I’m confused here since the logic of the math of the immigration bill doesn’t add up.
The people of the United States are overwhelmingly against “amnesty” – a name proponents don’t like, but which under any name will legalize all the people in the United States who are here illegally. (Not just Latinos, mind you, don’t forget Russians, Irish, Albanians, not to mention more than a few Arabs.)
So then, how does that “math” correlate to the “math” we’re being warned about that if they deny amnesty or “legalization,” the Republicans will be pilloried by the press and the Democrats at the polls in the 2014 el3ctions.
My question: How does granting the wishes of 60% of the American people calculate into a stinging defeat for Republicans? How does that cost them votes?
I only want to hear three people explain this contradiction; Charles Schumer, John McCain, and the editorial staff at The New York Times, since all three seem to hold to this justification for amnesty above even the survival of their very souls. (In short, they can lie shamelessly.)
Save your snide comments about stupid Republicans, for even they aren’t this stupid, although they do seem to assume we are.
There is already enough evidence against amnesty and against pro-amnesty supporters, especially Democrats, for any incumbent Republican to go back home and defend his seat, or better, for any challenging Republican to rake a Democrat over the coals on this issue by saying “No” to amnesty. In fact, Republicans voting “Aye” possibly face the opposite risk.
Evidence No 1) The Democrats don’t want a fence or any real border security.
They keep voting down any measure that uses language that says there must be actual border security first, and despite an existing legal mandate to build approximately 700 miles of fence, have steadfastly refused to push the issue. The reality is that any in-place real preventative to seriously staunch the flow of illegals crossing the border will deny the Democrats what they want most from this bill, not 11 million, but upwards to 45 million new residents over the next 20 years. We can increase the number of border agents by 20,000, even 100,000 and all Obama has to do is order them to pick up litter in Laredo instead of guarding the border. He’s done as much with ICE already.
The kicker is everyone in Congress, including the GOP, already knows (via CBO Numbers) that the “border security” currently in the bill will only reduce illegal crossings from 100% to 70%. So, everyone in Congress is in on this scam.
Evidence No 2) Democrats have been known to lie.
In fact, they are a race of liars. Any and every promise they make to do a thing tomorrow in exchange for something the GOP will do for them today, has always turned up empty. Even Ronald Reagan fell for that gag when he signed onto a spending increase today in exchange for Tip O’Neill’s promise to cut spending tomorrow back in the 80’s.
Moreover, there is the “recent” trend among Democrat presidents, Clinton and Obama, and arguably George W Bush, to simply ignore legislation they don’t want to implement or enforce. Bush promised to build that fence, then sent out his shill, DHS director Michael Chertoff, to swear that he was building a “virtual” fence. Whatever Bush’s inner motives, he paved a highway of executive neglect four lanes wide that enabled the next president to run through a virtual motorcade of non-compliance.
As I just said, there are already laws on the books to build 700 miles of border fence, of which only about 30 have been built. And even as Obama speechifies daily about the need for infrastructure projects in America, he’s refused to build that fence. AND NO GOP CONGRESS HAS FORCED HIM TO.
So, with the evidence so pervasive, really, you have to ask, just how can the Republicans be this dim?
Trust me, they’re not.
Follow the money
Whatever George Bush’s motives, we know he knew that he could not run a dragnet and send back what was then about 5-6 million illegals (not counting Russians and terrorists.). I’m inclined to believe he also considered his ‘amnesty” bill to be a part of that grand illusion called “compassionate conservatism”. I’m pretty compassionate, too, but as with cheeks, only with my own money.
But what we would be fools to overlook is what stake the big money interests in Texas and the Midwest (many headquartered back in New York these days) had in having these millions of low-end laborers in America’s labor pool. As much as I liked Bush then, I always assumed there was a big money-reason fueling his compassionate conservatism on immigration.
Today, those money interests are much worse, as the banking crisis of 2007 and bailout (TARP) shook out many big businesses. And of course, the Democrats-in-power have a little different idea as to how the good corporate citizen should behave, or how the “good corporate citizen” is even defined. We have entered an era of corporate fascism, aka, crony capitalism., which, sorry, GW, you should have foreseen. Your corporate pals probably did, even if you didn’t, looking for a nice sleep-over, but I doubt they read the fine print to their wedding vows.
Amnesty not only means 40 million new workers, and likely voters, plus not a single Democrat promise made today kept, it also means that every “native-born American” seeking work will have to go to the back of the employment line, as the “illegal workers” surge to the front, because (irony of ironies) they are not eligible for Obamacare, thereby saving Big Business employers thousands of dollars per person less pet year. For low-skill work, who doesn’t want to hire that fellow first?
Especially big business but also small business understand these numbers, who will likely go out of business if they “vote” American in their hiring practices. Essentially, only American kids with college educations will stay at the front of the employment line, and if the Democrats have their way, most of those will be women or gays or some other interest group, especially as Obama continues to funnel tens of thousands new entry-level government jobs into the bureaucracy, finally giving all those Sociology bachelors degrees a cubicle of their own over at Agriculture.
We’re talking about an engineered transformation of the American culture here, where the Democrats not only get a permanent underclass, but the entire working middle class as well.
If you want to know what Paul Ryan and John McCain have in common here, it is those corporate interests, the dairy interests of Wisconsin and Minnesota are just as important to Ryan as McCain’s southwest connections are to him. As for “Gullible’s Travels” Marco Rubio, I can’t speak for him, but it may indeed dash a pathway to the presidency based on a youthful personal vanity. But by contrast, thank God for the likes of Ted Cruz who clearly has a deeper understanding of the original contract and Doctrine of Liberty the Founder’s envisioned.
Just follow the money.
To extend a theme about the Doctrine of Liberty, if Congress believes that Big Business must define how Americans can best plan their lives, and cannot stand up for 70% of the American people because they can’t write a $5000 check, then what’s it all for?