From New York magazine, via Ross Douthat:
GOP Candidates Form Pro-Immigration Cartel
By Jonathan Chait
The Republican Party’s leadership has collectively decided that its political future requires the party to support immigration reform. Republicans made a similar calculation under George W. Bush, but a conservative grassroots revolt killed the legislation. Now the party elite is attempting to tamp down a potential revolt and allow a bill to pass.
Almost certainly there will be some kind of conservative revolt. Stirring of it could be heard at CPAC, where figures like Jim DeMint, Donald Trump, and Ann Coulter issued fiery denunciations. What’s interesting is that, as of now, anti-reform conservatives have no standard bearer. All of the major 2016 figures — Paul, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker — support comprehensive reform. Somebody will surely emerge to represent the conservative base in an open field, but so far the political marketplace has not supplied a candidate to fill that anticipated demand.
Instead, the field looks a lot like a kind of cartel. All of the major candidates support reform, so none of them can undercut each other by appealing to anti-reform sentiment. Whichever candidate eventually emerges to speak for the anti-reform base — and one will; the lure of a mass followership and free time on Fox News is too great to pass up — will probably be a Herman Cain–esque huckster running a protest race rather than a serious candidacy.
And that potential dynamic, in turn, will shape the prospects for the passage of a bill. The key factor in passing a law is for leading Republicans in Congress, especially Rubio, to stay solid in their support. They’ll continue to support a bill as long as they feel secure that fellow Republicans won’t attack them as an Obama-loving sellout willing to let hordes on Mexicans pour forth over the border. If figures like Rubio look around and see other Republicans edging for the exits, they’ll in turn beat a retreat.
As of now, though, all the 2016 contenders can support a bill in the anticipation that their major rivals will be locked in to the same stance. The most plausible vehicle for a grassroots insurgent candidacy was Paul, who had harnessed his father’s grassroots appeal with shrewd cultivation of the party elite. With Paul signed up with the pro-reform cartel, nobody is going to make Rubio, Bush, or Ryan nervous, which means there’s little right now to stop a bill from passing the House this summer.
Okay, but the same logic applied in 2006 and 2007, with John McCain teaming up with Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush to push amnesty. Senator Jeff Sessions, among others, stepped up. Overall, though, it was the citizenry that got the job done.
Posts
76 comments:
"All of the major 2016 figures — Paul, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker — support comprehensive reform." - Jonathan Chait
In what universe are Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul "major 2016 figures"? Paul Ryan was a phenomenal dud as the Veep nominee, and that was with Mitt Romney as his running mate. Including Jeb Bush in there really undermines the author's entire narrative. And yeah, we didn't really have a leading flag-bearer in 2006 & 2007, but we still defeated amnesty. Even worse, in '06 and '07 the amnesty putsch was being lead by a Republican president...and still lost. How will amnesty garner Republican support win Obama in the lead?
the GOP can continue to become more and more pro-immigration as long as the Dems maintain a strong anti-white stance. The liberal activist hatred of the white blue collar male and all things white in general is the thing that drives working class whites into the arms of the gop. We have nowhere else to go, to paraphrase Richard Gere in AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN.
The GOP can idolize immigration and immigrants all day long, just so long as hollywood, academia, and the core fakeLeftist base and elite are demonizing the white lower middle class.
The GOP and its anti-worker, anti-citizen policies can only exist because of the anti-white subtext of all things liberal.
If you want to fix it, vote democrat, vote for democrats that are pro-white. Problem is, such a politician would be demonized by the media, should he/she reach any level of visibility.
Only the GOP could accomplish amnesty. Amnesty would be a massive betrayal of millions of Democratic legal immigrants and bureaucrats, not to mention working poor, and then how in hell would Democrats continue to pay for their cherished social welfare programs? It's politically far more difficult for Democrats to pull off than Republicans, who would do it solely for "libertarian" or pro-business reasons.
I think a lot of conservatives have an enormous blind spot here. The Republicans are our biggest enemy when it comes to immigration. They will be the first to betray American citizens. The Republican party is a massive liability.
Who, at this point, could forget what GWB did? It may be counterintuitive, but President Obama has been by far the better president for those who would preserve the American people.
Mitt Romney would have supported amnesty, and he would have been in a far better position to pull it off than Obama. I am certain of this. We should be happy he lost. And in the meanwhile, we should support an alternative to the Republican party, which serves the interests of a small minority these days.
Got to love how Paul seems to think that tough-sounding language will do the trick. See, it's not amnesty if I call it "probation!"
