Amnesty = Suicide for Republican Party
Republicans are getting a lot of unsolicited advice about how to recover from last year’s defeat, and most of it is either ignorant or coming from people who don’t have Republican Party victories in their game plan. One of the worst of these bits of advice is that Republicans should join a bipartisan push for immigration amnesty.
Amnesty advocates shrink from using the word amnesty and try hard to shroud their message in deceptive words. So let’s understand their vocabulary: reform, comprehensive, earned legal status, and path to citizenship are all code words for amnesty. Conservatives agree with Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that the essence of amnesty is to “reward them with the objective of their crime,” and agree with Ann Coulter who told CPAC that amnesty is “suicidal” for Republicans.
Promises by the amnesty advocates to secure the border after the illegals are granted residency, or even simultaneously, are unbelievable. In the famous words of Yogi Berra, an oral agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.
Rules for Addressing Amnesty
First, we want and expect a border fence to be built like the efficient, successful fence that protects the border near San Diego. That means a 12-foot-high double fence with a road in between. A fence on our southern border was required by a 2006 federal law, and signed by President George W. Bush in a well-publicized photo op. The government spent $2 billion on what was called a virtual fence; it didn’t work, and now is being dismantled at great expense.
Second, we want enforcement of the entry-exit system, whereby people admitted on visas are tracked to make sure they leave the U.S. when their temporary visa expires. That’s another federal law that has never been enforced.
Third, we want a law that requires employers to use E-Verify for new and current employees. This is as simple as having retailers check your credit card when you make a purchase; just put your credit card or your Social Security number in a machine and you get an immediate answer as to whether it’s valid. Americans must provide our Social Security number when we apply for a job, and immigrants should not be exempt from laws the rest of us must obey. This simple procedure would identify the illegals and thereby make many jobs available to unemployed Americans.
Fourth, eliminate all schemes for the admittance of guest workers, both the uneducated who take entry-level jobs away from our own high-school dropouts, and the H-1B and other special-purpose visas (a system rife with fraud) who take jobs away from our own college graduates because the big companies prefer to hire lower-paid foreigners.
Fifth, enforce cooperation between federal and state immigration authorities, so when a state picks up an illegal he can be immediately turned over to the feds. This cooperation should also eliminate the so-called Sanctuary Cities, where federal immigration law is ignored.
Sixth, reinstate the rule that was in effect for the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came through Ellis Island. If they had a major disease or failed to provide proof that they would not become a public charge, they were sent back to their home country.
Seventh, develop a constructive plan to assimilate the legal immigrants who have come to our country over the last 25 years. This includes using the major way earlier immigrants were assimilated: having their children in public schools taught only in English, and abolishing the unpopular, expensive hiring of teachers of dozens of foreign languages to supervise immigrant kids speaking their native language year after year, never learning English.
Eighth, stop lying to Republicans, falsely telling them that amnesty is the key to increasing their Hispanic vote. There isn’t a shred of evidence to support that notion, and there’s plenty of evidence that amnesty delivers votes to Obama Democrats because, as reported by the Washington Post-Kaiser survey, 67% of Hispanics favor a “larger federal government with many services.”
Ninth, stop peddling the false notion that amnesty is the “Christian” thing to do. Amnesty will betray Hispanics because it will encourage the entry of new illegals, mostly below the poverty line, making it impossible for legal or assimilated immigrants to achieve the American dream.
Hypocrisy of Amnesty Advocates
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. The Ronald Reagan amnesty of 1986 was a conspicuous failure, and a virtually identical plan failed in 2007 when it was pushed by John McCain, Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush.
Now the establishment has lined up eight Senators plus a media chorus to resurrect the Reagan amnesty. That may make sense if you are seeking leftwing Democratic votes, but it is insanity for conservatives and suicide for Republicans.
The Reagan amnesty admitted twice as many illegals as expected and was riddled with fraud and cheating. It started a gigantic stream of illegal aliens to walk, swim, or bribe their way across the border into the U.S. that has continued to this day.
The amnesty pushers are counting on Americans not to remember the Reagan failure, and counting on the American people’s ignorance of arithmetic and politics. They are also hoping to make Republicans believe amnesty is the key to getting the Hispanic vote plus the key to conning religious citizens into believing amnesty is the way to practice Christian compassion.
The amnesty proposal cooked up by six Senators who claim to be bipartisan is essentially the same plan that aroused the fury of the grassroots in 2007 and covered Congressmen with a tsunami of messages. However, this time we know the cost, and that’s truly scary. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates that this amnesty plan will cost the U.S. taxpayers “$2.5 Trillion above any taxes paid in” because the majority of illegal aliens who would eventually be legalized by the proposal are uneducated and poor. At least 60% are high school dropouts so they live below the poverty level and will be eligible to receive many of our 79 varieties of welfare handouts. What they may pay in income taxes will be nullified by the cash refunds known as Earned Income Tax Credit.
The entire plan should be illegal because it violates a federal law that anyone granted entry into the U.S. must be financially self-supporting and not likely to become a public charge.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) pointed out that “We know already that the Administration refuses to enforce existing law restricting immigrant welfare use, and in fact promotes expanded welfare use to immigrants, including food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid. . . . What good are promises of future enforcement when the Administration covertly undermines those laws now in place?”
There is no evidence that supporting amnesty will give Republicans a greater share of the Hispanic vote, and amnesty advocates are plainly dishonest when they assert the contrary. In the election following the Reagan amnesty, George H.W. Bush got only 30% of the Hispanic vote in 1988, and only 25% when he ran for reelection in 1992. We’ve been told that George W. Bush was well-liked by the Hispanics, but he got only 35% of the vote when he was elected in 2000.
When Hispanics are asked what issues they care most about, immigration usually ranks only fifth. Hispanics who come from countries where big government is a permanent fact of life and where the economic systems are based on bribery are unlikely prospects for the Republican message of limited government and restraints on government spending.
John McCain, the loudest advocate of amnesty in 2006 and 2007, got only 31% of the Hispanic vote when he ran for president in 2008. Any amnesty plan, no matter how it is dressed up, is a formula for more Democratic votes and big-government, big-spending policies.
A couple of coalitions have formed to try to convince religious groups that amnesty is a manifestation of Christian compassion to welcome the stranger. In fact, amnesty betrays the immigrants by forcing them to compete with a steady stream of new immigrants and guest workers, thereby insuring that they will never be able to rise out of poverty and achieve the American dream.
This was well understood by the famous advocate for the rights of Hispanic immigrants, Cesar Chavez. Long deceased, he is still such a Hispanic icon that the National Education Association (NEA), year after year, passes a resolution calling for a national holiday to honor Cesar Chavez, and it’s already a state holiday in California.
Chavez was vehemently opposed to illegals coming across the Mexican border because they took jobs from legal immigrants. He ordered union members to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service and report illegals working in the fields so our government could deport them. Chavez got his supporters to picket INS offices to demand a crackdown on illegals, and he offered staff to the INS to serve as volunteer border guards to keep Mexicans from sneaking into the U.S.
Tremendous Costs of Amnesty
The Senate Budget Committee reports that amnesty advocates plan to ignore Section 212 of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that any immigrant is “inadmissible” who is “likely at any time to become a public charge.” After those who illegally entered the U.S. obtain legal residence and get a green card, they can access the 79 federal welfare benefits and anti-poverty programs.
The Senate Budget Committee staff estimates that costs to the U.S. taxpayers could be $40 billion a year just for Medicaid and ObamaCare. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation believes that the net cost of amnesty would eventually top $2 trillion. One in three immigrant-headed households already participates in at least one major welfare program. Green card holders are already eligible for Medicaid, TANF, Supplemental Security Income, child care assistance, food stamps, and a variety of other welfare benefits and public aid programs.
