May 31 2006
Face Facts: 80%-20% Is Not A Winning Position
I feel like politics in this country has entered the twilight zone. People I respected for brilliant logic and insight and top notch debate have become emotional, simplistically surreal in their proposals. The level of the discussion has dropped way down into fevered accusations in some places and pure denial in others. I was going to title this post “Denial: A Deep River In The Republican Party” because the fact so many people are rushing headlong against popular opinion and destroying the conservative movement. I hate to do this, but I must illustrate this by pointing to Paul Mirnoff’s recent post at Powerline to show the depths of this denial and its implications:
Matthew Dowd, a Republican strategist with an excellent track record, has produced a memorandum in which he argues, based on polling data, that Americans support a “comprehensive solution” to the problem of illegal immigration that includes reform on three fronts: strengthening enforcement at the border, creating a temporary worker program, and providing a way for illegals who are here now to obtain legal status. Dowd concludes that “Republican candidates succeed when they support taking [comprehensive] action on immigration.” He supports this conclusion by noting that, according to the poll, just 25 percent of voters are “more likely” to support a candidate who advocates only sealing the border, stopping illegal immigrants from entering, and imposing criminal penalties on immigrants. By contrast, 71 percent are “more likely” to support a candidate who wants to beef up border security, enforce laws against companies that hire illegals, and create a temporary worker program with safeguards against abuse.
Does this mean that conservatives should stop worrying and support the broad reform package proposed by the Senate and/or President Bush, and are doomed if they don’t? I don’t think so.
First, and obviously, one should not support a bad immigration reform plan regardless of its popularity. The poll results don’t speak to the merits of the Senate plan or the Bush plan.
Second, the poll results don’t persuade me that Republican candidates for Congress are doomeed unless they accede to the Senate’s plan or something similar. Candidates should easily be able to distinguish between the euphemistic “comprehensive reform” posited in the poll questions and the reality of the Senate’s Christmas tree bill. They should also be able to show the inadequacies of that bill’s enforcement provisions. Moreover, they need not embrace the punitive views expressed in the cartoonish alternative to Dowd’s favored position.
Paul’s position is simply denial of reality. The people cannot be right because the bill is ‘bad’. The problem with this logic is most people in this country are not crying fro retribution against people who have worked to make a living and raise a family. The folks who started with “deport the criminals”, and who moved on to “make the criminals felons”, and who have since moved on to “starve them out by making it impossible to get a job”, have rightfully been labled extremists. The anti-reasonable-solutions crowd is motivated by emotion, somne strange combination of a need for retribution and fear of a future they cannot control.
But the second part of the denial is even more stunning if you look at Dowd’s poll numbers:
Dowd’s memo says that an internal RNC poll conducted by Jan Van Louhuzen finds that “pverwhelming support exists for a temporary worker program. 80% of all voters, 83% of Republicans, and 79% of self-identified conservatives support a temporary worker program as long as immigrants pay taxes and obey the law.”
The last time I saw poll numbers this lopsided was when Dick Durbin referred to GITMO by referring to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge. 80-20 is not even close. Read the memorandum (linked in the Powerline excerpt) and realize Paul had to look across numerous questions and various polling sources to come to the conclusion there is not elections risk for going over the top and taking the extreme line here. No matter how the what-we-want-or-else crowd tries to dress up the issue, it is still tarnished with the rantings of people like Michael Savage and Pat Buchanan. Put Pat and Savage together and you get all the makings of a lynch mob.
Dowd said it right at the end of his memo:
“Finally, when discussing immigration reform, tone and language are extremely important. To continue to grow the party, we must conduct this debate with civility and respect for our nation’s heritage — as the President has said, we are both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. That is why the American people favor a balanced plan that secures the border, improves enforcement, enhances immigration avenues AND deals compassionately and equitably with those who are already here.”
And this is backed up by poll data itself:
Voters don’t consider granting legal status to those already here amnesty. Seventy percent (70%) of voters say illegal immigrants who have put down roots in the U.S. should be granted legal status after they go to the back of the line, pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and have a clean criminal record; just 25% say that would be amnesty and we should instead impose criminal penalties on illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Emphasis mine. The extremists who think any sign of compassion (i.e., any deviation from humiliating people working without the proper papers) is ‘amnesty’ are a small minority. The American People are a smart, caring, reasonable people who have led the world in many areas solving many problems. When I see numbers like these in polls where emotion is not a driver (the Dubai Ports World issue was the one exception in many, many years) I see the wisdom of a great nation. To some they see only the ignorant masses who are simply mistaken because the have not seen the light.
Well, from here it is not hard to see what happens. The 25% who cannot stomach a comprohensive bill will destroy the governing coalition of conservatism. In an 80-20 world you are never going to get what you want. The anger in this minority and being rejected is hot and I doubt these people will ever be able to deal with losing. The fact they have been forced to say democracy should not lead on this issue because there is not majority in the Republican caucus (which is being whipped by special iinterest money, not the national interest) shows the vacuousness of their position. The shifting goal posts from mass deportations to starving them out of jobs indicates these people know, deep down they are losing this debate. They do not have the President or the people on their side. But my feeling is they have invested too much emotion to come back from the brink. Somehow Durbin was able to survive is 80-20 moment. The conservative coalition will not survive this I fear. But if that is the price we pay to retain our humanity and compassion, then that is the price we pay. So be it.
“Comprehensive sounds good, but amnesty has been done before and failed. Why do that again…”
A. Because we learned from our mistakes.
“Employer sanctions. This means real secure documents not a wonderland of fake but true phoney social security cards.”
A. Bush’s plan exactly.
“you will still be required to pay your taxes EVERY year, you will still be subject to prosecution and incarceration if you use someone else’s Social Security number.”
A. Bush’s plan with the biometric card eliminates the stolen SS number and enables the Feds to extract automatic tax payments.
All parts of Bush’s proposals are necessary to have any success.No one- dimensional attempts welcome. And the President has more on his plate than is reported. The stability of Mexico and how to influence its corrupt economy in a free market direction are things he has to consider.
nuts
That’s what Crosspatch called conservatives that disagree with him, I thought you weren’t into the ‘name calling’ business
The far lefties want this bill passed so they can ‘blame it on the Conservatives’ there are some (that believe themselves to be semi conservative) that can’t see past this. Remember ‘hiccup’ Kennedy is the sponsor of this( he came up with this while taking a drive) (pssst, don’t ride with him, especially on this bill, he’ll drive you off into the drink and leave you to swim with a car tied around your neck)
It just baffles me that some so-called conservatives can’t see beyond this ruse.
Here is one of the problems from Crosspatch ” That is actually a major part of the problem. Too few people understand how the Senate works. They think that if you have a majority, you should be able to pass anything you want. They don’t realize that you need 60 votes just to HAVE an up/down vote. If 60 Senators don’t agree that it is time to vote, ” Just because 40 Democrats and 20 non-thinking Republicans vote for a bill doesn’t make it a good bill whether it passes or not. Especially when the 40 Dems are hard lefties that want to sabotage the non thinking Repubs.
Crosspatch, please show me where the Senate bill gives more provisions for enforcement than the House bill.
I was going by a member of the Senate who said the enforcement portion of the Senate bill is as long as the entire House bill.
Left by crosspatch on May 31st, 20
That’s where you get your info from, uh uh uhhh. Probably ole Teddy himself.
There are lots of people who don’t agree with me that I don’t think are nuts. But doesn’t mean this world doesn’t have nuts. What I said was:
I wasn’t naming individuals to place in that category but I would expect some might self-identify. Note the statement doesn’t say anything about agreement with me. I said “emotional nuts” and there are quite a few. I see them on the far left every day and I am seeing more of them on the far right every day too. You think nuts are restricted to a particular political leaning? I don’t. It isn’t the political position that defines a nut to me, it is behavior. The behavior of “I refuse to compromise, if I can’t get what I want then nobody is getting anything they want either” attitude is the kind of behavior I would expect from someone in middle school.
It isn’t what one agrees or disagrees with that defines them as a nut. It is how they handle the disagreement. I am not satisfied with the Senate bill, but I will take it and I will push for further improvement next session of congress because I know I am probably never, ever, ever, going to get exactly what I want on the first pass through Congress.
“you will still be required to pay your taxes EVERY year, you will still be subject to presecution and incarceration if you use someone else’s Social Security number”
“A. Bush’s plan with the biometric card eliminates the stolen SS number and enables the Feds to extract automatic tax payments.”
Jeeze, do you guys ever read these bills? It allows for those who have and are currently using stolen Social Security numbers to get off scott free for doing that as well as being able to collect SS benefits on the money they paid in using those stolen numbers. And there will be no penalty for those who do the same in the future until the biometric card is implimented.
Try reading not only the bill but all the amendments. And tell me that it is not a wonderful Christmas present for the illegals and a total rip off of American citizens who are going to foot the bill (no pun intended).
And once these illegals are made legal, they will receive even more benefits that most of you do as they will be considered “minorities” and will be covered by affirmative action laws. Job preference, college admission preference, to mention two.
Funny, whites are the minority in Texas now. Wonder when they will be covered by “affirmative action”.
Okay, Retire05, lets say I buy that this is all a big conspiracy to grant extra special advanced class rights to illegal aliens … uhm, for what reason? I mean, they must have a reason, right? I am missing that part of the conspiracy.
Tell me…. when there is no bill passed and the situation on the border continues to go to hell and the numbers of illegals continue to climb are you still gonna be so proud of yourselves
Problem of course is that if this bill gets passed it will escalate the speed and time of arrival in hell. It would really put us in the Handbasket.
TERRYE SAID: “You are missing the central issue, the point is not whether or not I like or agree with everything in the bill, the point is to negotiate a compromise that most people can live with.
Most sane grown ups anyway. ”
Left by Terrye on May 31st, 2006
NOTICE: Terrye has now resorted to name calling, ” sane grown ups ” So if we don’t agree with his non argument, we are not sane.
just for the record, you said;”the point is not whether or not I like or agree with everything in the bill: Tell us all just one thing in the bill that you agree with and one thing you disagree with.
The question was asked “Comprehensive sounds good, but amnesty has been done before and failed. Why do that again…â€
And MACKER said:'”A. Because we learned from our mistakes.” and so my question is: If we learned why are we so anxious to do it all over again.
Good Lord save us from questions like this:
Okay, Retire05, lets say I buy that this is all a big conspiracy to grant extra special advanced class rights to illegal aliens … uhm, for what reason? I mean, they must have a reason, right? I am missing that part of the conspiracy
Surely Crosspatch you know the answer to that. But I’ll go ahead a give you a little hint. It has to do with ‘VOTES’ for Democrats.
No, I will blame knuckleheaded, foot stomping, tantrum throwing far right Republicans for it, of course.
I agree to disagree.
And you know what, FE, you need to get that chip off your shoulder and be a little less defensive. Just because I might like lunatic raving far right nuts, or lunatic raving far left nuts, doesn’t mean my comments are directed personally at you unless you have found a shoe that you think fits and have decided to wear it. And if you don’t think there are lunatic raving nuts on both sides then I think maybe we are wasting each other’s time.
Should be “not like”
Crosspatch, you asked what is the reason for this bill. Simple, there are two reasons. The “today we march, tomorrow we vote” was not lost on the Democrats. As a matter of fact, in Dallas during the marches, there were Democrats handing out voter registration cards to the marchers. Did they know if these marchers were legal? Nope, but they do know that you can check the little box that says you are a legal resident of Texas and mail it in. No background check. Oh, but gee, you might be asked to produce a utility bill or a pay check stub. But not a birth certificate or naturalization papers. That you, Bill Clinton.
For the Repubicans, who donates to their campaign funds? And who profits the most from illegal workers? Businesses, the bigger the better.
There are your reasons. You are being sold out for votes and campaign contributions. Not to mention the Hispanic lobby is solidly behind this.
So what are you going to say when you kids have Mexico deciding what text books they are going to use. Think it can’t happen? It already has.
Here is one I will take as an example of the misinformation going around but I have to bail out for a club meeting …
Wrong. What is says is that when a formerly illegal gains legal status, they gain residency status in the state where they live. We do the same with any immigrant. When they are granted legal residency, they are also residency of the state. There are those that have twisted this and are telling people that these people will be able to go anywhere they want and get in-state tuition. To an extent that is true, wherever they are when they become legal will be their state of residence. Same as with any other immigrant newly arrived to the US. It doesn’ t mean, as some have implied, that they can then to to a different state and be treated as a state resident.
They aren’t getting any extra rights, they are getting exactly the same rights. My kids can go to California schools for in-state tuition. When they become legal residents of California (or whichever state) then they will qualify for the same. They aren’t getting anything extra, they are getting the same.
I wish people would get off the punishment kick, it ain’t going to happen.
–out for the night.
I think there will be a compromise that will allow guest workers, builds a wall but just ignores for now the status of people here.
I do reject the idea that if we have any leniency we will have a flood of people. We have a flood of people now and there is no amnesty.
In fact that part of the bill could be written so that it applies only to people that have been here for a very long time. New arrivals are deported.
Sooner or later we will have to deal with the issue and no doubt the lawyers will be ready. What about the kids who were born here? Do we kick them out with their parents? They are as much citizens as the rest of us. None of this is their fault. Orphanages? Foster care?
Retire:
I heard on Fox last night that the Senate had agreed to take some provision about things like taxes and social security off the table. In fact the report was that it was a sort of trade.
That does not mean Sessenbrenner will not continue to demagogue the issue however and say dumb things like this bill is automatic amnesty for 11 million people, which it is not.
We will just have to wait and see what finally comes out of conference.
CP you need to check your on shoulder. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I think you are a nut or lunatic, I just think you haven’t looked into this and you are taking the words of those friendly libs that are so anxious to help you out.
“And you know what, FE, you need to get that chip off your shoulder and be a little less defensive”
for TERRYE ” automatic amnesty for 11 million people, which it is not.” why do you question the Automatic part? so it is just regular amnesty, not automatic. I’m not sure I get the distinction.
back to CP; in-state tuition for illegals
you are absolutely NOT correct on any part of this. Even today, just check into some various laws. I was a resident of of MS, but had just moved there with my job, and my son was not eligible for in state tuition because he had graduated in another state just prior to my moving. So then I finally declared him as “emancipated” a legal maneuver and he became eligible for in state. But at the same time, all the illegal immigrants children were eligible for in state tuition. This is a state law and it does not require the parents to be in any kind of legal status. Since then I moved to Louisiana and guess what, my son has to go through it all over again if he wants in state tuition in La. However, again in La as in Mississippi, the illegal immigrants children are eligible for in state regardless of parents legal status. Check it out, state law. The new bill would continue that, not change anything. Is that fair? Whereever the illegal is, children get in state, not true for citizens.
Some states, such as California and Texas, already give in-state tuition to students who are illegals. So while a legal citizen who lives in Chicago and wants to send their child to the University of Texas, they will have to pay out of state tuition while a Mexican National (citizen) does not.
Can anyone tell me this is fair? Does anyone think that an illegal in this country should be able to pay less than a legal citizen?
Also, in some states already, illegals are eligible for student aid.
Terrye, I did not see Fox last night but I believe that Sessenbrenner says there is no way that the Congress will agree to Social Security for illegals who have paid into the system using a stolen or bogus card.
And when you absolve the illegals from all the laws they have broken, what do you call it? I call it “amnesty” from violation of the laws.
Do you really think they are going to pay the $2,000.? Why are you so full of yourself as an American that you think all these illegals want to be American citizens? Did you not see the marches? Did you not understand they were waving Mexican flags because of the love they have for their native land? The “path to citizenship” is a ruse. Plain and simple. Most Mexicans do not want to be American citizens. They want to earn enough to go back to Mexico. And take their money with them.
Retire:
Listen to yourself.
I don’t think they all want to be citizens.
I don’t think they all will or can come up with $3,250.
I don’t think that when dealing with a misdemeanor it is letting people off to have them pay fines, there is nothing unusual about that. Americans pay fines for breaking laws all the time.
But I am tired of people just talking about punishment and what they won’t accept. What will you accept? Mass deportation? Or just enforcing the laws? Well what does that mean exactly? When state and local and county and federal laws conflict how do you just enforce the laws?
Don’t you think that if that is all there was to it, that it would have happened by now?
I am just hoping for a common sense compromise that does not leave the Republicans a minority for a generation.
Reagan used to talk about dealing with radical conservatives. He said the hardest thing was to convince them that a partial victory was better than defeat.
It seems they still have not learned that lesson.
Uh, what exactly is wrong with someone earning money to take home? I know two people at the moment working for contractors in the MEast — one in Iraq, the other in Dubai. Both are American citizens. Both are taking their money in U.S. dollars and depositing it in U.S. banks. Both remain American citizens and intend to return to their homes in the U.S.
The path to citizenship is arduous, costly, and a CHOICE. Those who want it are people I absolutely want and will encourage in any way possible. Those who don’t, don’t. As long as they are documented and law abiding, I have no problem with them whatsoever.
Terrye
Reagan used to talk about dealing with radical conservatives. He said the hardest thing was to convince them that a partial victory was better than defeat.
It seems they still have not learned that lesson.
Left by Terrye on May 31st, 2006
Who do you include in this radical republican group along with you?
Terrye, listen to yourself.
Let me see if I can put this in a way even you can understand.
If someone you know nothing about jumps the fence around your house, enters it without your permission and proceeds to move in and live there, would you have a problem with that? Would you be willing to let them stay as long as they paid part of your house payment and utilities? And if they didn’t make enough money to do that, would you be willing to let them continue to live there and support them or supplement their sustanance? Or would you want them to be removed and charged with trespassing? Would you want them arrested for breaking and entering? And don’t give me that bull that it is not the same thing. It is. Illegals are people who have broken into and entered our nation, uninvited. They are trespassers. And breaking and entering, trespassing is against the law.
And don’t throw Reagan up in my face. Reagan made a mistake. He was under the assumption that if he gave 2 million amnesty the laws would be enforced for the ones to follow. They were not.
Barbara Jordan, whom I am sure you consider a racist, said in 1995 that illegal immigrantion was a bane on our society. Why? Did she hate Mexicans? Was she a bigot? Because that is how you, and the rest of the bleating hearts, want to paint us who do not believe in a “get out of jail free card” for illegals. We believe in the rule of law and realize that if you alter the law for one special interest it will set a precedent that allows other laws that are not convenient to other special interest groups to be thwarted.
The majority of the illegals we are talking about are not oppressed, persecuted people. They are citizens of another country that left their jobs in that country to come here because they can make more money. Can you imagine what it would be like if all the Americans who do not make what they want moved to Canada illegally, took jobs away from Canadians by driving down the wages in Canada and then, when they found themselves out of a job, demanded social benefits. Do you think Canada would smile on that? Just roll over and accept it? How do you think Canada would react if their hospitals were closing because of all the low paying Americans using hospital ER’s with no way to pay for it?
The estimate is that 40% of Mexicans want to come to the United States. Are you prepared to let that happen? And if it does, how does that affect not only our social structure but the social structure of Mexico? Think of it, Terrye, we already have 10% of the Mexican population here, add another 35 million. If we give 11 million illegals amnesty and make them legal, they will be able to bring their entire immediate families here. Mothers, fathers, children, spouses, and sibling. If 6.5 million bring just their spouse and two children, how many will that be? And how long will it take?
And what if they are unwilling or unable to pay the $3,250. in fines to stay? Do you think they will just pack up and go home? And when they are now guaranteed prevailing wage, what have we gained?
I am sorry you and others cannot see the forest for the trees. You cannot get past your ideals of compassionate conservatism to face reality.
I fear you just may get what you ask for.
The immigration bashers make up their facts and over dramatize the situation. If done right, we can keep the law abiding immigrants and better screen new entrants. These we will need since our birth rate is 2.08 vs the replacement rate of 2.1. SS was set up assuming a worker to retiree ratio of about 7, so we will need young workers in the system.
So the illegals have false documents! Instead of punishment lets get them into the system after a screening process. Trashing them for violating un-enforced laws is unseemly. Deport the real criminals among them. And welcome the others with their youth, family values and ambition.