK, Ray. There's estimated to be as many as 20 million illegal Mexicans here. Why should we be happy about that, or consider it some moral or principled matter? They invaded the country, in direct violation of the law of the land. I understand life sucks down there, but there really isn't a free lunch. Americans pay.
There is no compelling reason to simply forgive them, or offer them some adjusted rate for admission based on their net worth or declared income (I can imagine that many work off the books). A proper approach should be to start by enforcing the laws, starting at the I9 and employers. Deport those who are undocumented.
These people bring the best Mexico has to offer: poverty, crime, a burden on our healthcare and entitlement programs, and bilingual programs that cost enormous dollars per year. So if I'm to cave to your matter of "principle", it'd be one of principle for the American people. Come in legally, or stay where you are.
For God's sake, it's easier to enter this great nation than board an airplane - that's just not right.
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 02:04:00 PM:
TH ... wondering what you mean by cultural issue? If we set a monster quota for Mexicans, are you saying put them thru the H1 process, or just let them in? I've met credible people who moved here to NC because the school systems by them were (in some cases) entirely Spanish. No ESL or teaching in English. Ningun!
I'm OK if they're doing it legally, are documented and checked out to not be criminals, paying taxes, and not voting until their citizens. If not, it's unrealistic to believe that we'll reach "saturation" until they're all here, and the next wave of illegals begins.
Hell, China has a lot of people, as does India. we have a quota of about 170K last I looked for India. At 4M/year, they could supply new Americans virtually forever.
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 02:08:00 PM:
There will be no victory in this election, only a loss.
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 03:29:00 PM:
McCain/Pawlenty in 2008!
We need a rational tax system that promotes prosperity, and the Democrats won't help us. We need judges who won't actively work to undermine our entire system of government, and the Democrats won't give us those judges. We need national safety, promoting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for and by American citizens, but the Democrats will instead work to aid our enemies and discourage our friends.
I think it's going to be a great election, with clear ideological differences for the voters to see. That'll be all the fulcrum we need, to win.
By Ray, at
Wed Feb 06, 03:41:00 PM:
Spikemeat: because they're human beings.
Because they are, for the most part, good, hardworking human beings, whom I would be proud to call fellow citizens. Because that's the kind of country America is. Because they bring a vibrancy, a work ethic, and an understanding of struggle that has renewed our country time and again.
And because we deal with the world as it is, not the world as you would like it to be. Down your path of "just deport them" lie mass roundups, fear, and continued exploitation.
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 04:49:00 PM:
I see no advantages to be gained by "moving to the right" on any issue at this campaign. I agree with previous comment that McCain major strength is that people already think of him as strong on the issue of National Security. For all his faults, McCain seems to be comfortably positioned close to the Center. He has little reason to lie and make empty promises. When a Democrat party nominee finally emerges and start pushing to the Center, she/he would need to go a long way from they current Far Left position, inevitably telling a lot of lies in a very short time. So 'authenticity' might become a real factor at the final stages.
By , at
Wed Feb 06, 09:43:00 PM:
Romney may just choose the occasion of his speech at CPAC to endorse McCain, thereby doing what McCain has not done: unite the party behind a single candidate. Immigration will not be mentioned.
By Kinuachdrach, at
Wed Feb 06, 11:49:00 PM:
Poor use of language in this post & comments, which points to muddled thinking.
The issue is not "immigration". The issue is "ILLEGAL immigration". From the comments of Hispanics I mingle with, most of them fully understand (and sympathize with) that difference.
The US was founded by immigrants, built by immigration. Immigration is good. Since Congress in its wisdom has chosen to regulate immigration, isn't it reasonable to expect that any would-be American citizen should respect those existing laws?
There would be nothing nativist or xenophobic about an elected Senator insisting that the laws he helped pass be respected. Equally, it would be very difficult for an elected Senator to defend the position that the laws she supported should be ignored with impunity.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Thu Feb 07, 02:02:00 AM:
Ray~
If you're so pro-illegal alien, why don't you volunteer to take in an illegal alien family and pay all their bills? You can put your money where your mouth is and help ease the burden for the rest of us citizen taxpayers. I don't want them sucking our benefits dry so there is not enough for American citizens and legal resident aliens. My cousin had to take his new baby to the hospital emergency room about a month ago: RSV and they ended up keeping him a couple of days on oxygen. Talking to his wife last week, they were treated much differently once the staff realized they were there for an actual emergency and that they would be able to pay for the services their son required. Most everyone who goes there doesn't speak English and is using the emergency room as their primary care facility for things that aren't emergencies.
