The idea that the Hispanic vote cost Romney the election, and that therefore the GOP needs to support amnesty to survive, has been repeatedly debunked on VDARE.com. But facts and argument have no effect the Main Stream Media or its GOP Establishment poodle.
As expected, most of the usual pro-amnesty hacks, many of whom predicted that the GOP would win this election, are now saying the GOP needs amnesty to survive. Thus Senator Marco Rubio (R-Cuba) wrote on his Facebook page:
The conservative movement
should have particular appeal to people in minority and immigrant communities who are trying to make it, and Republicans need to work harder than ever to communicate our beliefs to them.”
[After Romney loss, GOP soul searching begins, CBS News, November 7, 2012]
Besides presumably nominating him for president, Rubio did not give exact specifics. But neocon pundit Charles Krauthammer filled them in:
The principal reason they go Democratic is the issue of illegal immigrants. In securing the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made the strategic error of (unnecessarily) going to the right of Rick Perry. Romney could never successfully tack back.
For the party in general, however, the problem is hardly structural. It requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. Use the word. Shock and awe—full legal normalization (just short of citizenship) in return for full border enforcement...Imagine Marco Rubio advancing such a policy on the road to 2016. It would transform the landscape. He’d win the Hispanic vote. Yes, win it. A problem fixable with a single policy initiative is not structural. It is solvable.”
[The way forward, Washington Post, November 8, 2012]
That Charles Krauthammer and Marco Rubio would use the election results to spin for amnesty is no surprise. As Peter Brimelow noted before the election, they would have done exactly the same if Romney won. (And Romney, as no-one remembers, said he’d get an amnesty done in the “first year.”)
What is troubling, however, is that many high-profile conservatives and Republicans who, while never trusted allies to immigration patriots, have largely opposed amnesty for the last several years are now indicating they would support amnesty.
Of course, Obama's Administrative Amnesty notwithstanding, any major “comprehensive immigration reform” bill will need to go through the House of Representatives. And Republicans still control the House by a large margin.
Unfortunately, John Boehner has indicated he will support amnesty. He told ABC News,
“It’s an important issue that I think oughta be dealt with. There's– this issue has been around far too long. And while– I'm– believe it’s important for us to secure our borders and to enforce our laws– I think a comprehensive approach is long overdue. And I’m confident– that– the president, myself, others– can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.” [Post-Shellacking, Republicans Begin to Shift On Immigration, By Adam Serwer, Mother Jones, November 9, 2012]
Just to make clear that he meant what he said (unlike when he said the GOP would not repeal Obamacare), Boehner held a press conference in which he reiterated his support “for a common-sense, step-by-step approach to secure our borders, allow us to enforce the laws and fix a broken immigration system." and he pressed the President to take the lead. [Boehner says Obama should take lead on immigration, by Jim Abrams, Associated Press, November 9, 2012]
Hopefully the Republican leadership can be pushed by conservative talk show hosts and activist groups, right?
Not so fast. Sean Hannity, unfortunately one of the most influential conservatives in the country, said Republicans need to “get rid of the immigration issue altogether” by noting “You can’t let the problem continue—it’s got to stop.”
Hannity's way to “stop” the immigration problem:
“I think you control the border first. You create a pathway for those people that are here—you don’t say you’ve got to go home. And that is a position that I’ve evolved on.”
[Fox News star Sean Hannity suddenly likes immigration reform, James Rainey, Los Angeles Times, November 9, 2012]
(In fairness, I should note that Rush Limbaugh has been unprecedentedly outspoken about demographics since the election).
Al Cardenas, the (white, Cuban) Hispanic President of the American Conservative Union—who had previously been silent about amnesty, said
“The issue of the past 10 years has been immigration reform, and we’ve got to get it done this year. We’ve got to check that box in order to proceed. .. I believe that folks now finally believe there’s no clear path to the White House without a significant improvement (among Hispanic voters).”
[GOP must woo Latinos to win, by Erin Smith, Boston Herald, November 8, 2012]
And my sources at the one major conservative think tank that has been solidly anti-amnesty for the last 6 years say it is now discussing flip-flopping for amnesty.
The obvious delusion that these comments have in common: They all believe that if the GOP can pass an immigration bill, the issue will somehow never come up again—it will magically be gone. And that, once immigration is out of the debate, the socially conservative Hispanic entrepreneurs will all vote for Marco Rubio for president in 2016.
But the idea that an amnesty will simply make the immigration issue disappear is idiotic. Yes, there will no longer be any “illegal immigrants” if you make them all legal for a short time—but before long, more and more illegals will be here, encouraged by a promise of a future amnesty.
At the time of the 1986 amnesty, it was at least plausible that adding employer sanctions would stop future illegal immigration. But in fact it only made it skyrocket.
As much as I would love a national E-Verify Bill, we don't need new laws to deal with illegal immigration—we just need to enforce the laws on the books.
And, contra Krauthammer, we already passed a bill to build a fence—but Democrats surreptitiously defunded most of it, and then Obama just didn't build it anyway.
The idea that President Obama, or (in Conservatism Inc. fantasy land) President Rubio would enforce any new immigration laws is absurd.
So passing a “comprehensive immigration reform” bill will simply bring us back to square one—except with millions of new Democratic voters.
Does this mean amnesty is destined to pass?
The good news: Immigration patriots were in pretty much this same position in 2006. The Republicans lost an election that had nothing to do with immigration. Everyone pretended that immigration control hurt the Republicans that election. Virtually the entire Republican Establishment supported some form of amnesty (Remember the Pence Plan?).
Immigration patriots stopped amnesty then. And they can stop it again.
And there are a few more factors working against amnesty.
Republicans are not quite as stupid as they appear. Despite their dreams of a President Rubio, they know that the illegals are going to vote Democratic once they get citizenship. So the Boehner and co. will be pushing for extremely long waiting periods before the legalized illegals will be able to naturalize. Some may demand that they can get residency, but will have to go through already existing immigration channels to apply for naturalization.
Democrats, feeling they have the upper hand, will be greedy and demand immediate citizenship for the illegals. If both sides cannot come to an agreement on this, there will be no amnesty.
And even if Boehner and Obama come to an agreement, the legislation will still have to go through the House Judiciary Committee. Immigration Patriots Lamar Smith and Elton Gallegly chair the committee and the subcommittee on immigration respectively.
I have criticized both men's willingness to undermine states rights in order to get support for federal E-Verify legislation. But I still believe both are largely on the right side. I would be truly shocked if they were to sell out and support the Boehner amnesty.
Thus Boehner would have to either replace Smith and Gallegly—or else skip the committee process in order to force an immigration bill through the House.
I will spare VDARE.COM readers an inside baseball description of how this would work. Suffice to say, it would be a truly extraordinary step. If he were to do that, it would cause a lot of dissension from the Republican conference in the House, and make it harder for Boehner to get enough Republicans to support an amnesty even if it skipped committee.
All this said, this is going to be an uphill battle. Even though President Obama won reelection, the real enemy now is Conservatism Inc. and Republican Establishment.
They've been beaten before. Now they will have to be beaten again.
"Washington Watcher" [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway
