Monday, October 30, 2006

Expect Amnesty from a Democratic House

Mickey leads off with an interesting debate question: would a Democratic House of Representatives pass some version of the Bush-McCain semi-amnesty immigration bill. Mickey says that all the folks he talks to in Washington say no. I've been wrong before, but to me it seems a no-brainer that they will.

A Democratic House of Representatives is going to have a tough row to hoe. With a Republican Senate (presumably) and White House, they will have no trouble finding issues on which to draw distinctions with the GOP (expanded access to health care, minimum wage increases, ramped-down commitment in Iraq, and deficit reduction). But they will also have to protect themselves against the charge that they stand for nothing but obstruction, and there are few issues where they agree with the Senate and the White House.

Wait a minute. Did I say 'few issues?' I meant 'no issues' - apart from immigration.

Further, there is the latino constituency to think about. After the signing of the Secure Fence Act, and after whatever happens on election day, do you think the President will sit back and forget about his efforts to woo latino voters to the GOP? What could be a better pitch than to say 'The Senate has passed earned legalization; I will sign earned legalization, but Nancy Pelosi opposes earned legalization.' Knowing that he doesn't need to appease the GOP base anymore, Bush can sing that song far and wide. And guess what? If Nancy Pelosi stubbornly refuses to cooperate, it will rankle the GOP base even less.

And lastly, Pelosi will need to demonstrate that they can deliver for business on something. If the Democrats win the House, and their agenda with regard to business includes tax increases, increased regulation, a grinding halt to trade expansion, beating up on China, and investigating federal contracts, how much more likely will business be to redouble the effort to make Pelosi a one-term Speaker? There will be relatively few issues where House Democrats could do something to buy off the animosity of Big Business. Immigration will be a big one.

So will the Democratic House cooperate on amnesty? Clearly the Democratic conference will be divided. There is a significant constituency for low levels of immigration. But latinos will favor it, unions will favor it, folks interested in a new class of Democratic-leaning voters will favor it, and so will business. I have to admit that Democrats are really good at shooting themselves in the foot, but to me, this looks like a no-brainer.

Back to the top.


LonewackoDotCom said...

After the election, even more GOP leaders are going to care even less what Bush wants. And, you seem to have forgotten about the 75% or so of Americans who oppose illegal immigration. And, the idea that Bush pushes open borders to get the "Latino vote" is quite questionable. And, the idea that all Latinos support increased immigration is also questionable.

And, there are huge problems with the Senate bill; see for instance Robert_Rector's or Jeff_Session's articles about it. Even if all those problems and loopholes are dealt with, one can easily imagine others being snuck in.

As far as the other side is concerned, some might want to point out some interesting facts:
- one major Latino group has at least one indirect link to the Mexican_government
- another major Latino group funds and has links to extremists
- one of the organizers of a march - which was led by two Dem leaders - is a former Mexican_consul
- one of the organizers of another series of marches - which was attended by three Dem leaders - is an official with a Mexican_political_party

I have to think that if, for instance, 1000 Americans were made aware of those links (and the others), somewhere around 950 of those might not look too favorably on those who push the "comprehensive" approach.

Instructor said...

zPicked you up from Mickey's page...

And you took the post right out of my... Whatever. I think you can go a little further. GWB is tired of the Republican house and will be tickled pink to see them go.

Basically, I think GWB never has been the most conservative man in his own White House - he has followed the advice of the social conservatives and neocons for six years and things have gone from bad to worse, worse, worse.

A lot of things work into this, including, as you note, immigration. GWB could use a scapedonkey on immigration... But that will be true of many things, I think.

Immigration is a no-win situation for most Americans. I find myself bouncing back and forth between the sides, trying to decide which way I want to get screwed.

First off, I would add as context I think American capitalism is hopelessly broken - broken by unscrupulous capitalists. But they have us over a barrel in many ways, and immigration is one of them. So many employers have used illegal immigrants to abuse labor in general it's become the status quo. If "we" crack down now, the economy - which is far shakier than most pundits seem to think - will probably be knocked to its knees. Businesses will have to compete for legal workers, and they will have to pay a fair price. I think the labor is out there - I think official unemployment stats are gross understatements - because millions of people have dropped out of the labor market, finding it easier to make do on less [pensions, spouses, investments, etc] than work for nothing. The underemployed are out there. If wages rise to a fair level, they will be willing to work.

But if wages do rise, the pressure on inflation will force the fence-straddlers over at the fed to raise interest rates.

On the other hand, if the illegal aliens get their pass, a lot of us are probably permanently sidelined in our own country by people who will do anything for nothing. We'll lose a hundred years of labor progress, and I think the only way we will get it back is to riot and burn - we will be right back to the beginning of the movement.

Furthermore, the Mexicans, etc are not Americans, and people are going to be figuring this out more and more. I hear a lot of talk about how they are nice, religious family people. Well, maybe. But as someone who has spent his and somebody else's share of time shoulder to shoulder with the little brown guys I can say firsthand the average Mexican isn't "tolerant"... They are racist, chauvinist buttheads who treat women like cattle and will shamelessly promote their own in any endeavor, "fairness" notwithstanding. White guys go to the back of the line in enterprises they control and black guys need not apply...

Amnesty could well be the most socially divisive thing to come to America since... ever...

But it's all part of the globalist race to the bottom, a race we cannot win because Nations like Mexico are already at the bottom...

LonewackoDotCom said...

The bottom line regarding "pondering"'s points is that anti-illegal immigration candidates have to fight an uphill battle against more foes than those candidates that have what the MSM falsely calls more moderate positions. Bush-style Republicans only fight their opponents and to a lesser extent the media. But, anti-illegal immigration candidates frequently also have to fight against their own party. See Graf for an example.

"pondering" mentions Chris_Cannon, and I'd suggest the reader looks into him to see what's wrong with the current GOP and with those who make pondering-style calculations. For instance, an aide suggested ways that illegal_aliens could donate_to his campaign (on a Spanish-language talk show, with Cannon_present; CC spent 2 years in Guatemala, so I'd be surprised if he didn't know everything that was said). He also received an award from+MALDEF. And, he got a ~$20,000_donation from the_AILA, which also helped him write legislation.

Does Chris_Cannon really represent what's in the best interests of the country?