GOP Presidential Contenders Commit Hara-Kiri On Immigration

[Habermill]

Anyone that poses in a picture with Ted Kennedy and is a Republican has to be simple minded. Come to think of it, any Democrat or Republican that supports the Kennedy-McCain bill needs an attitude adjustment. How can you let the flood gates open to immigration?


GOP PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDERS COMMIT HARA-KIRI ON IMMIGRATION REFORM

by Jerome R. Corsi
NewsWithViews.com

In the current immigration debate in the Senate, Republican conservatives should take a lesson from Sam Brownback (R.-Kansas) and the debate on the Kennedy-McCain S-2611 "comprehensive immigration reform" bill supported by President Bush in the 109th Congress. A year ago we warned that Brownback’s decision to co-sponsor S-2611 could cost him the presidential nomination of the Republican Party.

Today, no contender, except Fred Thompson should he enter the race, has a stronger pro-life or pro-family record than Brownback. Yet, Brownback’s identification with the "guest worker amnesty" at the center of S-2611 distanced him from the party’s conservatives who continue to believe that border security can only be achieved by building a fence.

Whether the forces moving the Republican Party to the center like it or not, border security and building a fence are likely to become the sine qua non of conservatives when making a decision whether or not to support the Republican Party’s nominee for president. Any Republican Party presidential candidate running from Congress this year will suffer the "Brownback Hara-kiri" if Republican primary voters find them among the ranks pushing for this year’s version of the "guest worker amnesty."

Already, John McCain (R.-Ariz.) has hurt himself by being photographed once again with Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.) in the announcement of the "grand bargain" that has brought forth S-1348, another bill calculated to give the word "comprehensive" an even more pejorative connotation among conservatives.

Nor was McCain elevated by his unfortunate exchange of angry words with Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Texas). McCain should by now realize that his presidential chances are not enhanced by hurling the "F" words at neighbor-state colleagues from within his own party and insisting that he knows more than they do on the subject of illegal immigration. Not much better was McCain’s suggestion that Republican presidential rival Mitt Romney ought to "get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn."

So far Rudy Giuliani has avoided being damaged by S-1348 only because he is not in the Senate. Recent revelations document that Giuliani’s Houston-based law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, has represented Cintra, the Spanish investment consortium, in their negotiations to be the PPP (Public-Private Partnership) player in the Texas Department of Transportation’s Trans-Texas Corridor. Unfortunately, Giuliani record suggests that he will come down on the side of supporting a guest worker program and a "path to citizenship" rather than advocating fence-building as the primary mission of conservative immigration reform.

There is no way Republican presidential contenders can support this bill without doing fatal damage to their White House aspirations. At the heart of this bill, the concept of "triggers" in S-1348 is seriously flawed. We should want to enhance border security in order to keep more illegal immigrants out of the United States, not because we are over anxious to grandfather the millions of illegal immigrants who are already here.

Besides, what is the penalty if the border security "triggers" are never met? The only penalty is that the government will not be able to begin issuing "Z" visas. This is completely back wards. Conservatives might respond ironically, "Great, then let’s not enhance border security because then the triggers won’t get met and no Z visas will be issued."

The very design of the trigger feature reveals a bias of the compromisers in the White House and Senate to wave the magic wand over the 12 million or more illegal immigrants who are here, just to permit them to stay. Does anyone seriously believe that conservatives will buy the notion that we are going now finally to get border security because it is the requirement for the left to get their pseudo-amnesty implemented?

Another fatal flaw of the bill is the assumption that illegal immigrants would pay substantial fees, fines, or back taxes in order to obtain a Z visa. What would happen if the Z visas were available and nobody came to apply? Most likely nothing would happen and we would just be stuck with the status quo, with the millions of illegal immigrants just staying put.

Illegal immigrants and their supporters have soundly destroyed the straw argument that we have no resolve to round up and deport millions of illegal aliens. We are not enforcing our employment-oriented immigration laws now. Why would we suddenly begin enforcing immigration employment requirements in the dubious era of the Z visa?

President Bush evidently learned nothing in his failure to push S-2611 through the 109th Congress. The day after the Nov. 2006 electoral debacle President Bush shockingly told a White House news conference that he was happy the Democrats won control of Congress because now he might get his comprehensive immigration reform passed. Isn’t President Bush supposed to be the leader of the Republican Party? Why would President Bush celebrate Democrats on the eve of their turning back the last vestiges of the historic Gingrich revolution in Congress?

Now, with the Senate debate scheduled to extend a week after Memorial Day, Republican senators are certain to confront angry constituents who feel President Bush has failed to listen to them for six years on the necessity to secure our borders as a first priority. If the Senate persists to pass S-1348, fatal damage could be done not only to Republican presidential candidates who support the bill, but even to the Republican Party itself. The lesson we should have learned from Nov. 2006 is that a Republican Party who betrays their conservative base is a Republican Party headed on the road to electoral defeat.

© 2007 - Jerome Corsi - All Rights Reserved

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in Political Science in 1972. He has written many books and articles, including co-authoring the #1 New York Times best seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O’Neill), " Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and " Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians,"

[raoul duke]

yeah... i'm just going to go ahead and disregard anything from anyone who wrote a book with john o'neill, escpecially that thoroughly discredited piece of crap. why would you even put that on your resume? it was better when you were posting pat buchanan articles. at least he has some credibility.

[run4it]

The simple fact is, according to multiple polls taken over the last couple of months (see CBS/NYT, CNN, USA Today/Gallup, WSJ, LATimes), half to two thirds of the American public favor some sort of guest worker program for illegal aliens currently in the country.

Considering such widespread support, it would be wrong to suggest that any candidate who supports such a view is automatically disqualifying themselves.

[WestSideJohn]

Anyone that poses in a picture with Ted Kennedy and is a Republican has to be simple minded.

This type of "us vs. them" attitude where fellow Americans are turned into the enemy does as much harm to our nation as illegal immigration.

[raoul duke]

This type of "us vs. them" attitude where fellow Americans are turned into the enemy does as much harm to our nation as illegal immigration.

obviously you are no familiar with the new republican handbook on politics and diplomacy. that or you're with the terrorists.

just to reiterate, anyone who has collaborated with john o'neill on anything has specious credentials to begin with, ph.d. from harvard not withstanding. i realize that may contradict what wsj said (which i agree with) but go watch him on the dick cavett show with john kerry if you want to see true disinformation and blatant, factless propoganda on display. though be forewarned, john kerry takes him to school and back a few times.

[Linda_D]

The simple fact is, according to multiple polls taken over the last couple of months (see CBS/NYT, CNN, USA Today/Gallup, WSJ, LATimes), half to two thirds of the American public favor some sort of guest worker program for illegal aliens currently in the country.

Considering such widespread support, it would be wrong to suggest that any candidate who supports such a view is automatically disqualifying themselves.

What the Habermill and the author, Corsi, are alluding to is their view of the GOP as a far-right wing institution where anybody who doesn't buy their bull manure is a "liberal" (ie, "commie", I suppose).

[Habermill]

The simple fact is, according to multiple polls taken over the last couple of months (see CBS/NYT, CNN, USA Today/Gallup, WSJ, LATimes), half to two thirds of the American public favor some sort of guest worker program for illegal aliens currently in the country.

Considering such widespread support, it would be wrong to suggest that any candidate who supports such a view is automatically disqualifying themselves.

I see that you support the Liberal point of view just by the polls you mentioned. What else could the LA Times say for example when its population base is 71% Latino? Their polls are contrived to support their viewpoints.

[run4it]

Nice to see that you'll dismiss all the other major news outlets (including that horribly liberal Wall Street Journal) and only talk about one that you think you can accuse of bias.

I didn't state my position on this at all. I merely pointed out that a majority of people don't agree with you.