Friday, June 23, 2006

WSJ engages in more immigration inanity

Talk about getting it backwards:
Even if all of this somehow works this election year, the long term damage to the GOP could be considerable. Pete Wilson demonized illegal aliens to win re-election as California Governor in 1994, but at the price of alienating Latino voters for a decade. The smarter Republicans--President Bush, Karl Rove, Senator John McCain, Colorado Governor Bill Owens and Florida Governor Jeb Bush--understand that the GOP can't sustain its majority without a larger share of the Hispanic vote. Making Mr. Tancredo the spokesman on this issue is a surefire way to make Hispanics into permanent Democrats.
Apparently not wanting to provide entitlements for law-breaking liabilities is tantamount to demonization. Wilson turned a struggling campaign into a solid victory by taking up a populist cause that finds support across the political spectrum. He, like the GOP, didn't alienate Hispanics--he never had them to begin with. Even with Bush's massive hispandering, he couldn't reach 40% of the Latino electorate. House members know the sovereignty position is a winning one with voters.

As for the smart guys, I'd gladly make a wager with Paul Gigot that ten years from now Arizona, Colorado, and Florida will all be blue states, in spite of said Republicans' attempts to throw political conservatism under the bus in an effort to bribe Hispanics into casting red ballots. Guys like Pete Wilson and Tom Tancredo see the onslaught coming and realize that it's bad news for Republicans because--and this concept's too mundane to earn these toughs a 'smart' label--Hispanics vote Democrat. They make less money, are more heavily concentrated in urban areas, have lower education levels, and use welfare at higher rates than the average American. They benefit from affirmative action policies. They are not going to become Republicans.

Continuing with a blatant lie:
Every poll we've seen says that the public favors an immigration reform of the kind that President Bush does.
Unless the only poll you've seen is your own poll that trumpeted the Senate's proposal as being focused on strengthening security at the borders, building a fence, and instituting a guest worker program for illegals who have been here for more than two years. The open border crowd supports none of these things. The token Border Patrol additions and a partial fence were forced in from the sovereignty minority in the Senate. The so-called guest worker program is a misnomer. It puts illegals on the path to permanent residency. Did the pollsters make people aware of the fact that the 'guests' would stay indefinitely? Theoretically distinguishing between illegals who have been in the country for some time without causing trouble and holding a cutting edge job and those who just arrived seems reasonable. But how, when we know nothing about the shadow dwellers now, we are going to determine who has been here for more than two years isn't considered.

Steve Sailer rips into the poll:
-Despite the poll’s implication, the new immigrant guest workers won't even be
from Latin America. The program is likely to import large numbers of Asians, who (employers tell us) have a "lower runaway rate". Mexicans will be encouraged to continue to immigrate illegally, in the way that has proved so convenient to America’s elites over the last thirty years.
-Of course, as readers but few others know, language in the Senate bill assures that the "guest" workers wouldn't be guests because they could easily become legal permanent residents.
-And, funny thing, the WSJ poll doesn't mention that guest workers would be allowed to bring in their dependents—spouses and children.
-And it forgets to point out how the American public would pay to heal and educate the guest workers and/or their families.
-Nor does it point out that any children born to guest workers while in the U.S. will be American citizens because of the current "citizen child" misinterpretation of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
-Nor is there any mention of the huge increases in legal immigration wedged into the Senate Christmas tree.
The poll the op/ed board is basing all of its conclusions on mentioned none of these things. The poll did, however, find that voters are concerned about immigration (and that Republicans think the GOP isn't doing enough to tighten up) second only to the war in Iraq, and it also found that support for a wall trumps support for amnesty by a two-to-one margin among voters casting ballots based on immigration concerns. The poll also found a slightly higher percentage of Americans believe immigration (not just illegal immigration) hurts the country more than it helps it. Funny that these things were omitted from the excerpted piece above.

The WSJ is putatively opposed to entitlements, special treatment, and subsidization. Yet the op/ed board expects those who butter the GOP's bread to swallow their expansive list of reasons to oppose the open border madness, it favors pandering to a special interest minority, and clamors for the importation of subsidized labor. How the country's second most circulated newspaper can be so contradictory is puzzling. But then again, it supports Israel's successful barrier fence that's kept out well-financed Palestinian terrorists while claiming that the most advanced nation in the world cannot possibly manage to keep out destitute third worlders with a similar structure. It beat the Iraq war drum, and tells us we should be happy about $3 gallon gas. So I shouldn't be so surprised.

While the board is revisiting the poll its paper conducted, I suggest a little extra reading. This Rasmussen report shows support and opposition to massive deportation locked in a statistical deadheat--while the Journal baselessly asserts that no one seriously backs deportation (of course, for every one forced deportation seven or eight voluntary deportations would likely occur), three-to-one belief that immigration can be reduced and a similar ratio in favor of stringent enforcement of current laws before pushing through more legislation. A Zogby poll, worded more veraciously than the WSJ's, asked "Do you support or oppose the Bush administration's proposal to give millions of illegal aliens guest worker status and the opportunity to become citizens?" Fifty-six percent said no. Only 35% gave support. A CBS poll found that 56% of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of immigration. Only 33% think he's on the right track.

No wonder circulation is declining.



JSBolton said...

Someone should blast them for the cynicism of suggesting that, not principles, but manuvering for electoral advantage on a racial-ethnic basis with some highly disadvantaged minorities is desirable politics.
These editorialists are obviously not qualified to pronounce on what practical politics consists of.
When foreigner-firsters tell you what's good for America, what sort of fool would believe them?
If libertarians knew how to win elections, they'd have long since done so.
These people are buffing their image for anti-americanism, appeasing the left, and certain externality-generating business interests.

crush41 said...

"These editorialists are obviously not qualified to pronounce on what practical politics consists of."

Couldn't agree more. The last sentence of the op/ed:

If the GOP finds itself in the minority next year, we trust its restrictionists will stand up and take a bow.

As the several referenced polls show, Americans overwhelming want tougher enforcement of immigration laws and want less immigration in general, both legal and illegal. The WSJ opposes.

On the other hand, the WSJ likes high gas prices and reticently continues to back the Iraq war, positions that are highly unpopular with the public.

You're right--they have no idea how to win elections (or keep anything approaching ideological consistency or rationality).