"The solution doesn't have to be amnesty or deportation-a middle ground might be called probation where those who came illegally become legal through a probationary period," Paul said in his speech, adding "Our land should be one of assimilation, not hiding in the shadows."
syon
It's time to get the job done, men.
My prediction is that we have at least one more Democrat Prez. before the Republicans go the way of the [American] Whig Party.
Polls show that a majority of Americans want these illegal infiltrators deported. How is it possible that both major parties are taking positions that oppose the people's will?
Cartel is indeed the operative word. This should be considered as illegal wage price-fixing by the oligarchs and as punishable malfeasance pursuant to antitrust law.
I wonder what this brain disease is, that makes all GOP leaders support "comprehensive immigration reform", despite it flooding the country with Democrats?!
They shall be schooled, as they were during the Bush amnesty push.
And if they aren't, we deserve the consequences.
@Ex Submarine Officer:
Do you know where I might find expert advice or educate myself on how to publish anonymously (truly anonymously) on the Internet?
I hate when people frame the argument using the enemy's language, like repeatedly labeling amnesty as "reform". It's rather like calling illegals "the undocumented". How can you ever hope to win if you're afraid to even accurately name the thing you oppose?
What is the argument for why illegal migrants should be given United States Citizenship?
"I hate when people frame the argument using the enemy's language, like repeatedly labeling amnesty as "reform". It's rather like calling illegals "the undocumented". How can you ever hope to win if you're afraid to even accurately name the thing you oppose?"
Good point. However, "amnesty" is the enemy's language, as well.
"it was the citizenry that got the job done"--journalists in D.C. can't fathom that concept, don't bother trying to explain it.
"It's rather like calling illegals "the undocumented."
"Infiltrators" is a better word than "illegals."
I think I'll start calling them "invading foreigners," unless somebody thinks of something better. And instead of "reform," we can call it "capitulation to invading foreigners."
I would feel better about all this if Paul would have referred to it as "double secret probation".
The concerny-trolly 2nd comment above evinces even less understanding of the Democrats' coalition than of the Republicans', if that's possible. The American lib conglomerate still has numerous incentives to render demographic substitution, even if they're less obvious to you than some Chamber of Commerce plot of a 1980s back issue of Mother Jones. In public their metrosexual spokesfolks may babble about climate change or gay marriage, neither of which is directly benefited by importing illiterate peasants, but the visceral appeal of toppling the White Patriarchal Heteronormative Oppressor remains potent across the left-of-center spectrum. The Dem brass couldn't give 2 craps about the working poor; are you kidding? "Millions of Democratic legal immigrants?" Bwahahahahaa
Cruz and Cornyn are stepping up to kill the push through Committee, both signed letters demanding full votes not rushing it through. Cornyn is facing a primary, he has to kill this or his career is over and he will have to actually work.
There is a cartel. They also have to deal with primaries. Cruz got rid of some old deadweight, can't recall who it was.
In what universe are Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul "major 2016 figures"
In Jonathan Chait's universe. You think writing hysterical the-jackboots-are-coming screeds every week is easy? Can't be managed w/o a sturdy formula.
"Cartel?" I thought it was Overton's window (or possibly the Iron Triangle). You fight-clubbers of the 'net need to get your pseudo-scientific jargon straight.
I hope the GOP doesnt "fastbreak" this amnesty bill without explaining to the public what's in it first.
Republicans are in a tight spot. If a bill doesn't pass, they will be blamed.
If a bill does pass, they will also be blamed--especially after republican base finds out what is actually in the amnesty bill.
So my advice for the GOP elites is two things
1) do the immigration negotiations OPENLY and PUBLICLY, not in secret, like what the "gang of 8" is doing. Put it on CSPAN. I don't care if democrats grandstand on this issue. let them.
2) Put the finished product amnesty plan to a national referendum.
Republicans are in a tight spot. If a bill doesn't pass, they will be blamed.
Blamed by whom? For what? He who knocks back this bill will be celebrated, not blamed.
I like the idea of a national referendum. Has anyone proposed that?
Why do they call it "immigration reform"? These people are NOT "immigrants" at all. They are illegal aliens, or to use, Israelese, criminal infiltrators.
"Blamed by whom? For what? He who knocks back this bill will be celebrated, not blamed."
by UNIVISION, by the media, by mexico.
Believe it or not, not increasing taxes still works. The Rpeublicans are bad at packaging this. In liberal state Claifornia a lot of whites and some minorities were disappointed that the tax hike didn't solved the situation. And in the city of Los Angeles whites voted down a sales tax for police and so forth but the Hispanics voted for it. Republicans need to be more honest with not rising the taxes and explain like in California rising taxes will not always balance the budget. Also, the support of millions of Hisapnics in Ca and Tex leads to a big welfare state since Mexicans have kids with low incomes. The Dana Ronabracher form of conservatism isn't try much in Ca or blue states.
"Why do they call it "immigration reform"? These people are NOT "immigrants" at all. They are illegal aliens, or to use, Israelese, criminal infiltrators."
a more PC term is "illegal foreigners"
These people are NOT "immigrants" at all. They are illegal aliens, or to use, Israelese, criminal infiltrators."
Use Israelese.
The GOP wants to give our voting rights away to illegal infiltrators. Unbelievable.
That "donorist" definition by Ross Douthat is nice. If the party sincerely wants to compete they'll get bang for the buck by faking out post-Clinton Dems on kitchen-table economics. Those sort are concentrated around D.C. or New York and not well prepared for the non-union middle class front. Anyway it's not as if they can gain market share via gays and illegals--that was never going to be more than a fillip to humor the moneybags
Whatever you want to call illegal immigrants, I would for once like to see them evicted with the same vehemence that most city authorities and private businesses use against White homeless people.
Commenter Bill wrote: "President Obama has been by far the better president for those who would preserve the American people."
So THAT explains Obama's Dream Act by executive fiat? Good Lord, were he head of a tribe Obama's name would be Chief Open Borders.
We, the people, are going to have to get busy right now: write and telephone and e-mail our congresscritters and threaten them with getting their spineless sellout hides voted out of office if they support anything short of vigorous comprehensive enforcement of existing immigration law, anything short of deportation of however many millions of foreigners who are here in violation of U.S. law, anything short of a comprehensive, twenty-year moratorium on legal immigration.
Either we, the people, step up now, or we shall soon cease to exist as the American people.
I am all for immigration reform. I would like to reform our current immigration system to something like that from 1924. We take in too many legal immigrants and offer family reunification that was not offered to earlier immigrants.
We also no longer ensure new arrivals won't go on the public dole. This means more immigrants are coming here for the bennies of economics and not so much to live free. In fact most immigrants are no longer coming here from places that have no freedom. Most are coming here from democracies which doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a historical perspective.
We now give out immigration slots like candy, so much so that we've been offering it in the guise of a lottery prize. As if becoming an America were some silly game show contest.
We no longer require immigrants to renounce their previous citizenship prior to becoming US citizens.
The list could go on.
By all means lets push for immigration reform and stop making a mockery of what was once a precious commodity, American citizenship.
It's crunch time. The crisis that we have long awaited is upon us.
Well, a defeat will probably demoralized Hispanics and lead a way for their immirgant arrivals asians to pushed them out even if some of the asians are illegal themselves. I don't know if its passing or not now but it seems that it taking a lot of time to create it.
In the - utterly, utterly disatrous - Bush II years, a successful 'peasant's revolt' of angry Americans managed to twice stymie Dubya's attempted stitch-up and sell-out. It was mainly a case of a spontaneous mass working of the phones and threats of never voting for or funding the Repubs ever again.Senators got the willies, saw sense and did the right thing. People power in action.
This time it's different. The dynamic's gone, the avowedly immigrationist Obama Democrats hold the reigns and the whipped curr Repubs are playing the part of acolytes and tail-waggers. So Bushie (the man who f*cked the world), will get his way after all and Brasil Del Norte is here to stay.
Rand Paul is signalling the media, the rich donors, corporate lobbies etc that he has no principles and that he is for sale. Now money will come his way. And the media will be favorable to him.
The media (and the corporations that buy ads in the media) are pushing an amnesty and more mass immigration down our throat. They are signalling the GOP 2016 hopeful presidential candidates that if they want to be promoted by the media, these hopefuls need to be immigration-friendly. And of course a new amnesty will signal to those who are considering illegally immigrating to the USA that once they get here they can get another amnesty some years down the road.
It is all about signals. And of course about money. More illegal immigrants means more cheap labor, more consumers to buy products (products sold by the corps that advertise in the media (get the connection?)), more people to buy houses that are now sitting empty or houses to be built. More livestock for the american homo sapiens cattle operation.
The democrat idea of amnesty allowing the illegals to "leave the shadows" and become citizens and thereby empower them to take better paying jobs and thereby help raise wages of all americans really does not hold water, although on the face of it, it sounds appealing. Here is why amnesty really won't help american working class citizens much at all: the corps have paid the pols not to implement e-verify or some form of it, at least for blue collar work. That means that illegals can get jobs, construction jobs, mostly. These jobs actually pay pretty well. In fact, better than a lot of white collar jobs that young white kids went into debt for. And the illegals don't have the education that would allow them to compete for anything other than blue collar jobs. So how exactly is amnesty going to help american citizens by bringing illegals "out of the shadows"? They are doing pretty well IN the shadows. White male youth is driven away from blue collar work in areas with high numbers of illegals anyway. This is an invasion and it is really hurting young white males.
Thing is, though, there is not a thing we can do about it. Any true populists, such as sarah palin (who seemed to have a real animus for the DC beltway and the media and corporations), are going to be demonized by the media. And sellouts like rand paul are going to be promoted in the media.
And as long as the Dem core subculture is virulently anti-white, the white working class will be pushed away from them, away from economic leftism, and into the arms of the GOP and its anti-worker, pro-rich policies.
The white youth is still fresh from their 12 years or more of pro-minority, pro-immigration, race-guilt shaming edu-propaganda that forms a core plank of the education system, and so they will vote Dem to a great degree. The mandate burned into their brain is this: vote Dem to prove you are not a racist.
So they are basically immune to the anti-white animus of the core liberal subculture. Those years of race guilt shaming have burned a cross of shame in their brains and it still burns brightly.
That is the dynamics of it, the forces in play, and as long as the white working class has no clue as to what is going on, these dynamics will remain unchanged.
Anonymous said...
Polls show that a majority of Americans want these illegal infiltrators deported. How is it possible that both major parties are taking positions that oppose the people's will?
-----------------------
America is a pseudo-democracy in that it is too large for the people to govern. And the structure of the fed govt itself was designed to thwart democracy.
The large size of the federal electoral districts means that the majority cannot discover their common interests and unite against the wealthy (a paraphrase from the father of the constitution, james madison).
The large size of these voting district creates more factions within the districts. The more factions, the less unity. The less unity among the voters, the less able they are to unite and hold the govt accountable. Also the high degree of racial diversity creates even more factions.
Madison wrote that democracy was not right for america (and by america, he really meant not right for the rich people like madison). Madison wrote that by enlarging the voting districts the wealthy would be protected from the majority. He also designed the fed govt to be an ineffective means of control by the electorate. he did this by creating a separation of powers and checks and balances in the govt. That way the people could not use the govt against the "minority of the opulent" (to quote madison). Also the staggered election cycles also thwart democracy in america.
Of course now that american is more than one third nonwhite that creates even more factions.
So, no, america is not a democracy. if you want democracy, go to the other white nations (canada, australia, britain, sweden, denmark, germany etc etc). every nation in the white western is parliamentarian as opposed to what we have here in america: a federalist presidential strong checks and balances separation of power pseudo-democracy.
Problem is that you live here and your family is here and you really cannot leave america, plus the other white nations don't really want you.
So, that is why we have mass immigration in america against the will of the people. THat is why we have no universal healthcare, even though the people want it. That is why we cannot tax the rich, even though the people want it.
It's not a democracy!
We, the people, are going to have to get busy right now: write and telephone and e-mail our congresscritters and threaten them with getting their spineless sellout hides voted out of office
Remember TARP? Didn't work then either. The GOP is all in on this one. America is finished, and we are too fat, dumb and happy to plan the alternative.
"All of the major 2016 figures — Paul, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker — support comprehensive reform." - Jonathan Chait
In what universe are Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul "major 2016 figures"?
In the universe where being on the right side of the issues -- Jonathan Chait's side -- is what makes you a major figure.
A universe where the MSM defines the laws of physics, in other words.
In the - utterly, utterly disatrous - Bush II years, a successful 'peasant's revolt' of angry Americans managed to twice stymie Dubya's attempted stitch-up and sell-out. It was mainly a case of a spontaneous mass working of the phones and threats of never voting for or funding the Repubs ever again.Senators got the willies, saw sense and did the right thing. People power in action.
This time it's different. The dynamic's gone, the avowedly immigrationist Obama Democrats hold the reigns and the whipped curr Repubs are playing the part of acolytes and tail-waggers. So Bushie (the man who f*cked the world), will get his way after all and Brasil Del Norte is here to stay. Still lots of folks in both parties don't want it. and it is taking a long time to come up with a plan. Guestworker is what the Republicans want while the Democraitcs not is much. Mark my word a plan will fail. And guest wheat in 2014 the Republicans siwng the other way again.3/20/13, 1:20 AM
Polls show that a majority of Americans want these illegal infiltrators deported. How is it possible that both major parties are taking positions that oppose the people's will?
The R and D parties are a pro-immigration cartel.
We see the same phenomenon with the major parties in all other (formerly) White countries.
What is the argument for why illegal migrants should be given United States Citizenship?
Non-discrimination. White people and nations are not allowed to discriminate (i.e., they are not allowed to use their immune system) in favor of themselves. If they have something, they have to let everyone else share it.
It's already been decided.
Emily (in a calm, determined voice): "There seems to be only one decision you can make Charles. I'd say it had been made for you."
"This time it's different."
Talk Radio drives conservative mass passion. Though relatively few Jews are conservative, a lot of talk radio guys are Jewish: Savage, Levin, Medved, Hewitt, etc. Not all Jewish cons are for amnesty, but some are.
And guys like Hannity who roused up mass anger are now for amnesty. It's also true that it's difficult to rouse up the same kind of passion the second time around.
One good thing about amnesty. It will be clear signal to all cons that the gop is over and done with and it's pointless to look to it for any kind of protection.
A wholly new 'radical' approach will be necessary.
Republicans are in a tight spot. If a bill doesn't pass, they will be blamed.
If a bill does pass, they will also be blamed--especially after republican base finds out what is actually in the amnesty bill.
---------
They've been checkmated. No matter which way they move, it's mate.
Jews are great at chess, and they played this one like political chess.
Mexicans don't vote as much as whites. The Orange County Register mention that a whopping 17 percent of voters in Orange County were removed from the voting register. The biggest loser was Stanton which is over 50 percent Hispanic. In fact the heaviest areas were Santa Ana, Anaheim and so forth. The least was Villa Park white wealthy. So, the voting registers went from Hispanic to white even though the Hispanic population is growing in Orange County while the white is declining. Also, the Republicans pick up a pecentage from 41 percent to 42 percent. So, Hispanics in the long run don't help as much as people think.
Well a lot of the Tea party didn't know that their leadership was bad on the immirgation issue. They are starting to wait up. National Review did a poll and most of those that voted voted against Paul on the issue. I thin that since Rush is going against the legalization process that it will get defeated it just depends if there are enough democraitcs to support it.
Just as I said recently.
It's a cartel. The GOP is now a declared enemy of the white majority.
But you'll keep voting for them, because they do want to end public education, the post office, all pensions private and public, minimum wage laws, all unions, Social Security, all laws governing the stock market, and any and all legislative opposition to Israel.
Nobody ever made a buck on the physical survival of his people.
That's why you'll keep push, push, pushing the button for Republicans. To shave a point or two off your capital gains tax (good luck).
This time it's different. The dynamic's gone...
Sadly, I concur.
I have been involved in grass-roots anti-illegal immigration activities (including time on the AZ Border with the Minutemen)since 2000. Everyone I know is now burned out, demoralized and busy rationalizing their acceptance of the inevitable amnesty.
Many are switching their energy to fighting the "threat" of Moslems and Sharia, since it's psychologically easier to fight something that's distant and theoretical rather than to face an enemy that is in your face and kicking your butt every day.
In a nutshell, this is the fatal flaw of conservatives. Conservatives are practical people who see social conflict as an interruption of their normal lives, not part of it. Conservatives see a problem, try to fix it, but if they can't fix it right away they adapt and move on. Conservatives expect to see results, otherwise why bother trying to change things?
Liberals, however, are happy to make social conflict their religion -- slowly advancing the football down the field and not caring whether the ball gets into the endzone during their lifetime or not. It's the satisfaction of feeling good about changing the world a little at a time that appeals to them.
Conservatives are, by definition, always playing defense. That means they're always losing. The Patriots of 1776 were not conservatives. They were liberals.
Today's conservatives would have been Tories in 1776. They'd be earnestly thanking the Redcoats for their service and figuring out how to make a buck off the Stamp Tax.
So many of these supposed Tea Party congressman and senators are going along with the establishment on enough issues that they should be viewed as turncoats. Michelle Bachmann could come out as the raging populist on this issue and show up Rand and crew as lacking in principle and fortitude. It would also help her gain some traction for another run in the 2015 primaries.
The comments after all Drudge post 2012 election news stories discussing immigration are about 85% against any sort of immigration reform. The base is old enough to still remember 1964 and 1986.
In what universe are Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul "major 2016 figures"?
In the corrupt world of Conservatism,Inc. If Bush could get rid of the Cuban somehow he has an excellent chance of getting the nomination. Here's a list of recent Republican nominees: Ford, Reagan, Bush the elder, Dole the even more elder, Bush the toddler, and Romney.
Only Reagan was a good candidate (though a mediocre President) and the Republican establishment didn't much care for him. But how can you ask such a question? What a list of stand-for-nothing losers. Not a statesman amongst 'em. Didn't do a damn thing to slow the destruction of the nation even when they might have. The Republicans/Big Conservatism are a business lobby masquerading as a political party and movement, they treat every group and situation as a potential market to penetrate, but it's mainly their supporters who end up getting penetrated, in the end.
