Why the Republicans are going to win the battle on immigration

Ummm, is it really as clear cut as you make it sound?

It sounds like you are saying that Republicans are trying to leagalize illegal aliens and that Democrats are opposing it.

I think you've got it backwards. True, Bush is pushing for legalization, but the Republican Congress members are pushing the opposite viewpoints.

It is the Republicans who are resisting any kind of "amnesty" plan. It is the republicans who are proposing physical border fences. It is the Democrats who are proposing blanket amnesty.

Here is but one article...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGLAJ15VV1.DTL

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("San Francisco Chronicle")</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ May 24 2006, 08:17 AM) [snapback]260254[/snapback]</div>

I think you both have points and that neither party is representing the will of the people here:

I think Americans want several things:

1. enforcement of ALL current laws regarding employment of illegal aliens.
2. No amnesty - this was done in 1986 with the promise of fixing the system only to find the number of illegals in the US increasing by tremendous volumes. If amnesty is granted then what will stop the next 10% of Mexico from moving here along with those from other impoverished distant lands? How much can we afford as a society to support those that are on the lowest rung of the economic ladder? I would favor favoring immigrants with skills we need and greater economic potential and are less like to be users of our social services - we do need a guest worker program like other countries were people are allowed to come here and work and thats it.
3. Secure the Border - there is nothing wrong with defending your borders and controlling who comes into your country and what they are carrying.
4. Make ENGLISH the National Language - over 80% of all Americans believe this even though Harry Reid thinks that would be racist. Me personally, I could care less what language you speak as long you are aware that if your children are not fluent in English you are making it extraordinarily difficult for them to succeed here. I would do away with ESL school classes and immerse all those that want to stay here in English - for their own good.
5. Immigration Policy is neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue - it is an issue for ALL Americans that requires ALL of our input and requires real fixes - NOW. It is best that it is not politicizied.
6. Forgot - National ID Card - do it - use it for admission to voting booths - for airports, etc. We need to know who is here that belongs here, and who is not.

 

Jack, you had a typo...everytime you typed republicans....you meant to type democrats.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 24 2006, 05:39 AM) [snapback]260262[/snapback]</div>

I too think you all are wrong if you think this is a Republican/Democrat potential victory in the next elections thing.

I have always prided myself on being an open minded voter, without a specific agenda, who looks a the broad range of issues when choosing which candidate I place my vote. I am no “pro-choice voter†. . . even though I am pro-choice.

And even though I am a registered Republican, I can guarantee I have voted for more Democrats and liberal propositions than most Liberals here on PriusChat have voted for Republicans.

Unfortunately, I have now come across an issue which will turn me into a pro-choiceish voter.

As God as my witness . . . I will vote for whatever candidate is:

1) Toughest on border enforcement. Acknowledging the problem is NOT enough.
2) Absolutely dead set against amnesty which has any avenue toward citizenship.
3) Toughest on employers who higher illegals.
4) Puts strict limits on any “guest worker†program to prevent it from becoming a get-as-much-cheap-foreign-labor-into-this-country-as-possible to lower all wages across the board.
5) Requires English language skills for citizenship.
6) Is for a tamper proof National ID Card.

That's it. ANY candidate who holds those beliefs has my vote. Doesn't matter their party affiliation. Doesn't matter their stance on other issues. Doesn't even matter if they are a raving atheistic polygamist who is a member in good standing in NAMBLA and wishes to place oil platforms off the coast of California and gut the military.

Am I wrong in believing that this has become a pro-choiceish-voter-issue for many others? :huh:
From friends I have talked to, who come from both sides of the political spectrum, it has.

 

With a less than 5 percent unemployment rate, who's going to do the work that these 11 million illegals are doing?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 24 2006, 05:29 PM) [snapback]260635[/snapback]</div>

First of all, not all 11 million (or is it 12 million now?) are working, some are stay at home types, school children, etc.

If we have 7.4 million unemployed and discouraged, theoritically, wouldn't we have full employment if there were no illegal workers taking the jobs that Americans “won't do” because employers pay less for the position . . . because they can get an illegal to do it for cheaper? If there were no illegals, employers would be forced to pay more of a living wage. As long as we have illegals flooding the job market, there will be a sector of American worker who will not work.

JOBS AMERICANS WON'T DO: I will not do roof removal work in the blazing hot sun for $4.50 an hour.

The number of unemployed persons (7.1 million) was essentially unchanged
in April, and the unemployment rate held at 4.7 percent.

About 1.3 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were marginally attached to
the labor force in April, down from 1.5 million a year earlier.
These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job
sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Among
the marginally attached, there were 381,000 discouraged workers in April,
about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers were not currently
looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available
for them. The other 928,000 marginally attached had not searched for work
for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ May 25 2006, 07:13 PM) [snapback]261086[/snapback]</div>

You might not, but some American might. Five years ago, I pulled a six-figure salary, and for the past few years under this weak economy I earn about $25k less, but only nine years ago I needed a job badly and worked standing in the hot sun reaching down into the mud with my (gloved) hands, pulling bits of rotted food out of the mud as part of the Woodstock '97 cleanup. And it didn't pay much more than squat either. (And incidently 95% of similar workers--but not me--got cheated out of their entire paycheck when it was time to collect, when the management of their companies absconded without paying them.)

Of course the meat of the matter is that you are a total bastard if you are expecting someone to toil hard without compensating them properly. (And, by the way, I made it clear to my roofer that he was not allowed to bring any illegal aliens onto my property, and there have never been any problems.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 24 2006, 07:29 PM) [snapback]260635[/snapback]</div>

That premise is a diversion.

As pointed out, not all work, probably half or 6 million and there at least 7 million unemployed citizens.

Also a good percentage of illegals get good jobs, like in construction, that takes good paying jobs away from American citizens and lowers the wages for citizens doing the same job in the same industry. Gives the contractor windfall profits.

Something else, what about the jobs teenagers used to do ? That's a huge work force not counted in unemployment numbers (25 million?).

For example, we used to do jobs like :

1. Mow neighbor lawns, pull weeds, trim hedges etc.

2. Paper routes

3. Dishwashers and busboys in a resturants

4. Janitors, paid well and great evening hours

 

Sufferin'

I don't know if immigration has become a pivotal political issue for enough people to swing presidential elections. It would be interesting to know if the upcoming congressional elections tend to be in areas where this is a hot issue. That would at least explain the timing.

The republicans party holds a major ace that it plays periodically: the "if we do/don't do this/that, the economy will suffer". You can see it played every couple months in regards to energy policy. "We cannot do that, because oil would go to FORTY dollars a barrell, and the economy would collapse". A couple months later -- "We cannot do that, because oil would go to FIFTY dollars a barrell, and the economy would collapse". A couple months later ... well you know the drill by now.

Republicans WANT cheap labor, more than they want to pander to their pov that illegals are wrecking the domestic social support system. The party will say "this is good for our economy", and their sheeple will fall in line.

A path to citizenship for those illegals in the US -- many of them with voting relatives, may indeed be a brilliant political tactic to bring hispanics into the repub party.

I agree with Jack. Regulated, indentured labor that allows worker exploitation and NO employer, state, or federal liability is a republican electorate wet dream. The amnesty will be conveniently forgotten in the onslaught of talking points how this is great for the economy.

The democratic party just does not have what it takes to come up with something this loathesome, albeit ingenuous..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ May 26 2006, 10:14 AM) [snapback]261368[/snapback]</div>

Oooooh, you speak Italian. :wub: :wub: