BusinessWeek on how pandering to the base is hurting the GOP

[thatcrazycajun]

This article on BusinessWeek Online reports how the increasing emphasis on illegal immigration as a "wedge" issue by the Republican party—and in particular by the current crop of candidates for its 2008 Presidential nomination—is driving big-money business supporters away in droves...some even into the arms of the Democrats.

The problem Rudy, Mike, Mitt et al. face is this: they must take an ever-harder line on illegals (even when it contradicts their own earlier stated positions and/or policy record on the issue) in order to win over the party's base, which controls the nomination process...and is mightily P.O.'ed that millions of non-citizens are being allowed to stay within our borders in violation of the law. They emphatically do not want to hear about how our economy would collapse without illegal labor, or how impractical it is to round up 12 million wetbacks and send them back to their countries of origin. (By that logic, they argue, we shouldn't bother enforcing laws against robbery, rape or murder, simply because there are too many people committing such crimes.) They don't want to hear about penalizing employers, and especially not about "a path to citizenship," which they read as "amnesty"; they want to hear about "securing the borders" (read: arresting and evicting all the trespassing Spics, gooks and ragheads) and an end to their tax dollars being spent providing government services and documents in any language but English. If you came here illegally, you don't belong here, period...and letting you stay here renders immigration law meaningless. (See my earlier "Devil's Advocate" post from a few months ago for my fuller understanding of the Tancredoist view of immigration.)

But the "round 'em up and send 'em home" rhetoric that is needed (or believed to be needed) to win the nomination could come back to haunt the eventual nominee when he must campaign for the votes of the general electorate, most of whom are of a far more moderate mind about illegals and immigration in general (Your Humble Correspondent included, I hasten to add). And, as mentioned, it drives away supporters who have a stake in immigrant labor being widely available and really cheap...or those who are just plain turned off by the nativist tilt of the party's platform.

All in all, it does hearten me with hope that we will in fact see a Democrat take the oath of office as President come 20 January 2009.

Comments

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

I sum this up quite simply.
On the day the government TRULY cracks down on those employers who hire illegals you will hear a hue and cry the like of which has never been heard over a domestic issue before. Mostly from lobbiests paid by the employers.
Face it, going after individual illegals is little more then a placebo for the masses.
I say, let 'em all in, OR let none of them in and STOP hiring the ones who do sneak through.
Don't blame the people who come looking for better jobs.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

My fear is that the Demopublicans we'll get will be just as bad as the Republicrats we've got in there now. To save myself a lot of keystrokes, I would point you at the journal of solarbird, who has been tracking the evolution of the Torture State and the DNC's complicity in its creation... That, and the fact that at least one of the DNC's candidates is not really a Democrat, but a quasi-totalitarian socialist...

What's gonna be really strange is if this plays out to a non-majority and the election ends up in Congress... I have no frelling *clue* who we'll get then.

Pretty close

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

All except for the racist name calling, which is something the dems do when they want to pretend that it's republicans doing it.

Actually, we don't need to deport between 12 and 30 million illegals (nobody will let us count them and 12 is the optimistic number), we only need to take away the welfare , social security, and medical handouts as well as cracking down on the very large employers like the chicken pluckers that use illegal labor to keep American unions in check.

Take away the incentive to be here and they will deport themselves in bunches and droves. From where I sit, this is the most current rallying cry of the conservative side.

There is great precedent for this set of tactics. Eisenhower's Operation Wetback caused nearly ten times as many self deportations as actual deportations.

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1919.

Anyone who thinks we should let people sneak into the country and then demand that we provide social services to them while our own children and elderly are receiving barely what they need from those services, will just as loudly complain if a Mexican family sneaked into their personal home and demanded to be supported, in exchange for doing the work the homeowner just won't do.

Re: Pretty close

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>All except for the racist name calling, which is something the Dems do when they want to pretend that it's Republicans doing it.<<

So, GOP Tancredoistas don't ever use racial slurs? This article (http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=475&Itemid=1) provides citations that suggest otherwise. I have too much experience with this point of view from my own region, in any event, for you to ever convince me that those beating the drums for "securing the borders" don't have at least some of this sort of racism at the root of their thinking.

Re: Pretty close

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

First, I didn't call you racist, just your name calling, so don't get so defensive, and don't try to excuse it; as if saying "They did it first" (even if true - something you haven't proved) would somehow not only excuse it but be more meaningful the second time you accuse them of it.

Second, quoting an article from an obviously racist site like "blackagendareport.com" hardly helps make the case.

Third, I see you've given up all pretense of a brush to paint your opponents with(narrow or broad) and picked up a 24" roller.

And lastly, although I wasn't looking for an argument, if you're going to take it that way, the least you could do is address one or two of the salient points. Are you really convinced that you're so perfectly correct about everything that all you have to do is point a finger to make the evil sleazebags crawl back in their holes?

Good God Galahad, we thought you were dead.

You don't have to be in any way racist to want illegal immigration stopped and rolled back, and if that's the best you've got, I wouldn't celebrate that Democratic White House in '08 just yet either. In that vein I have a small piece of advice for you. Stop drinking the koolaid while there's still time. The article that you cited at the top isn't even one of the better ones written on that topic, and they're ALL just wishful thinking. The conservative base is deeply for stopping illegal immigration, and businessmen all know which side there bread is buttered on, even if they deeply resent having their slave labor emancipated.