Who will protect the taxpayers against this gigantic raid on our money and our children’s future?
The American people are demanding real border security in order to prevent the entry of a new flood of illegals. But Homeland Security officials just told Congress that they still don’t have any way to effectively measure border security. Three years ago, the Obama Administration scrapped the yardstick that was supposed to measure how many miles of the border are under “operational control.” Top Customs and Border Protection officials told Congress in March that the new system they are now working on won’t be ready for use any time in the near future.
Another setback for the Gang of Eight’s amnesty scheme was April newspaper headlines stating “A sharp drop in job growth sows new concerns.” The average Joe in America can’t support the idea of giving permanent residency to 11 million foreign job-seekers when our own labor-force participation is lower than it’s been in 25 years.
Do we really need more high-school dropouts looking for U.S. jobs? Don’t we have enough Americans trying to support their families who can’t find full-time jobs? Why should available jobs go to aliens who broke our laws instead of to American citizens?
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) gave a chilly brushoff of Senator Marco Rubio’s call for thorough legislative consideration of any immigration bill, with time for public comment and consideration of amendments. Leahy plans to bypass the usual committee process, hold only a single hearing, and push the bill through the Senate “with all deliberate speed.” Everyone recognizes those as woefully inadequate to deal with dozens of amnesty issues such as how legalization of millions of illegals will impact unemployed Americans, the short- and long-term cost to the taxpayers, and metrics for establishing border security.
Leahy appears to be planning to imitate the Nancy Pelosi model of dealing with legislation, namely, the procedure she used to pass ObamaCare: first pass the bill, and after that, “you can find out what’s in it.”
Another roadblock that no one is yet discussing is that, according to a new Rasmussen survey, the majority of American voters (54%) do not think that potential U.S. citizens should be allowed to maintain any dual citizenship. If you listen to what illegal aliens are saying, it’s rather clear that most plan to retain significant loyalty to their homeland, and some even claim that Mexico rightfully owns our southwest states. We should remind all illegal aliens that U.S. citizenship requires applicants to swear this solemn oath, which is a good way to sort out the ones who really want to be Americans.
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.”
Autopsy for the Republican Party?
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus recently issued a 97-page political opus telling Republicans what they should do now. The document was quickly dubbed the Autopsy, which means the dissection of a body after death. Some people are hoping the Republican Party is dead, but the grassroots are raring to rise up and fight. Support for the Republican Party is down, but the number of people who call themselves conservative is holding steady. They face the same old choice-not-an-echo battle: grassroots conservative Republicans vs. the liberal, globalist Establishment RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).
The Priebus manifesto was written by Party insiders who are very Establishment so they avoided taking any blame for their disastrous election loss in 2012. They predicted their victory right up to and including Election Day.
The Autopsy included a lot of chatter about “growth” and “opportunity,” plus 30 mentions of the need to be more “inclusive,” but that warm and fuzzy invitational language doesn’t extend to those who want to do something so daring as to nominate conservative candidates who aren’t afraid to talk about the right to life and traditional marriage. The Autopsy pompously declared, “You have to have candidates who don’t make tragic mistakes.” But the worst mistakes were made by the Establishment’s own candidate, Mitt Romney, who failed to use so many issues that connect with the American people. The dozen losses of Establishment-selected candidates for President and Senate show that the people writing the Autopsy have a worse record of picking candidates than the grassroots, who have been picking winners such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee.
Democratic Party strategist Pat Caddell summed up the Republican Party’s principal problem in a hard-hitting speech at CPAC. He said, “The Republican Party is in the grips of what I call the CLEC — the Consultant, Lobbyist, and Establishment Complex,” which he defined as a “self-serving interconnected network of individuals interested in preserving their own power far more than in winning elections.” “Just follow the money,” Caddell reminded us, commenting on the hundreds of millions of dollars this group spent while losing most of their so-called “moderate” candidates. Despite their shocking losing record, and despite being so well-paid for zero results, the same Establishment strategists now have the impudence to tell us we should hire them to reform the Republican Party.
The Autopsy stated solemnly that a “healthy debate of ideas is fundamentally good for the Republican Party.” Agreed. But the Establishment is always determined to suppress all debate or discussion of social, moral, or national security ideas by Republican candidates.
The Autopsy even gave the back of its hand to Republican hero Ronald Reagan, implying that he is now ancient history. But Reagan gave us a model of defeating the Establishment candidate, George H. W. Bush, in 1980, and then going on to win two spectacular national elections.
The most insufferable part of the Autopsy is the way these Republican losers presume to tell us that the way to attract new voters is to embrace comprehensive immigration of Hispanics. All available evidence shows that endorsing any form of amnesty will produce votes for Democrats, not Republicans.
The Autopsy recommends a bunch of changes in Party rules, all of which would enhance the power of Establishment candidates, and freeze out grassroots candidates who are authentic conservatives. The Autopsy fails to encourage a commitment to traditional Republican principles, such as marriage and military superiority, which are clearly enunciated in the national Republican Platform adopted in Tampa last year. Some have forgotten that Ronald Reagan advised us to run on a platform of “bold colors with no pastel shades.”
Battle for Control of the Republican Party
Karl Rove has declared war on grassroots conservatives and Tea Parties. Rove, who had the richest Super PAC in 2012 (American Crossroads, which reportedly spent $300 million in the 2012 election cycle) has started a new fund called Conservative Victory Project to spend big bucks in the 2014 Republican primaries to defeat Republican candidates not approved by the Establishment.
Rove’s big-money spending last year, which was similarly designed to help only Establishment candidates, especially if they had defeated a real conservative in the primary, was notoriously unsuccessful. Of the 31 races in which Rove aired TV ads, Republicans won only 9, so his donors got little return on their investment.
Establishment losers included Rick Berg who lost in North Dakota and Denny Rehberg who lost in Montana, even while Romney was carrying both those states. Other Establishment losers were George Allen in Virginia, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, Connie Mack in Florida, and Heather Wilson in New Mexico.
Meanwhile, Rove was helping Harry Reid to keep control of the Senate by trying to defeat real conservatives nominated by grassroots Republicans. Rove made nasty and hurtful remarks about conservative candidates he didn’t like.
There are two reasons why Rove and his rich donors don’t like grassroots Republicans and Tea Partiers. The Establishment can’t order them how to vote, and the Establishment wants candidates to talk only about economic issues, never about social, moral, or national-security issues.
Rove is supposed to be so savvy about politics, but let’s test that. On election morning, he released his final predictions that “Romney will win Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa and Colorado.” Obama carried all but one of those states.
Establishment candidates should be called “me-too” Republicans, a label coined to describe two-time presidential loser Tom Dewey and Nelson Rockefeller who said “me too” to liberal and internationalist Democratic programs. Me-too can also be applied to recent Establishment losers: Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. We should revive the famous words of the late Senator Everett Dirksen rebuking the Establishment: “We followed you before, and you led us down the road to defeat.”
Fortunately, we are seeing an emergence of a new Reagan Republican Party. In 2010 and 2012, Republicans elected some real conservatives to the Senate after defeating Establishment candidates in the primaries: Rand Paul in Kentucky (who defeated Mitch McConnell’s choice), Ted Cruz in Texas (who defeated a very wealthy Establishment candidate), and Marco Rubio in Florida (who defeated Establishment candidate Florida Governor Crist, who then showed his true colors and became a Democrat).
Jim DeMint (now with Heritage) was another successful non-Establishment Republican Senator. It’s time for the grassroots to take control of the Republican Party away from the elitists who want to choose our candidates, tell them what to say, and how to vote. Next time, we want a real choice, not an Establishment echo.
Order extra copies of this report online!
Back Copies of Phyllis Schlafly Reports: POLITICS