A Republican Landslide In The Making

Historically, the term landslide has meant a major victory by one political party over another. Republicans appear to want to re-define the term by embracing a position on immigration likely to cause the conservative land they've been trampling over for decades to give way.

Some have convinced themselves that the measure represents a good trade, i.e. amnesty for 12 million (which they privately acknowledge is the case) in exchange for beefed -up enforcement including a worker-verification system (assuming government can effectively design one with Democrats refusing to agree to data-sharing among relevant agencies), and an end to chain migration at some point in the future, i.e. when the big backlog on extended family members waiting for green cards is cleared up.

In the face of what became the Reagan compromise on immigration in the eighties, a compromise which produced nothing at all as regards managing immigration or the border, why some insist on trying to put a positive spin on this boggles the mind. All I can guess is that they've given up on any chance for serious change and are all too happy to go along for a ride that looks more like a death spiral for Republicans to me.

Republicans were given a wake up call in 2006; they've opted to hit snooze. Were this truly a fringe issue, I'd likely accept any alleged wisdom in the move. But I don't believe it is a fringe issue. The majority of Americans appreciate a respect for law and order and want our borders controlled. The winning strategy debated too much too long ago, was, border security first and then a potential accommodation for existent illegals. That would ensure getting action from Washington on this issue for a change.

Republicans appear to have rejected that wisdom, opting for an ineffective compromise, instead. Fine. Let the Republicans tout their ineffectiveness in some next election. I'll be looking for a slate of third party candidates willing to do what it takes to get a handle on the genuine problems facing America. Clearly that isn't something the current Republican Party is willing to do.

Despite their '06 rejection, they're content to give us more of the same. Unfortunately, that isn't even close to what America needs. Is this what McCain touted in the recent debate? No wonder his candidacy has been DOA.

Comments

[JeremyR]

If immigration was such a big issue for voters, why did the Republicans lose so badly? I think you have to realize that we are seeing this bill because the people who actually vote want the amnesty/open borders. Seems like you are trying to rewrite history...

[tally]

forget polls, i say put it to a vote. remember hazelton pa, herndon va and farmers branch tx (67%) - they all said no to illegals. it's all so simple, legal = good - illegal = bad.

[Phoenix]

Complex issue?

Heh.

[Jack Sanderson]

Guys,

The issue that got the bums kicked out of Congress in 2006 was the Republican surrender to feminists.

The immigration issue is of no interest to the anti-feminist Republican males.

Move over. It seems that both are groups intend to refuse to vote for Republican politicians that compromise.

Check out www.mediaradar.org and www.online-dating-rights.com to see what happened to the votes for the Republican Party.

Veterans and soldiers do not want feminists to get ANY new laws passed.

[southdakotaboy]

Part of me thinks that something is better than nothing and that this is atleast a step in the direction of doing something. That being said I agree with the fact that this could be a disastor for the US.
Now there are three possibilities if the Dems sweep to power in 2008. First, everything comes up Roses and we all live happily ever after. While this would be rather nice I kind of doubt that this is what is going to happen.
Second, we could just kind of muddle through with the Supreme court stopping alot of Dem laws, the economy going into a slump, inflation rises and unemployment goes up. Plus, we could have a couple of domestic terror attacks. Now if that happens the Dems might see the light and change some of their plans.
Lastly, we could see a stock market plunge, unemployment skyrocket, inflation go through the roof, major terrorist attacks on US soil and all sorts of other unpleasantness.
If the last happens we could indeed see the end of the US as we know it because the Dems are ideologically incapable of changing their belief system. They will continue to try and push their solutions to the problems only to see things get worse.
The question then becomes, do we on the right try to save the nation or do we take the option of simply letting it destroy itself and start over on a smaller scale in middle America?

[templar knight]

In honor of us flat-earth rednecks, HairyBob is hiring male prostitutes. We don't care, Bob. We just celebrate the fact that your DNA dies with you. No HairyBob Jr.s for you gay guys.

[seekeronos]

In this case, the "Big Businesss" interests of the GOP are failing to see beyond the dollar signs of "ZOMG!! Cheap Labour!! Let's bring those Mexican undocument workers in, stat!!" to the fact that they are importing an entire class of leftist-leaning voters that will mire this nation into a Euro-Bolivarian pit of socialism even worse than the banana republics they immigrated from.

What you are seeing, folks, is the death of America. Just what the Liberal America-haters wanted.

Good luck with keeping those nuclear armed Muslims from irradiating the Midwest and reducing the land to utter ruin, Dhimmis.

[BobInStamford]

In honor of you flatearth rednecks, I have just employed several day laborers to put down mulch and do spring cleaning.

