Redstate

It's all well and good to attack the MSM, but its sources are solid. Bluey and I have both have lots of GOP Senate folks on both sides of the debate say the exact same thing.

Taht Lott is ticked off or that the three republicans played the game very cynically?

"Vacant Lott [Mark Steyn]

Andrew, I have no serious expectations of Senators these days, but I would like them at the very least to try and sound a little less like the plump complacent emirs of the one-party-state of Incumbistan. Trent Lott fails even that test."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWNmYjAxNDA5Y2M0ZjJjYmZjN2FlMzU...

"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson

better to lose and let the idiot lefty defeatocrats rule in peace than to to dothe hard work of actually getting stuff done.
reldim, if you prevail, we are sunk without a trace.

Let me weigh in here...

Conservative Latinos may not be fans of the bill but I think the intensity of feeling opposing the bill (and immigrants) is making some feel uncomfortable with the Republican party.

Amount conservative Latinos, there is a sense that while we may be conservative and aligned politically, we aren't wanted or welcomed by some. Some of the rhetoric got pretty heated.

I don't think true conservatives are going to start voting for Democrats, but I do think, for some, their support for Republicans is going to be tempered for a while.

would any American citizen feel uncomfortable with the rule of law? I hate to even mention this, but it appears that you are somehow implying that these same Latino Americans may have a loyalty to Mexico before their loyalty to the United States. There was nothing in this law that was directed at American citizens: Latino, black, white, or other.

It seems to me that too many Latino politicians in both parties, including Mel Martinez, tried to make this an issue of race and not of citizenship and law. It was a stupid ploy that backfired, and now, because of the stupidity of these same politicians, somehow it becomes a racist Republican issue. How is this stand different than Howard Dean, for example?

Someone should point out to all Latinos that American Big Labor, Democrat to the core, wants to control jobs by keeping the Mexicans out. This is more racist than anything done by Republicans.

and many of my friends and family agree with you...strongly.

However, that's not the only view that has been projected out. It is clear that some people don't view Latinos as "real American" and we aren't welcomed in all places in this country - even if we are citizens.

When the National Guard was sent to the border and the vigilantes (minutemen)were there, my uncle, who has voted Republican his whole life, joked that they were there to "shoot the brown people".

Humor? Yes. A touch of hurt feelings? Yes.

I agree that the immigration shamnesty was devisive for the GOP. But what Republican principles were those that sided with the Democratic majority following?

Because I thought they had just sold out to the Chamber of Commerce lobby.

There are a number of conservative principles furthered by (1) expanding legal immigration, (2) legalizing illegal aliens, and (3) supporting a guest worker program. I'm not saying they are the only conservative principles at stake, just that you are wrong to suggest that there are no conservative arguments on the other side.

Off the top of my head - and remember, I'm not saying there are no counterarguments, you are - three come immediately to mind:

1. Reducing restrictions on the free movement of people and their labor is consistent with conservative principles of free markets and free people.

2. Conservatives do not in general believe that we should have laws on the books that are scarcely and selectively enforced. If you don't think it realistic to believe that we will any time soon have suffuciently aggressive enforcement to reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country to a minimal number, then there is at least an argument for the proposition that the law should drop the fiction that it intends to punish them.

3. Conservatives recognize that a growing labor force is essential to economic growth. While domestic birthrates aren't in European territory, they are low enough that long-term growth does require some immigration.

Also, conservatives shouldn't believe that the fact that the Chamber of Commerce supports something makes it bad. While big business can certainly support plenty of bad things, reflexive suspicion of business interests is not a characteristic of the Right but of the Left.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

For whatever reason, the opponents of reform got together and basically insured that status quo will be maintained for the foreseeable future.

I don't think everyone saw it that way, but I think, in reality, that is what we have.

and the failed legislation slimed it.

We have to get beyond the dead bill, though. For anything even remotely similar to the "pathway to citizenship" to happen for illegal aliens--and be accepted by the electorate--there must be tangible proof that the border is secure or nearly secure. Even this president could build the fence and barriers, continue to crack down on employers (and not as a PR stunt), and be well on the way to development of technology to ascertain who is legally in the country and who is not.

And then, and only then, will the federal government have any credibility whatsoever on this issue. Whether this president, or the next, this Congress, or the next, can accept that reality is the real issue.

That's really all that needs to be said about what happened this week.

It is not about amnesty per se. It is the consequences. Few people are so stupid as to have forgotten 1986. We were promised then that the amnesty would "solve the problem." But here we are 20 years later and we're talking about 4, 5, and 6 times the number of people that were given amnesty the last time around.

This time we want to know that we're not going to face another 20 million illegals 20 years from now and be fed the same arguments for why we can't do anything but give them amnesty.