It's amnesty when they don't have to go back home and get at the end of the line there. They'll go home if we enforce existing laws and eliminate sanctuary cities. Some of them are already going home because of the new laws in AZ, OK and some other states. If they can't get a job and can't use our welfare/entitlements, they'll go home on their own. We won't have to deport 12-20 million people.
And as for McCain: So long as he has Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio on his campaign staff, and says he'd sign McCain-Kennedy if it came to him as President, he wouldn't be believed. He's said he'd build the G-D fence, but he still wants to give amnesty, and if he claims different, I don't know that I could believe him. I think the GOP is sunk if McCain is the nominee - the MSM will turn on him, and the whole world will see he doesn't have the proper temperament to be the Leader of the Free World. And adding the Huckster as his VP won't make me change my mind about McCain - I don't like him, either. I honestly don't know what it will take for him to convince me I should vote for him in November if he seals the deal on the nomination. But, in the end, I don't know that it will matter if I vote R or not, I think we're going to end up with a D in the White House in January.
By , at
Thu Feb 07, 02:08:00 AM:
TH you are fundamentally wrong.
Democrats could have at any time in the last two years withdrawn from Iraq and inflicted defeat. They have not done so because America will not abide defeat. Selling defeat is a loser's job.
Democrats could have closed Gitmo, passed laws requiring criminal courts and Miranda Warnings for terrorists caught on the battlefield. Prosecuted CIA agents who poured water up the nose of KSM, Abu Zabadayah, and the other Jihad (the Cole Bomber). They failed to do so because it's political disaster. All they can do is sub-rosa obstruct to pander to their base. Their real feelings are a disaster.
More than thirty years of hostage taking, "Death to America!" and mass terrorism culminating in 9/11 have led Americans to loathe and despise Muslims and want them whacked well and good to leave us alone.
This is why dead in the water last Summer McCain has won. Because he has positioned himself as the #1 Hawk on Defense, National Security, and Iraq.
McCain will ask Obambi or Shrillary who's side are they on, America's enemies or America? Do they want to win or force a defeat on America? Those are dangerous questions because Dems cannot answer them.
Chris Chambers -- Obambi in states with large amounts of Blacks lost White Males to Shrillary. Typically these are Govt. Union workers. In places like ID where only the gay owners of antique stores in Coeur d'Alene are Dems, Obambi got their vote. Shrillary can't get most white men (who've fled to the Republican Party to general applause of Dems). Obambi can't get any white man with an income less than $120K a year, and not tragically hip. His base, Blacks, are 12% of the population. A losing bet.
Identity politics. Two edged sword. And McCain's "Patriotic" idenity politics trumps them all. This country won't elect a Black Man, a White Woman, or a Mormon President.
[Obambi running and having to offer up his Kumbayah strategy for dealing with Iran vs. McCain "bomb Iran" would be a laugh riot though. He might actually LOSE all 50 states. Americans want payback and McCain speaks to that.]
Ray, who are you for: America's workers or Mexicans? Simple as that. People who work for a living and pay taxes want Americans to come first. Make living in the US impossible without legal residency and Mexicans will ... go home. Where they belong.
Chris Chambers has it right about the ethnic/economic cleansing of Blacks out of historic Black neighborhoods by Mexicans. BEFORE Katrina I saw this with my own eyes. Much of the labor was done at half to a third the cost of the native pool of labor. Illegals lower wages considerably. Supply, demand. It's basic. If you want to raise Blacks in say New Orleans out of poverty you must restrict the labor supply so employers are forced to hire them, at higher wages.
Your point is that you prefer Mexican illegal aliens to prosper in America over native Blacks. That's the point I suppose but don't expect it to be cost-free. Even Obambi's Hispander gave him flack on Black Talk Radio -- they know Illegals hurt their wages first and the most.
Who cares if they are human beings? They are not our citizens who come first. If they want to come legally let them apply legally. Mexico has the right idea: they have a whacking great border wall in their southern border so they're not inundated by Guatemalans who will make them even poorer. Sovereignty and Nationalism apply here in the US just like in Mexico.
By Ray, at
Thu Feb 07, 08:31:00 AM:
TH: apologies for turning the comment thread into a running debate. I promise this will be my last word on the subject, at least in this thread.
Miss Ladybug: Your prescriptions don't match your complaints. If your problem is that free emergency medical care at hospitals untied to ability to pay results in degraded services for the rest of us, then eliminate that. If your problem is that tax-evading workers can compete unfairly against American workers, then work to eliminate *that*, as well.
These are all good things to do, irrespective of the presence or absence of illegal immigrants. But no. Your objection is to their mere presence, and you deride as amnesty anything short of the downright inhumane.
Well, I've had it with amnesty for speeders on the highway, like the ones that cut me off on I-95 and nearly left me collided into the rails. Tickets are amnesty. They need to be captured, locked up, and then forcibly dragged back to where they were before they began speeding, and forced to drive their original route. *Slowly*. And I don't care what happens to their families while we have them in detention.
How nonsensical was that statement?
In the absence of rational proportionate measures and the deliberate choice for inhumane ones, one is tempted to assume the existence of ulterior motives. Or, to put it in terms pollsters can understand, there's a reason John McCain won the Hispanic vote in California. In any large group, there will be people who feel differently. But I don't think it's entirely improbable that some of California's Hispanic voters may have reasoned approximately along the lines I just did. Nor that they were wrong to do so.
By , at
Thu Feb 07, 01:12:00 PM:
"McCain will ask Obambi or Shrillary who's side are they on, America's enemies or America? Do they want to win or force a defeat on America? Those are dangerous questions because Dems cannot answer them."
I don't think the National Security will be the most important issue, but it will be quite important. Even if McCain doesn't win, he will force a Democrat nominee to make a lot of hawkish promises about National Security in the process.
Btw, Howard Dean is raising Economy as one of the most important issues.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Fri Feb 08, 01:13:00 AM:
Ray~
You missed my point about the emergency room. When the hospital staff realized they had someone there with an actual emergency, and one who was going to be paying their own bill (with insurance, but still), they were thrilled to be helping someone who truly needed the help. Not like the mostly illegal aliens who show up and, by law, can't be turned away, even for things that really don't require a doctor's intervention or don't rise to the level of emergency, and then they don't both to make arrangements to pay the bill, because they know someone else (the American taxpayer) will take care of it for them. Right now, I am underemployed while looking for a permanent teaching job and don't have insurance. I occasionally have need to see a doctor (I get earaches and know when it isn't going away and likely needs an oral antibiotic). Knowing I could show up at an emergency room, have my ear looked at and then say "oh, by the way, I can't afford to pay for this", I still go to a walk-in clinic and pay for it all myself. If I, someone who does pay taxes, don't "take advantage" of free healthcare for low income people, why should I be helping to foot the bill for someone who is in this country unlawfully?
As for "tax-evading workers" that "can compete unfairly against American workers": you say "work to eliminate *that*, as well". GREAT IDEA! We'll do THAT by enforcing existing immigration laws (or getting the rest of the states to enact laws like AZ and OK): if employers faced substantial punishment for hiring illegals, they wouldn't hire illegals. If the illegals can't get jobs, they will go home. If they go home, then American workers will no longer have to compete with tax-evading workers.
And your argument that paying a fine for a speeding ticket amounts to amnesty is a strawman. That is the penalty decided upon by our lawmakers for speeding. Your car insurance goes up when you get moving violations such as speeding tickets. Speed often enough, you'll get your license revoked, to boot. The penalty for being in this country illegally is deportation. I'd like to see it stay that way. If they want to be here, they need to get at the end of the line. That line begins and ends in their home country. If they don't have to go home to get in line, what is the deterrent to prevent even more illegal immigration? Absolutely nothing, if, so long as they reach the US, they don't have to leave.
My objection to illegal aliens is they are because they have broken the rules can they are crippling our public entitlements systems (hospitals, public housing, education, food stamps, the list, I'm sure, goes on). Illegal aliens in the US are no different than someone breaking into a private home, refusing to leave, and expecting the homeowner to take care of them. I couldn't afford to support some squatter in my home, and the American people can't afford these squatters in our country.
Being a sovereign nation entitles us to decide who is allowed to come here. Ever other nation, even Mexico, seems to enforce their sovereignty in regard to immigration, yet the United States is expected to just throw the doors wide open and yell, "Come on in and stay a while", without consideration for what that does to the people who are entitled to be here: American citizens and resident aliens who have followed the immigration rules.
Think me a bigot if you want to. I really don't care - that's just what people call you to try to get you to shut up about wanting our border secured and our immigration laws enforced. And I won't shut up.
