Immigration: The "Base" Hits Bottom

IIA: Illegal Immigration Absolutist...just won a "great" victory and took the issue COMPLETELY off the table.

NO one in their right political mind will bring this up again...not in our life time.

And for those who think I'm wrong...that the MAJORITY of people agree with them...take a look at Tancredo...if this was a major issue, why is the man dead last in the polls? Not even..."we need a worker program" Fred who's NOT even running has bigger numbers.

Why is every major candidate (on BOTH sides) either luke warm or in favor of the same kind of worker program as Bush?

The "proof" is in the way our voter dependent politicians react to the issue.

And now, neither side will touch it. And we will continue to have the amnesty given by Reagan.

Well they always DID see Reagan as the exception...even when he did something they hate.

Sanity, the standards are much higher for mere mortals (McCain, Bush, Giuliani) than for St. Ronald, who is now mainly a mythical figure. Reagan was not an absolutist on anything -- except perhaps his love for liberty and for America. Reagan and Nancy had numerous gay friends, and he was not in any way "anti-gay." He was in no sense anti-Hispanic, just the opposite. He was an advocate of women's rights and showed it by the key roles women assumed in his Administration.

You're absolutely right on immigration. It's now the "Third Rail" of American politics, one that nobody will touch. If there are 12 million immigrants (2 million criminals reportedly) there will be 24 million (and 4 million criminals soon). What a great victory for Hugh Hewitt, Pat Buchanan, Jonah Goldberg, and other simpletons!

Steve,

Today's column should be required reading for every Republican. It truly embodies the essence of Reagan's "Big Tent."

As I have mentioned previously, both sets of my grandparents were immigrants, arriving in this country between 1914 and 1925. At that time, the Republican Party was isolationist and anti-immigrant. It was the party of Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh and, later, the John Birch Society.

The Democrats became, largely by default, the party of the immigrants. The following DECADES of Democrat election dominance were no mere coincidence. For most immigrants--and their descendants--to be a Republican (and thus join the party of the bigots and immigrant haters) was simply unthinkable.

My own family was hardly left-wing. As Jews from Russia, they had seen evil firsthand. They loved FDR because he was willing to fight the Nazis. They loved JKF because he was aggressively anti-Communist. As the Democrats moved to the left, my family rallied around the remaining Democrat hawks, such as Scoop Jackson.

My point is that once the Republican party lost that generation of immigrants, the GOP could not win them back. In New York, it has been said that Jews live like Republicans, but vote like Puerto Ricans. Collective memories die hard.

As Republicans, we stand at another critical juncture. Will we again become the party of isolationism and xenophobia, or will we become the party of the immigrant by stressing those things critical to the immigrants' success in America: equality of opportunity, lower taxes, freedom from excessive regulation and government intrusion, and basic respect for human dignity?

Given the Left's cognitive dissonance regarding the very real threats we face today, it has never been more critical for Republicans to--once again-- erect Reagan's "Big Tent" and to be the guardians responsible for protecting and enhancing that "Shining city upon the hill."

As the Gipper concluded in his farewell address:

"I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home."

Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon

Bruce, I'm going to use your wonderful "blog" column in "Blog Central" this weekend. I had very much in mind the Jewish people when I was writing my piece. I've always believed that on my mother's side I had some Jewish antecedents, but that was Top Secret information in our family. My mother was Episcopalian, her mother (my grandmother) was as Irish as Paddy's Pig. My father's parents were Getrude Kelly and Stephen J. Maloney, which you can figure out. :-) Just post-high-school I had a Jewish girlfriend (Mina) in days when that "just wasnt done." I adored her because she was a wonderful human being, but it was not to be. I still wonder if she was the prettiest girl I ever knew or the smartest, or maybe both. :-)

My early religious schooling (Catholic schools with real nuns, albeit extremely nice ones) was transformational. I was their "star," and they were just about everything to me, wonderful people who gave me a great early education. I may have mentioned that in 5th grade Sister Charlotte had us reading world history! We didn't make any trips to the post office that I remember. I heard the name Pericles in that class, and near the end we read about World War II and the Holocaust, which ruined my sleep for quite awhile (and may still disrupt it). One of the things I learned long ago was that many of the things I might like to do I should not do, including the exercise of those prejudices I may have (and do have). I think of myself very much as a Reagan Republican, but not the mythical Reagan but the real one. I see people like John Kyl, John McCain, Saxby Chambliss, Jonny Isaacson (GA), and Rudy Giuliani, and I say, "Yeah, I'm one of them." As I said, I'd like to reprint your wonderful comment. You're a remarkable young man Bruce.

steve

I suppose I should congratulate you, Stephen Maloney, on your self-righteous smugness, in this moment of 'moral victory' for you and your adulators, 'sanity' and Bruce, as you look down, disparagingly, from the heights of sanctimoniousness upon the benighted GOP masses.

However, as has been pointed out by writers far better than I, the reason your arguments make absolutely no sense is because you have NO LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT for your position, at least one that you are willing to openly express.

Perhaps you believe sovereignty is a 'quaint' concept, and national borders something reserved for maps in museums and history textbooks; if so, then JUST SAY SO!

Perhaps you believe that a completely unfettered flow of low-cost unskilled labor is the ONLY way to prevent the complete evacuation of US business TO countries teeming WITh low-cost unskilled labor; if so, then JUST SAY SO!

Perhaps you are just a doctrinaire free-market libertairian who believes that the market MUST rule in ALL circumstances, and that all other legal, social and moral constraints are just that, constraints, which must be eliminated in order to acheive the perfection of true human happiness. If so, then JUST SAY SO!

Perhaps you are a 'race-based' politico, totally devoted to the victory of your party, viewing the electorate simply in terms of demographics, the issues be damned, who sees the demographic handwriting on the wall, and believes that the Republican Party MUST become 'El Partido Republicano' in order to survive against its Democratic opponent, and thus must do NOTHING which might upset the supposed coming Latino majority, and instead should facilitate the arrival of that majority; if so, then JUST SAY SO!

But, please, do not play this 'let's pretend' game of asserting, as Linda Chavez did, so ignonimously, that this issue about illegal immigration is simply a problem of 'racism', and 'Latino fear and loathing', as Ms. Chavez put it.


Stephen, you affirm your support for Ms. Chavez' most outrageous assertion:

"But we need to quit pretending that the "No Amnesty" crowd is anything other than what it is: a tiny group of angry, frightened and prejudiced loudmouths backed by political opportunists who exploit them."

She goes on and on about racists and racism, and the history of nativism in the US, and then asserts that anyone who opposes this so-called 'comprehensive immigration' is just that: a racist nativist.

Aside from the obvious falseness of that remark, since I know MANY who oppose what's going on who ARE themselve of Latino origin, including some BORN in Mexico (I suppose these are 'self-hating' Latinos?), what she does is to paint with such a broad-brush as to render her argument meaningless. The apparent purpose of her canard is to render inert ANY argument against an amnesty for illegal aliens.

Nice try, but it doesn't wash. Not when she (and YOU) lump together such people as Hugh Hewitt, Sen. Sessions, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, and Jonah Goldberg with Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo.

There are admittedly differing perspectives on the relative value and level of immigration to the nation, but to confuse this debate with the idea that if one opposes a blanket amnesty, then you are just the worst sort of bigoted racist, is to abandon and precipitously flee from the field of civil debate and participatory governance.
Ad hominem attacks linking Robert Rector and the Heritage Foundation to the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis do NOTHING to bring consensus or reach compromise.

In retrospect, Linda Chavez' column can now be seen as an anticipatory act on her part, to her side's raising of the white flag on this issue, an early admission of defeat, rather than a prescient description of the debate.

Given the massive outpouring of comment from the populace, are YOU still going to cling to her analysis that this opposition amounts to nothing more than "a tiny group of angry, frightened and prejudiced loudmouths"?

Could such a 'tiny group' cause the implosion of Sen. McCain's Presidential candidacy, and cause a massive decline in small-contributor donations to the GOP?

If you keep insisting on the correctness of her analysis, aren't you saying the GOP has always just been the party of "a tiny group of angry, frightened and prejudiced loudmouths"?

If you believe this is really so, then why, in the world, are you a Republican? Do you willingly cleave to bigots? If so, then this says more about you than it does about the GOP, and the mass of its members.

Svensun, I have nothing against Swedes. I admit to looking down upon racists, nativists, and people who wear tinfoil hats. I believe much of the debate on the subject of immigration has been carried on at TH and a few other places by people who fit in the above categories and are little more than caricatures of human beings. Other than that, I'm kind to animals.

what an odd tirade...your side won...why are you so angry?