What is the argument for why illegal migrants should be given United States Citizenship?
Foolish question. To not do so be racis'.
"I wonder what this brain disease is, that makes all GOP leaders support "comprehensive immigration reform", despite it flooding the country with Democrats?!"
It's called GREED! They view immigration as a way to push down wages.
The left chooses the topics and sets the terms of the discourse. A paper which represented the interests of the American middle class would have labeled the GOP act of treason "GOP forms a cheap labor cartel."
Suppose Sailer has the best advice in the world and neocons have the worst.
But if neocons have the power and money, politicians will go with the latter. Just like politics works. Politicians don't win by ideas. They win by the support they get from the guys with power in business and media.
Neocons say white conservatives should embrace Hispanics since the latter are 'natural conservatives'. But then, neocons say conservatism isn't all that good and we should embrace 'gay marriage'. Eh?
Btw, shouldn't Jews embrace white conservatives since the latter seem to be such natural Judeophiles?
Aint seem to be happening though.
the reason why israel uses the "illegal infiltrators" is because they are the singapore or hong kong of the middle east. they can't afford to be "politically correct" on illegal immigration when their survival is at stake.
That's bull. First, when you mention survival, let's be clear. It does not mean the physical survival of those people, it means the survival of their current way of life.
Second, though I support those three nations' right to choose their destiny, it is bull that your comment suggests that America cannot think this way too because somehow our size protects us from the influx of immigrants.
You have to remember that to a family that has roots in a community in anytown USA, their community is just as precious as those three small nations you mention. Therefore, when an influx of aliens drastically changes their community within five years and reduces their quality of life, you could say that puts their survival at stake. They are then forced to either stay and tolerate a forever changed community, or pay the costs of moving elsewhere to regain what they had and what they never intended to lose
Whether it is a country or a community, their ought to be a right to protect people against this type of social upheaval. And it should not depend upon where one lives. To use the words of the open border supporters, the random luck of birth should not allow one group to be able to protect themselves against demographic change while others, solely by chance of birth, have no such right.
"It's called GREED! They view immigration as a way to push down wages."
It may also be necessity.
Suppose there are 100 businesses and 95 want to maintain higher wages for their workers. Suppose bosses of 95 businesses are good patriots.
But suppose 'free trade' bill goes through and the 5 companies that are globalist take advantage of 'free trade' to gain a huge advantage. The other 95 will have to follow suit to survive.
"Okay, but the same logic applied in 2006 and 2007"
in 2006 and 2007, the 2012 election had not just happened.
so it's different this time. a lot more republicans in 2013, than in 2006 or 2007, see amnesty as absolutely necessary to even remain competitive in national elections. at this point it's not a goal, or a target, or an ideal to them, like it was when GW bush was president. back then it was something nice to go for, something they wanted, but they could take a loss here and there on it. like suing fire departments for hiring too many white guys. or starting the national diversity lottery. or trying to set up colin powell and condoleeza rice and alberto gonzalez as the future of the party.
today however, they feel it MUST HAPPEN, or the party is dead. to them, amnesty needs to occur and they need to take some credit for it, if the republicans are ever going to win another national election. they're dead wrong of course, and have it exactly backwards, just as they had the suing fire departments thing exactly backwards and the colin powell thing exactly backwards and the diversity lottery thing exactly backwards.
nevertheless, will this dramatic sweeping change in psychology be enough to push amnesty through this time? we will see.
"Overall, though, it was the citizenry that got the job done."
the citizens did not want PPACA. how did that work out?
I wonder why a lot of commenters think the Republican politicians actually care about the Republican party. I don't think they do. They just care about themselves, and if amnesty is good for them, personally (e.g. big campaign donations, pleasant treatment in national press), and there's no downside to speak of as *they* are not working class Americans, then why not?
Democrats would happily give amnesty if they could pull it off and continue to buy their major constituencies, but that would be pretty hard for them. I just don't see how Democratic politicians are going to be able to justify a comprehensive amnesty bill that kills the welfare state dead almost overnight. The number of people on government assistance will spike if illegals are given citizenship. Just look at the requirements for welfare, and you'll see why. As it is today, these programs are sustainable only because a significant population of the working poor does not have access to them.
I can hardly imagine the destabilizing effect amnesty will have on black populations in the country. The level of real, unsubsidized, desperate poverty in the US will soar with legalization of 10 million Mexican peasants.
I don't think this bothers most Republicans (although it should worry everyone), and I doubt Democrats would mind if they could keep their coalition together in that event, but this kind of development would destroy the white, urban Democrat managerial elite. It would fundamentally alter the party and possibly wreck it by destroying the coalition that keeps it together.
This is why I think the pundits are pushing the Republicans on the amnesty issue. I'm pretty sure that the Democrats don't really want it as much as they pretend to, because they can't afford it. The proof is in the facts, as I see it. Look at the numbers under different administrations. The more Republicans are in charge, the more illegals flood the country.
>The other 95 will have to follow suit to survive.<
That's a funny definition of survive. Survive = keep up with billionaires.
That's how unbounded greed bites ya in the tail.
I agree that "free trade" agreements are a crock.
"I don't care what color they are," a hustling businessman in Nashville told me about 20 years ago. "The only color I see," he went on, sniffing with capitalistic piety, "is green."
What's the record on wealth-creation in minority-white societies?
Equating immigrants with an invading barbarian army is a rhetorical trick that only really resonates with angry white proles.
Others are like, "So you're saying the nice Mexican gentleman who bags my groceries is destroying this country? Hilarious!"
It works for Israel because the country has been an ethno-religious seige-state from it's inception.
I wonder if Sheldon Adelson made a few phone calls along the lines of 'Remember how I kept Gingrich in the primary for so long? Newtie, who is so pro-marriage he's on his third wife. Imagine what my money could do for your campaign.'
Gingrich was not only in favor of amnesty, he was in favor of the aliens' bringing over their parents to put on social security.
Well,I would not say more come under Republicans since the number one state is California and most of the politicans are Democaritc not saying that the Republican politicans have been bad either. Texas is number 2 and there you can blame Republicans more. Dubyna wasn't the highest most illegals came under Billy Clitnon which will suprise people by the end of Bill Clinton presidency it was already about 8 million or more. Bush only added 4 million and the illegals expanded more into other states besides Ca, Tx, Fl, and Ny which in 1990 over 50 percent lived in those states. Both parties are equally to blame.
"I wonder why a lot of commenters think the Republican politicians actually care about the Republican party. I don't think they do. They just care about themselves, and if amnesty is good for them, personally..."
True, but they use language to suggest that they need to suppor tit for the good of the party. In other words, they lie.
"Equating immigrants with an invading barbarian army is a rhetorical trick that only really resonates with angry white proles."
Exactly right. Use honest language - illegal aliens, illegal immigrants - but not offensive or demeaning language.
Having spent some time working with groups fighting for immigration enforcement, the absolutely most exasperating aspect is the anger held by a certain subset of the people involved. It's stupid, and it just wears on you. If you want to be a warrior battling illegal immigration - and you should - then be a happy warrior. Make people want to join the party. Make it fun.
"Equating immigrants with an invading barbarian army is a rhetorical trick that only really resonates with angry white proles."
Or anybody that has to live around a large population of 3rd-world disfunctional immigrants. You can't assume that if you see one person bagging your groceries you know all there is to know. Maybe others have seen a lot more.
the reason why israel uses the "illegal infiltrators" is because they are the singapore or hong kong of the middle east. they can't afford to be "politically correct" on illegal immigration when their survival is at stake.
I can hardly believe I have to say this, but our survival is at stake, too.
Equating immigrants with an invading barbarian army is a rhetorical trick that only really resonates with angry white proles.
I don't know about the "barbarian" part, but the "invading army" part works with anyone with a three-digit IQ. They're being brought here to provide votes to establish a government that the natives do not want.
The "invading army" characterization is inarguably correct, and if it's the proles who recognize this fact, good for them.
Ford or Nixon the immirgation issue was not really a problem mainly in California at the time. Carter also thought of an anmesty before Reagan but he was president for a short time. Clinton did several little anmesty for Hurricane Micth.
Jeff Sessions use to be a blue dog Democratic which may be why he is better than most Republicans. Blue Dogs are a group on the Democratic side that are disappearing.
Well, in reality Republicans that live in heavily Mexican towns let's say Anaheim know the Mexicans are more likely on the dole than whites and more likely to have kids in gangs but let's say the hotel industry needs maids and in Anaheim not too many whites are below the poverty level and not as many 2nd and 3rd generation Mexicans do maid work is the Republicans support the business that hire the illegals.
Anon 8:15:
I'm not ESO, but you might start here.
The Republicans can deliver major immigration reform (and the system *does* need major reform, just not the kind we're likely to get from that bunch) in the same way that the Democrats could deliver permanent Patriot Act/War on Terror powers. The opposition to large-scale amnesty comes mostly from the right, and if the Republican party can be gotten on board with amnesty, then its opponents will have no place to go. Very much like pro-civil-liberties Democrats. It seems to me that getting one of the two big parties to reverse itself against the views of its base is a common way for big changes in policy to happen. And those can be good or bad.
Ironically, the lousy economy plus Obama administration enforcement (up until a year or so before the election, they were deporting a lot of people) has apparently gotten net illegal immigration somewhere close to zero. I expect that will change as the economy continues to improve, but maybe our congress full of clowns will manage to wreck the economy somehow before that happens.
More likely, the Republicans will cave on this. It's a long time till the next presidential election, even a pretty long time before the next congressional election, and most voters' memories are shorter than donors' memories, and many of the big donors really want cheap labor to continue for the next economic boom.
ben:
Probably not, really. There is a lot of ruin in a nation. We can import a whole lot of people who mostly won't do that well in school, at least for a few generations and perhaps not ever, without destroying the country. We can import a third big ethnic voting bloc, to be set against whites and blacks, and this won't be good for the country at all, but it probably won't wreck us. And so on.
We'll be poorer, with worse services and more patches of third-world-ness like Katrina showing through the fabric of first-world roads and research labs. But hell, we've already accepted that most of our big cities have regions of ungovernable hopeless poverty by people whom neither employers nor stores even care to do business with. It's not like we don't know how to wall off and/or avoid (even in thoughts) the bits of third world we already have wearing through. And all else being equal, perhaps bits of Ecuador or El Salvador wearing through are less nasty than bits of Haiti or Congo wearing through.
We'll probably be more segregated over time--as public services degrade, we'll see more middle and upper-class people making damned sure *their* kids go to school someplace with mostly smart, well-behaved kids (who will turn out to mostly be white and Asian), *their* neighborhoods are safe (even if the police just happen to stop and frisk every black or hispanic male between 14 and 50 that walks through the neighborhood), etc.
One sideline here: I don't think even the supporters of this mass immigration have much idea where it will end. I strongly suspect that the addition of a big block of hispanics sitting somewhere between whites and blacks in economic and school performance and crime will not work out particularly well for American blacks, and especially not well for black activists.
Matthew:
The other thing is, probably most of the immigrants are perfectly fine people as individuals. It's hard not to sympathize with them when they've come here to get away from godawful poverty and dysfunction and crime back home, and they're often hard workers and good people. The problem is in the numbers and the statistics. If you want to bring one person here from El Salvador, okay, that's not a big deal. But if you want to bring a million people here from El Salvador, even if they're a million mostly perfectly fine people, it's going to have a big impact, and the rest of the people ought to have some kind of say in that.
There's no need for particular hostility there, and like I said, mostly the immigrants aren't bad people. Lots of perfectly nice people would probably like to sleep on my couch, and many of them have worse sleeping arrangements and would benefit from that. I don't have to hate them to decide I'd rather not hand them a housekey and show them where the extra pillows and sheets are.
The other thing is, probably most of the immigrants are perfectly fine people as individuals.
Most people are perfectly fine as individuals. It's when they get back into their gangs, they are not. This is doubly so when an individual from a third world culture has a chat and a coffee with you one-on-one. He's cut off from his culture, and that means the dysfunctional elements as well as the functional.
It's hard not to sympathize with them when they've come here to get away from godawful poverty and dysfunction and crime back home, and they're often hard workers and good people.
He's not having his daddy or grand-daddy or tribal chief whisper in his ear when he's having dinner with you, or even when he's working hard in the office or the factory.
The problem is in the numbers and the statistics. If you want to bring one person here from El Salvador, okay, that's not a big deal.
It is very difficult to bring just one person here from El Salvador. Unless that person is a professional or academic, westernized and more focused on his career than family and homeland. Otherwise, he will end up bringing his family, and not all of them will be good people like he is. His family will be bringing some of the cultural dysfunction and corruption too.
"NOTA said...
Matthew:
The other thing is, probably most of the immigrants are perfectly fine people as individuals."
For those from some countries it's probably true that less than most are perfectly fine people (and by "most", I mean what I think "most" people mean it to mean - a clear majority, not just 51%). Countries like Solmalia are screwed up for a reason: because they are peopled by peoples like the Somalis. It is THEY who are the reason for it being awful. Allow them into your own country, and they will likewise make your country awful too.
People from Mexico can indeed be fine people. None-the-less, this is a people who once conducted massive, bloody rituals of human sacrifice. This is a people whose country served for years as a text-book example of political and civic corruption. These are people who, in our own time, have invented the cult of "St. Death" = a patron saint for narco-gangs. There is something perhaps not alltogether right with this people.
Post a Comment