[Hogarth]

Republican have been a disaster - and if this goes through, I'm finished with them for good.

In favor of whom, exactly? What is you alternative?

[michael i]

Ladies and Gentlemen, you are seeing why a Welfare State is incompatible with a limited-government Constitutional Republic.

[Dunn]

The problem is even "easier" to deal with than your measures indicate, "L".

You don't even need a fence, though that'd certainly be nice. If we merely enforced existing laws and added sanctions with real teeth for employers of illegals, then that solves just about everything.

No massive deportations necessary at all.

If you eliminate the chief reason illegals snuck into this country in the first place - jobs, then you have taken away their ability to live and make money. They only have three options at this point:

1. Turn to crime
2. Rely on charity
3. Go home

Obviously, the overwhelming majority of illegals will choose the third option. They will simply self-deport. Just removing their ability to get work with real tough employer enforcement cuts this problem down almost to nothing in just a few years. I'd say after three years we might be looking at 1 to 2 million illegals instead of 12 - 20 million.

And you accomplish that with no great feat - no great new expenses. No need to build a wall. No need for mass deportations. No need to bring them all in and hook them up to welfare and social security, either - costing us $2.5 TRILLION that we don't have. Nope - it would basically cost nothing, yet accomplish just about everything.

So why not just do that, Congress? The vast majority of the American people - 70% in every poll where the question is asked, favor an ENFORCEMENT FIRST policy on the borders. Even a majority of Latino voters favor this. And it's so easy to give it to them. And it's fair, just and common sense.

Why don't we try the laws already on the books - actually enforce them first, and THEN see what the problem actually is after a few years - before we start writing new ones which we also are not likely to enforce?

Why should we believe you'll enforce these when you didn't enforce the last ones? Why on earth should we believe this is going to be any different than 1986, when you did exactly the same thing - promised enforcement and amnesty and just delivered the latter, and made the problem many times worse in the future, giving us today's numbers?

Republican have been a disaster - and if this goes through, I'm finished with them for good. Conservatism simply cannot survive the purposeful importation of tens of millions of very liberal voters from socialist countries.

Why "Republicans" are caving and signing their names to the death sentence of the party, as Democrats celebrate the signing up of their new permanent majority voter base - is beyond me.

[How to block it]

Actually, blocking amnesty isn't even as difficult as "L" says. This is a "hearts and minds" problem: give politicians a strong enough incentive and they're enforce the current laws.

To do that, get out your tape recorders and video cameras, and go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions about amnesty. Then, publicize the response. If we can show how one amnesty supporter is wrong and make them lose support over it, that will send a loud and clear message to the rest.

[seekeronos]

"Amend the constitution to end birth-right citizenship."

Amen, and amen!

No more "juris soli" anchor baby citizenship.

[L]

It's not a complex problem.
Build a physical fence all along the southern border. Spend enough money to condemn and purchase the necessary land, and to erect an effective fence. If that's 10-million dollars a mile, we're looking at about 20-billion total. Chump change.
Make illegal entry into this country a felony.
Round up and deport illegal aliens. Verification of immigration status can be made a routine part of every traffic stop. Deny federal funds to any municipality that calls itself a "sanctuary".
Make knowingly employing an illegal alien a felony with mandatory prison time. When the jobs dry up, most illegals will deport themselves.
Amend the constitution to end birth-right citizenship.
Problem solved.
All these steps are "do-able". We just need to to them. The president will need to go on television and say, "All those pictures the media is showing you of train-loads of weeping, miserable people being taken to the border? Those pictures are a great deterrent to future immigration criminals. We will persevere."

[Phoenix]

Considering Guiliani has a good grasp on the security issue, he may yet come up with something that beats anything anyone else comes up with. If he manages to incorporate the immigration issue into a comprehensive deal, he could pull it out. I have faith. What a hellatious, complex problem, though!

[southdakotaboy]

Well there is not much to say other than this will hurt our country badly. I'm just glad I live out in the middle of no where, those of you who live in the large cities good luck sucks to be you.

[K]

I think Bush and the Republicans who choose compromise will, probably have, doomed the Republican Party.

Too bad! But they can remininse with old companions, the Whigs, in the ash-heap of history.

As an old independent I can't care about the party itself. But it is painful to see self-mutilation by gouging one's principles out.

[seekeronos]

Meh. Your only third slate so far will be Bloomberg, and he is somewhere between Hillary and Rudy on most issues.

From the looks of things, we seem to be headed for several decades of single-party rule by the Democrats, in which case, this nation is doomed.

I wonder if some red states might consider secession within the next few election cycles if this bears out to be truth... I might have to consider putting the house up for sale and re-locating to a place somewhat out of artillery range of any major city. :/