True Senator Kyl promised to try again, but he has to get the other senators to go along with him and who in their right mind is going to run up against the "power" of the base? You guys showed them a thing or two.

In fact, I don't expect any politician to touch this issue for years, maybe decades.

Sanity, as I said on the blog, I agree in general with Linda Chavez's analysis of the MAIN reasons MANY people oppose Kyl's proposal. People oppose Kyl on this for a multitude of reasons, but race/ethnicity is one of them. As I've said, I believe this is a political disaster and trying to "resurrect the dead" (proposal) is a bad idea. It may not always be a bad idea, but it is between now and the election in Nov., 2008. Do I think the "base" had any idea what the unintended consequences of their actions would be? I don't think they had a clue.

no they don't. But that's the problem with most people; they don't see outside the box. It's all about them and their little world.

Oh don't get me wrong, I know what it's like to be so busy and scratching and clawing a place for yourself in the world that what is happening thousands of miles away--or 5 days away, doesn't fraze you. I've been there.

But honestly, 9/11 was a true wake up call. (Read my essay on Feb 16 titled "One Moment"). On my ride over it SLOWLY sank in that in a blink of an eye...people who had zip to do with me and MY world could take it all away.

I am the type of person who LEARNS and NEVER forgets. It is the one few things I use the term "never" with.

Sanity, you're an exceptional person, and I mean that sincerely. As a wise person (man? woman?), once observed, "The average person is, well, average." They don't take what the business professors call "deep dives" into subjects. I'm reading about World War II and about how people in India volunteered to serve in the British Army (for low pay), even though by then they didn't much like the British. The number of Indian soldiers who died in WW II was more than 60,000, with many more than that maimed/wounded/whatever. I never heard that before! On why 9/11 happened, the CIA was basically gutted during the Clinton Administration and didn't have ONE PERSON who could have effectively infiltrated the upper levels of al Qaeda. I don't think you'll hear that at the next Democratic debate, although most of the candidates there are aware of what I just said. But the problem is that most people have more than they can handle, as you suggest. I read your analysis of the Immigration Bill, and I think: what percentage of people on TH know what you know? I fear it's much less than one percent. I don't know the answers as to what to do. Was Saddam trying to get the material for a nuclear bomb before the War? The Butler Commission, England's 9/11 commission, says he was. Gee whiz. Somebody tell John Edwards! Oh yeah, he knows, but he doesn't care because it's not an issue with his constituency. Was Saddam traning thousands of terrorists at the Salmon Park training center? Gee, I don't think he was training soccer players. Was an Iraqi citzen and explosive expert (protected later by Saddam) involved in the First WTC bombing (1993)? Ask Hillary. She knows, but I don't think she's telling. Knowing these things would be critical to having a balanced view of Iraq, but I doubt two percent of the American people have a grasp of these things. It's a real problem. Slogans are more fun.

As one who elicited support and voted for Linda Chavez in her Senate run in Maryland I was deeply disappointed in her recent comments and believe the vapidity of her position calls into renders her judgment on other issues suspect.

Blanket statements that ALL illegal immigrants are just hard working people who come here to become Americans are patently false. Calling people who do not support the open borders amnesty bill (that this legislation amounts to) racist is a cheap shot attempt to pre-emptively muzzle those of us who want a real, thoughtful and effective solution to the massive flood of illegal immigration.

Assimilation must be a key element in any immigration plan and I don't honestly see a great desire among the the vast majority of the current crop of immigrants to "become Americans". Multicultural nations do not survive long, they Balkanize. This is not a racism issue and I believe the onus should be on those wishing to come here to prove they want to melt into the pot. To equate millions of people flooding across our borders for dollars with boatloads of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany is not only asinine but obscene.

Linda Chavez has more than paid her dues to the American conservative movement. We have (or had) no more insightful or loyal member.

Kilroy, if you read the comments on TH or listen to those on talk radio, you will agree that Linda was right on the mark. You may not be nativist or racist, but most of those who were most virulent against the proposed legislation fit right into that category. Check out what the Pasadena Phils, the VirginiaPatriots, and the Renees are saying, and I'm sure you'll agree that Linda had a point.

There are 40 million legal Hispanics in the USA, and we've done a great job in losing most of them.

I now see the "base" talking about what amendments they want, etc. There aren't going to be any amendments. What we've got is what we'll have, until the Democrats pass their own bill. If you see some other scenario emerging, I'd love to see what it is. I believe all Republicans should wash their hands of the entire matter, and Hugh Hewitt can babble on about what his ideal bill would look like. Maybe he can run for the Senate from MD.

You're a good man, Kilroy, but you're just plain wrong on this one.

steve

I believe Linda Chavez is bitter because she (probably correctly) sees the Republican Party going down the toilet. Here are my last thoughts on the subject, written originally on Sanity's blog:

The Base had no self-control. They never gave a thought to the consequences of their actions. They put the country in great danger, and most of them are happy as clams.

Here's what I wrote on Sanity's blog: I think the immigration fiasco has taken the wind out of a lot of sails, including mine and Sanity's. The current system is broken, and it does threaten national security -- a great deal. Tom Clancy had a book (four/five years ago?) about terrorists making a deal with Mexican drug dealers, coming across the border, getting weapons from druggies, and then attacking simultaneously four shopping centers (Richmond, VA & Provo, Utah were two of them. Books don't scare me, but that one did. A hundred-plus people were killed at three of the centers, and there was a shoot out at the fourth where the terrorists showed up a day late and a machine gun short.

The Democrats are all going around with smiles on their faces. They've made the Republicans looks like the bad guys once again. What exactly have the Democrats lost on this one? They don't give a hoot about the Republican "base." I hear the Hugh Hewitt types talking about the need for this amendment (constant machine gun fire at the border?), and I think, "There aren't going to be any amendments."

I am against building the fence. TH had several blog pieces about the Berlin Wall 20th anniversary. I think they did them with a straight face. The "Berlin Wall South" sends a message to Central and South America that I don't even want to think about. Somehow little things like that aren't going to worry Pasadena Phil.

Linda Chavez's response is almost scary. As I said, if we lose Linda, exactly what Hispanics are we going to retain (out of the 40 million legal ones here now)?

This is why I see this as an absolute, utter disaster. For many years, I've been quoting Wm. F. Buckley's line about, "Self-control is the most exhilarating of pleasures." The Base had no self-control. They never got a thought to the consequences of their actions. They The Base had no self-control. They never got a thought to the consequences of their actions. They put the country in great danger, and most of them are happy as clams.

I disagree that I am wrong, Steve. I think our priorities are just different. I am interested in preserving the nation while your focus is more on preserving the GOP. Reminds me of the doctor who declares "I am happy to say the operation was a success, unfortunately the patient died".

As to Chavez, one can "pay ones dues" and still be completely out of step with what is good for the country. I appreciate your pragmatism in trying to buy votes with bad policy but I think the bad policy of flooding the market with tons of cheap wage depressing labor just for votes is distructive.

destructive ... sorry.

Kilroy, thanks for your thoughts -- if you have any. The Republican "base" consists of of a decling number of angry white males who can't elect a dogcatcher anymore. Our biggest problem is that you don't have a clue what politics is about. It's not about ideological purity masquerading as principle. It's about serving the interests of the people, all the people, all the time, no matter the color of their skin or the country of their origin. That will come as major news to the "base," which consists mainly of people driven by racial and ethnic animosity. You see it all the time on TH, but you choose to ignore it. I wonder why . . .

As I've said before, it's essential for the Republican Party to cleanse iself of the "base," to tell the AWMs to go play in the muck and stop tainting the Party and driving away decent people.

Kilroy, you live in a world where your "opinions" are King. Your opinions on this subject have no grounding in knowledge about the history of our country or the realities of its evolution.

You have a moral and intellectual obligation to agree with me on this one, but I doubt things like morality or intelligence have much meaning to you. There's a poison arrow in your heart, and it does great damage to you as a human being. It makes you something less than you should be.

Au revoir.

(to the degree that I possess any intellect --- harr harr harr) if we are going to do nothing to preserve the union, any political party would be wise to try to scarf up a many new votes as possible. It is especially practical if you consider uncontrolled illegal immigration as inevitable. As to the history of the subject, I know we did this in 1986 with the promise that we'd never have to address the issue again. I’ll freely admit that I don’t know how many votes the GOP bought that time -- at least one, I guess, in Linda Chavez. Pity she was one of those politicians that “didn’t stay bought”. And here I thought we “paid our dues”. Guess it wasn’t a life membership.

As to the inability of the GOP to elect dogcatchers, perhaps we could adopt your approach, take away the dogcatchers nets, give them Snausages to hand out and let the dogs vote. We'll never get the poodle and purebred vote but I am betting we can pick up a mutt or two. It's a win-win for everyone so long as we up the ante with a few more Beggin' Strips in the pot than the Dem's offer, because, as a historian, you know fully well that in the bidding wars of offering social services for votes the GOP always comes out on top.

On "ideological purity" your comment "As I've said before, it's essential for the Republican Party to cleanse iself of the "base," to tell the AWMs to go play in the muck and stop tainting the Party and driving away decent people" is something I'd expect to find on the narrow minded Democratic Underground or Daily KOS. That you and Chavez are so quick to fall back on the "if you don't agree with me you must be a (circle one) Racist, Nazi, Idiot, All of the Above.

No, really Steve, I did stop beating my immigrants ... errr ... I mean, I never stopped beating my immigrants ... DOH!

Sorry but I am one of those guys who just can't hold my nose and vote for the Arlen Specters, Lincoln Chaffees and Lindsey Grahams -- been there and done that for years. However, don't suggest for a minute that I am any more ideologically rigid than you are. It takes two to fracture a party but, to quote "zee olt man" of Cheech and Chong fame, "I vill not sign zee papers".

Look Steve, I am not one to come to your turf and lift a leg on your tree. Your blog is your space and I'll not attack someone in their home. To the extent that I've introduced unwelcome and alien thoughts (ok, I'll call 'em thoughts even though you would argue the point) I apologize.

Feel free to continue to drop by Kilroys because it is a big tent. All we ask is that you sign the guest book on the way in (really not too much to ask if you think about it). Maybe you can still get a chuckle from the intellectually challenged. In the meantime, best of luck on that whole purge thing. I hear "long knives" are quite effective.

Vaya con Dios, mi amigo

"A month ago I offended a lot of people when I uttered a truism of social thought: “perception is reality.” I hear from a lot Platonic idealists who insisted that there was an objective reality and, coincidentally, it mirrored exactly whatever was in their heads."

A stupid platonic idealism might be existing law. For 20 + years they ignored enforcing that, what makes us think they will follow this one? I know, because the amount of bureaucracy they throw at it. I guess the perception of law must not have been destined reality. Incidentally, that bureaucracy is about the same as throwing money at the problem. Both of which conservatives are against.

But you can use that old race card if you like. I for one am thankful Chavez was not the labor secretary Bush intended. The course of events did us a favor, and what a paradox.

The perception is just that, and apparently the perception was one did not need to do things legally – or same difference either way.
“In what important sense is perception reality?” When people vote based on what a person says not what they do, and then ignore the latter.

People vote based on their perception of what candidate will be best for them. They don't do long, detailed studies into anything. Ultimate reality is a question for philosophers, not voters. Linda Chavez uttered her perception, based on her experience (and perhaps on reading some of the comments on TH). I share her experience, and I think her perception is a lot closer to the reality of the way people feel than yours. People vote on perceptions and on their feelings, not on the basis of deep reflection. Anybody who's ever looked in human behavior and politics agrees with me. The fact that a bunch of lunkheads on TH don't isn't exactly impressive.

steve

This immigration debate has become increasingly shrill and disgusting. I'm deeply concerned that the Republican Party and the conservative movement is doing irreparable damage in the way it is handling this debate.

It's disturbing when the Pat Buchanan/ Barry Goldwater Rpublicans claim the Ronald Reagan mantle when Reagan reached out to Hispanics and endorsed comprehansive immigration reform.

And, even with its flaws, Bush's reform package is far more conservative than Reagan's, which had no fence and very little funding for border enforcement.

GenXDad: You are a wise man. I keep saying I am washing my hands of the immigration debate. I just read the following poll data about the races (primary and general) in Texas, which many people see to be an anti-immigration state.


McCain - 27%
Giuliani - 23%
Thompson - 11%
Romney - 6%
Gingrich - 6%
Brownback - 3%
All others - 1% or less


McCain - 36%
Clinton - 35%
McCain - 32%
Obama - 25%


Notice, that JOHN MCCAIN (pro-immigration reform) is doing very well in Texas. Oh, how can we explain that???

One of the respondents on race42008.com saw the numbers and said the following: "Tommy, there are a whole lotta Hispanics in Texas who probably weren’t too happy with what a lot of conservatives were saying during the immigration debate."

Hispanic voters: there are a lot of them out there, and we should not be driving them to the Democrats. Some in the base are too stupid to understand that elementary political reality.