THAT is why we want border enforcement. Personally, I think the "comprehensive" bill just defeated was a steaming pile of manure. But I'm not inherently against a selective amnesty for those in the country. But I think we need to first insure that we have reached a maximum as to the number of illegals.

I'm tired of government creating a massive problem and then trying to stuff a "solution" down our throats as the "only" option for dealing with it. And make no mistake, the current "problem" is entirely of the government's doing. They have spent 20 years skimping on border security, failing to investigate (let alone prosecute) those who hire illegals, failing even to take basic steps against employer immigration violations. If you read the latest issue of National Review, you will know that even the federal government has on its payroll individuals whose SSNs come up as "not work authorized."

If we can show some serious efforts to enforce even existing laws concerning immigration, then I would be more inclined to look at an amnesty program for those already here. But that's not what we were offered. We were offered amnesty now and promises that at some point in the future we promise to get tough on people who break the law. That's not good enough.

It's also completely justified here.

Well said, Erick.

-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?

had plenty to say about Joe Lieberman before the '06 elections, eh? They are just as adept at zero'ing in on Dems who do not follow their liberal standards as we are with those who are only faux conservatives.

Sometimes the minority leader has to make deals that are unpopular, but can then free up others to fight the good fight. McConnell could have put his thumb on Vitter, Sessions, and DeMint, but chose not to.

that led to the deal before I would give him any pass. McConnell certainly could have told Reid that any attempt to ram through the bill in such an unconventional manner without debate or amendments would have been filibustered. The question is whether that threat would have been hollow.

I suppose the better argument for keeping McConnell where he is may be this one: he probably would be more predisposed now to defend his caucus than needlessly carry tainted water for the Bush Admininstration. As a matter of fact, the more I consider that point, the less predisposed I am toward his removal.

And the alternative is Trent Lott again.

nt

...To go out and undermine the GWOT unprompted too?!

Tell you what, when McConnell actually *does* move on unblocking the judicial logjam being presently constructed by the Dems rather than just talking about it (2 months ago!), I just might be more favorably disposed towards him.

But, right now, McConnell's in the Dog House with this conservative.
(Meanwhile, Lott has been over the cliff with me, but he has been for a long, long time now...)

We're seeing a polarization of both sides. Look at Joe Lieberman, who was as liberal as anyone else on the Democratic side, but who ran afoul of the party faithful on one issue, Iraq, and was promptly tossed overboard. I doubt that we'll become as ideologically rigid as they are, if for no other reason than because Republicans lack the party discipline that Democrats take for granted, but it is still cause for concern.

"Sic hacer pace, para bellum"

You know, another big winner in the immigration bill debacle is the democrat party. Reid got to fracture the party not once but twice over this thing. Don't think for a second that he's not delighted in what happened. I'm not in favor of the bill, but good luck winning ANY elections in 2008 if we are not united as a party - this means not slashing the throats of anyone who doesn't have a perfect 100 rating from the ACU.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

No problem. Let's all hug and kiss and make up and forget what happened. It wasn't a big deal after all. These guys just didn't see it our way, so let's move on so me don't lose to the Dems in 2008.

I agree that we can't ride out on a rail all the Republican Senators that voted for this travesty. That's too much effort not focused on Democrats.

However, I think knocking down a few leaders in this will have a salutary effect on the Senate overall. Plus, how politically viable are they really going to be in their next general election?

McConnell, IMO, gets a pass. His services elsewhere are good enough, and his actions here restrained enough, that any vengeance would be far more trouble than it's worth. Senators like McCain and Specter may not be so worthwhile, but there's no easy way of getting rid of them.

Graham, Hagel, and Lott are different matters. I don't see why any of them should be spared a primary challenge.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

point out that there is almost a party within the party. I still believe the conservative wing, which most here are "members" of, is the vast majority of Republicans. But there seems to be an influential, yet small subset of the GOP that adheres to principles that take them much closer to the Dems. It's not like this hasn't been pretty obvious for a while, but this has made that increasing polarization more obvious. I need to think through the differentiators a bit more, but I'm thinking they have a lot to do with economic vs. social conservatism and the closeness of bond with business interests.

Is this a good thing? I'm not sure. I believe that the Republican party must, at its core, be one that values conservatism. As someone "upthread" mentioned, there is much conservative in immigration, so it's not like the naughty ol' conservatives just hate immigrants. In fact, I have several thoughts about what a revamped immigration bill should look like, and I need to blog it to see what y'all think.

...let me see how many ways I can poke holes in this argument.

1) Hispanics already vote overwhelmingly Democrat. It's not as overwhelmingly Democratic as the African-American population, but it's still overwhelming. So, it's not as if we had a whole lot to lose.

2) The last time we granted mass amnesty was in 1986. The President was Ronald Reagan and one of the authors of the law was Republican Senator Alan Simpson. It didn't exactly turn Hispanics into a huge Republican demographic.

3) Juxtaposing #1 and #2 together ends up creating an impression, for me anyway, that all we were getting ready to do was put 12+ million people on the path to voting overwhelmingly for Democrats.

Your belief, I think, was what was driving so many Republicans to spit in the face of their own constituents. It was a belated response to "The Emerging Democratic Majority" argument put forth by Judis and Texiera -- that growing Hispanic political influence basically guaranteed a lasting Democratic majority.

The belief was that one way or another, those (mostly) Hispanic illegal immigrants here would get voting rights and that we needed to make sure they were as inclined as possible to vote Republican....and, to do that, we had to be the ones to take credit for their getting voting rights.

Without going too deeply into it here, I think this theory is fatally flawed. Remember 1986 -- and then look at Hispanic voting patterns ever since. There is nothing to suggest that our involvement in granting amnesty breeds political loyalty.

Well I guess its turnabout fair play with poking holes...

"we don't have a whole lot to lose..."

#1 - How about the center piece of the Republican electoral map, Texas, turning ever more so purple.

#2 - Given the small margins in 2004 for Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, even a small amount of the hispanic voters in those southwestern states that voted for bush switching to Democrats can ensure Democrat success.

Democrats surely don't need my opinion, but if I were them I'd say piss on the south and move straight to the Southwest for my electoral success

Let's assume that you're right for a second. I'm not even sure you are (see Jeff Bingaman's vote, as one example).

But let's assume for the sake of argument that conservative/Republican intransigence on amnesty for illegal aliens will push Hispanic voters in the Southwest over to the Democrats.

Would that be a higher hurdle than the prospect of giving voting rights to 12 million current illegals, plus their families, into a voting block that already goes 60-70% for Democrats?

I don't think it would, personally.

And it certainly doesn't say much for the political astuteness of the Democratic establishment. If passage of this bill with George Bush's signature on it meant keeping Republicans in the electoral game, why did the Kennedys, Clintons, and Reids of the world support it so?

All that said, I'm still not as sure as you are that this is going to harm Republican performance with hispanic voters. It was low before, it'll be low afterward.

Frankly, I'm somewhat ambivalent on the policy itself. I can see good, non-political, arguments on both sides of it.

But I think it would've been devastating as far as Republican fortunes go. And, moreover, I think that was all that Ted Kennedy was thinking. He was trying to import more social dependents who would look to him and his ilk for higher wages, better benefits, free healthcare, etc.

will help themselves by being identified as the party that won't secure the borders? I agree that Republicans are hurt to the extent that they appear hostile to immigration. But the core of the reaction for many (obviously, not all) was that the amnesty was not combined with REAL border security. So the same old "amnesty for border security" deal would again be amnesty and no change at the borders. Presidential candidates will have to answer the question of what to do with immigration. Will Clinton and/or Obama say "the Republicans are bad people" but not commit to securing the border? I think the winning answer will be "First, secure the border..." and then rationally deal with immigration. That debate can cut in favor of Republicans. especially if a Republican candidate is willing to go after the border security issue.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater

Democrats will use yesterday's uprising against amnesty to capture the important Hispanic-American swing voter.

Yes, we know the Democratic leadership thinks that way, and will try to demagogue people into thinking that there's a 'race' war going on in America with the Republican party representing the 'white' people and the Democrats representing 'people of color.'

The answer though is not to imitate them. The answer isn't to implicitly accept their Marxist determinism and apply it ourselves. The answer is to be who we are, and elect people articulate enough to carry our message to people.

We also need to do the things we do best in order to ensure more immigrants and descendants of immigrants are receptive to our message. Fight for parental, not union, control of schools, because people who know how the world works are more likely to vote Republcian. Keep the economy strong to keep people able to climb ahead, because people who have a stake in the economy are more likely to vote Republican. Oh, and attack the Buchanan/Tancredos at every single opportunity, to let anyone whose eyes are open see we reject their ways.

Run like Reagan!

This

We also need to do the things we do best in order to ensure more immigrants and descendants of immigrants are receptive to our message.

plus this

Oh, and attack the Buchanan/Tancredos at every single opportunity, to let anyone whose eyes are open see we reject their ways.

equals this:

"Pander to all sorts of ethnocentric interests except the one that considers itself most 'traditionally American.'"

That's a great way to make a whole lot more purple and blue states, not red ones. I don't see the democrats marginalizing their most obviously ethnocentric leaders; in fact, one of them is a leading presidential candidate.

Even if it's only five percent of the base you alienate with that formula, and I believe its much larger than that, it's a five percent that has 99% of its loyalists registered to vote and has the highest consistent turn-out percentage of any political demographic. They're already prepared to let the current apparatus burn to the ground rather than have their perfectly legitimate points of view continually denigrated by the unholy alliance between La Raza and The US Chamber of Commerce...and you want to facilitate that, right?

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN