How current Immigration Reform push is driving a deeper wedge within G.O.P.
We've covered on this blog before how the current establishment Republican push for some type of immigration reform might never deliver the G.O.P. the ultimate goal - Hispanics giving the Republicans a second look - because the Democrats almost inevitably would be perceived as the more immigrant-friendly political party.
Of course, you have very real human and practical considerations too, but here we're just talking about raw politics.
But another scenario is emerging, and it's even more frightful for establishment Republicans: Under fierce attack from anti-immigrant conservatives in the nation's heartland, immigration reform - even with stringent border patrols - falls short, as Republican members of Congress fear getting primaried from their Right flank; Marco Rubio ends up seriously damaged within his own party; and generations of Hispanics are permanently alienated from the G.O.P.
Giving amnesty to illegal aliens isn't going to help the Republican Party. The illegal alien vote is going to the Democrats no matter what. If the GOP compromises its values on this, it will only further alienate a base which believes immigrants should follow the rules and obey the law.
Thu, May 2, 2013 8:19am
This scenario was predicted right after the debacle Republicans underwent in November 2012... The question was whether the defeat was so overpowering that Conservatives would tuck their tales between their legs and crawl off in their holes and hide.... We are seeing the answer to that question.
The answer is for the nation to do what is taking place in Delaware, particularly Sussex Country... The Tea Party is exiting the Republican Party and taking over what use to be the Delaware Independent Party. This allows separation outside the party of what had been going on "inside" the party. Whereas usually independent parties rarely win, they do so when the other party fails, as did the Federalists and Whigs.
The problem within the Republican Party is that it is too big of a tent. To keep some splinters from straying, they have to espouse some pretty wild things, which those on the left readily use to throw back at them to inflict political damage...
Delaware as usual leads the nation. We went anti-Republican long before the nation understood them to be a disease, and not the cure. The split in Sussex County provides clarity for the first time. For example, it frees Republicans like Ernie Lopez to be Lopez, since the primary fear is gone. Therefore we do get some governance out of Republicans for a change. It also creates a block of voters that if needed, can be courted, with the necessary arrangements out in the open.
Point of this piece is that the nation needs to do the same. Instead of having Republicans argue that rape is good because it "cleans out a woman's system for her", it is a third party making such accusations. That third party has its followers, who no doubt will believe it and cheer for more rape... But, because of the separation, it doesn't reflect upon, say, a moderate Republican in Massachusetts who loses because his weaker Democratic opponent can point to Indiana and say, "look.. ewww... he's one of them."
The immigration issue could do that. Rand Paul should start a new party. Had his dad done so, perhaps the Republican Party would be totally different right now...
Thu, May 2, 2013 11:18am
An amendment added to the Immigration bill by Leahy (D-VT) may doom its passage.
Mike from Delaware
Thu, May 2, 2013 11:29am
EarlGrey: I agree that amendment just may doom the Immigration bill to not pass. That is one thing that shouldn't be allowed, piggybacking more than one issue into a bill. Each issue should require its own up or down vote. Congress does this all the time and from where I sit, that is wrong and should NEVER be allowed. That's how so much "pork" gets voted into law. Eliminate the piggybacking and then it will be easy to see which bills are pork, and take away the hiding places for such stuff.
Also on difficult issues such as immigration and gay rights, those should be voted on seperately so then you can really have a solid debate and see who votes for or against each.
Thu, May 2, 2013 1:43pm
Another topic related to immigration reform.... Why not ENFORCE current legal immigrants' visas? Six of the 9/11 hijackers had expired visas just as the Boston terrorists and a few more people connected to the pair from Boston.
"The truth is, in the 40 percentile of all the illegal (immigrants) are in this country on expired visas. They came in right through the front door."
Mike from Delaware
Thu, May 2, 2013 3:12pm
EarlGrey: Again, well Said. We are the ONLY nation that doesn't have secure borders. We allow the Mexicans to pour guilt on our nation because we don't want to allow just anyone to cross from Mexico into the US, BUT Mexico has strict laws to keep folks from entering THEIR country, so why is it wrong for the US??? Let's hear the media and the politicians address this [oh we can't, that's not following the politically correct mantra. We need to immediately seal-up the borders for incoming traffic, allowing outgoing traffic so those who want to voluntarily go back to Mexico can, no questions asked. THEN let's have a discussion about what to do with the remaining illegals.)
Thu, May 2, 2013 9:50pm
Mike, I completely agree with you that we need to actually secure our borders before any serious talks on immigration...we also need to keep track of those who have temporary visas and student visas in this country. Also, the Mexican border has seen a dramatic increase of OTMs (other than Mexicans) crossing illegally into our country from all parts of the world.
Mike from Delaware
Thu, May 2, 2013 11:18pm
EarlGrey: Well Said. Why isn't homeland security closing those borders? This should be some sort if serious issue in terms of homeland security.
Fri, May 3, 2013 7:09am
Because too many businesses - big businesses, big contributors to the Republican Party - use illegal workers and want illegal workers. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Politicians pander to the mob but they serve their financial backers. Illegals work cheap, don't get benefits and you just get them shipped out of the country when they cause trouble or when you don't need them any more.
But to look like they are doing something, the feds make a big show of closing the Canadian border. All they do is inconvenience commuters and take money away from businesses who depend on cross-border customers. We are supposed to believe Canada is a real threat? Canada has never invaded the US. The US invaded Canada but not the other way around.
(The US has also invaded Mexico - several times).
Fri, May 3, 2013 8:37am
I'd have to say Mr. Smith just nailed it on all those counts.
Mike from Delaware
Fri, May 3, 2013 12:23pm
Billsmith: Well said, and unfortunately true.
Fri, May 3, 2013 1:08pm
I agree that big business is a large portion of the problem, but another group responsible is politicians pandering to undocumented-Democrats. To solve that problem, voter I.D. needs to made law...to fix the big-business problem we need to institute e-verify and prosecute any businesses that knowingly hire anyone not verified to legally work in our country.
Mike from Delaware
Fri, May 3, 2013 2:00pm
EarlGrey: Well Said.
You have to show your ID/Drivers License for other things, why NOT for elections [because then have the voters in Chicago would be ineligible since they reside in graveyards - heh heh].
E-verify and vigorous prosecution with fines that are so stiff that a business won't say, that's just the cost of doing business, but rather a fine that hurts and hurts badly.
Mike from Delaware
Fri, May 3, 2013 2:01pm
TYPO: should have read, "[because then half the voters in Chicago would be ineligible since they reside in graveyards- heh heh].
Fri, May 3, 2013 2:29pm
I agree Mike...you need a valid ID to get a library card, but not to vote for the leader of our nation? How does that make any sense?
Sat, May 4, 2013 6:47am
Guys, I have to say this is another one of those fake issues politicians (and their backers) used to distract people. From all the studies I've seen, illegal voting is infinitesimal to non-existent.
MikeFromDelaware dredging up decades old stereotypes, even in a poor attempt at humor, does not forward this issue. Besides, the Daley, Sr. administration had broad popular support and did not need dead people. Whatever Daley lacked in democracy, he made up for in very effective administration. These examples of the practices of political machines (yes, including Republican machines) operated under a very different set of election rules than we have now.
There is no evidence the voter ID laws will change the outcome of elections or the population of people who can and can not vote - and a good deal of evidence that it won't change them. However, a more substantial problem is people who ARE qualified to vote being turned away. As an overall percentage, it's small but it happens each election. I hear very little outrage out that.
There are all sorts of problems with elections. Untrained and incompetent volunteers. Machines that don't work properly. Long lines. Limited hours. I don't hear much outrage about how poorly elections work either - or the costs of holding them. The whole system is so 19th century with a bunch of 20th century red-tape added to fix an antiquated system that should be overhauled completely.
This issue is intended to distract you. The question you all should be asking yourselves is: To whose advantage is it to get you all worked up about a minute number of "illegals" bothering to vote?
Earl, I needed only a phone bill or electric or some other proof of residency with my name on it to get my library card. They actually preferred that to a drivers license because people move and don't bother to change their license.
I'd think the tin-foil hate crowd and the NRA crowd (among others) would be "up in arms" (pun intended) about any rules that require people to have government-issued IDs, for anything. IDs have numbers and some fundamentalists associate that with the "number of the beast" prophecies.
Libertarians may question ID rules on general principles.
That said, all the whining from these people who complain about what a "burden" it is for them to go to a drivers license office to get a free non-driver ID for voting make me ask how they function without some official photo ID. Do they leave home at all?
How do underage kids get into bars and clubs any more, or get a six pack? Heck, now they card everybody no matter who grey (or non-existent) their hair is.
Coming soon: Finger prints on IDs. Retinal images. Even DNA coding. It never stops.
Mike from Delaware
Sat, May 4, 2013 7:16pm
Billsmith: Maybe if we did require a legal ID to be shown at the polling places, that would help end some of those issues of valid voters being turned away.
Delaware doesn't seem to have many of those issues as those voting machines seem to work quite well; but you're correct, it seems that some states have real problems in effectively running an election.
Granted that wouldn't stop thugs like the Black Panthers from showing up at some polling place in Philly [past two elections] to keep some folks from voting [where's the outcry to that from the left and the Democratic city government insuring it doesn't happen again - it works both ways].
Yes, I also agree that we'll probably be seeing retinal scans and finger prints too.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.