GOP Faces Internal Divide On Changes To Immigration

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128352487

Some prominent conservatives are speaking out in favor of the kind of comprehensive immigration bill that many Republicans oppose — one that would include border security and then a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

As a leading evangelical conservative, Richard Land's credentials are impeccable. He heads the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, and from that influential perch he's been urging his fellow conservatives to rethink their opposition to the immigration overhaul.

"I've had some of them appeal to me. They say, 'Richard, you're going to divide the conservative coalition.' And I said, 'Well, I may divide the old conservative coalition, but I'm not going to divide the new one.' "

[quote="jjdrury81, post:1, topic:204557"]
As a leading evangelical conservative, Richard Land's credentials are impeccable. He heads the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, and from that influential perch he's been urging his fellow conservatives to rethink their opposition to the immigration overhaul.

[/quote]

If he's backing this kind of sleight of hand, his credentials are no longer impeccable anymore than the folks that backed Stupak in the health care debate. A fool and his principles are easily parted.

Seal the border first. Until then, I don't want to hear about anything else. Once that's done, we can talk.

So, one Southern Baptist Convention guy wants fast-track citizenship for illegals, and that justifies the title of the thread?

Well, you know what the Southern Baptists always say: "I'm not a member of any organized church, I'm a Southern Baptist."

Check the threads on ‘Negrophilia’ and the Panthers on how many experts are quoted.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:4, topic:204557"]
Check the threads on 'Negrophilia' and the Panthers on how many experts are quoted.

[/quote]

Thank you for the suggestion. Perhaps I will. But, truth be told, I'm usually not terribly interested in what people want to say about racism, regardless of their point of view, because I believe racism is far more pervasive than most people want to think it is, and because I also believe it's far less malignant than most people think. I saw the threads but passed them up for that reason. But again, upon your suggestion that they might somehow be interesting, I might look if they're not too long.

[quote="jjdrury81, post:1, topic:204557"]

As a leading evangelical conservative, Richard Land's credentials are impeccable. He heads the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, and from that influential perch he's been urging his fellow conservatives to rethink their opposition to the immigration overhaul.

[/quote]

I'm wary of anything from a lib that would mention impeccable and conservative in the same sentence. If this guy's position were the opposite the title would read something like "GOP is racist because a Southern Baptist doesn't want illegals here".

[quote="bbarrick8383, post:6, topic:204557"]
I'm wary of anything from a lib that would mention impeccable and conservative in the same sentence. If this guy's position were the opposite the title would read something like "GOP is racist because a Southern Baptist doesn't want illegals here".

[/quote]

Careful there, bbarrick, he brought his lawyer with him. :eek:

[quote="jjdrury81, post:1, topic:204557"]
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128352487

Some prominent conservatives are speaking out in favor of the kind of comprehensive immigration bill that many Republicans oppose — one that would include border security and then a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

[/quote]

They are not 'undocumented immigrants.' They are ILLEGAL aliens.

Their lawbreaking is a slap in the face, not only to this country, but to all those who struggled to come to the USA legally.

Another "unbiased" bit of journalism from National Peoples Republic....er....National Public Radio.

They are hoping that the GOP faces an internal divide. If the GOP remains as steadfast as during the Obamacare vote, NPR's wish will not come true.

And it's not "drug dealers", it's "undocumented pharmacists"! :whacky:

[quote="Sailor_Kenshin, post:8, topic:204557"]
They are not 'undocumented immigrants.' They are ILLEGAL aliens.

Their lawbreaking is a slap in the face, not only to this country, but to all those who struggled to come to the USA legally.

[/quote]

How true!

It has always amazed me how the progressive liberal left can steadfastly refuse to admit that illegal immigration is just that. Euphemisms aboud in their desperate dancing around the plain, obvious truth.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of USA vs Arizona. If Arizona loses, it will be painfully clear that the Federal government does not want closed borders and openly supports illegal activity against its own citizenry. If Arizona wins it will clearly show that the Federal government has no desire to support border states in maintaining border security and essentially de facto supporting illegal activity agianst the citizens of the US.

[quote="SVP, post:11, topic:204557"]

It has always amazed me how the progressive liberal left can steadfastly refuse to admit that illegal immigration is just that. Euphemisms aboud in their desperate dancing around the plain, obvious truth.

[/quote]

The fact is that our society and assuredly business interests in our society, including agri-businesses and heavily Republican, allowed the current situation to occur, somewhat in the bracero tradition. There is no other explanation.

So those workers here illegally are much more accurately called 'undocumented workers'. If people did not want things to be the way they are, the situation would have changed long ago.

I’m not sure agribusiness people are necessarily Republicans, and I’m not sure it matters if they are. Indisputably, Bush did very little to control illegal immigration, and did less to explain that. One could speculate as to why, but speculation isn’t all that valuable a commodity.

I am not persuaded that most illegals are agricultural workers, either. Perhaps that’s true in some places. It’s most definitely not true here, where most are industrial or construction workers. But, it has been my observation that many, if not most, consider themselves “temporary” anyway, since their presence here is quite often simply a way to raise capital to invest in their home countries.

In that sense, then, it is not dissimilar to the old bracero program.

But some illegals definitely want to stay here indefinitely. The old bracero program had no provision for that, and “braceros” wanting to stay indefinitely had to go through the usual channels for immigrants generally.

But I think the real question is whether illegals presently here are somehow to be given preference over those who would like to immigrate, but are taking the legal route to do it.

When Obama (like McCain) talks about “immigration reform” it is generally taken to mean “amnesty”, or some other preference for illegals over those who want to legally immigrate. If Obama has ever said otherwise in detail, then I have not seen it.

It has seemed to me (and perhaps this was Bush’s thinking) that really massive legal immigration would not allow any kind of “discrimination”. What we have had in the last couple of decades has been a de facto “Hispanic preference” over others. If “immigration reform” did not allow for preferring, say, a Mexican or Guatemalan (fundamentally western and almost always Christian) over, say, Yemenis, Somalis or Iranians, (whose immigration could rightly be concerning for reasons having nothing to do with job competition, etc) and it is hard to see how it could, then it seems likely to me the public will eventually demand that it be shut off altogether, but a lot of water will have passed under the bridge until then.

I think everybody knows Obama’s failure to control the border is aimed at pleasing Hispanic voters and increasing their number. Otherwise, his inaction (and paralyzing of ICE) is inexplicable, given that illegal immigration seems to be a somewhat different problem than before, due to the increasing criminality attendant on it. But does he really want to do away with the “Hispanic preference” on an ongoing basis? Hard to think so. Therefore, one has to wonder whether, after amnesty, there is any follow-on plan that’s seriously intended. Again, if Obama has expressed himself regarding that, I have not seen it. It really seems like “immigration reform” is nothing but a short term gain for the Democrat party (as McCain evidently thought it would be for the Republican party) with chaos to follow. Been there, done that.

So, is “immigration reform” anything more than amnesty and more of same, but with a minor tweak here and there? There is no particular reason to think otherwise. And that, I think, is why so many Americans are leery of it.

Border control will result in the reduction of illegals in the U.S. They all go home a lot. Some never return, some do. One would think, if some kind of “guest worker” program is intended, it would not be the most difficult thing in the world for intended returnees to stop in at a U.S. consulate in Mexico or Guatemala or El Salvador or wherever, for a card update if, indeed, guest workers are needed by the economy at that particular moment in time. If so, it seems to me they should be on the same basis as every other person there who wants to be a guest worker.

But returning to topic, it’s possible there are different views concerning illegal immigration among Republicans. Seems likely there would be at least some, and McCain’s past support of it speaks to that more persuasively than what some functionary of the Southern Baptist Convention might think about it.

But among the public at large, I think things have changed. Until fairly recently, lots of people opposed illegal immigration; perhaps the majority. But most, it seemed, were reasonably content with a sort of benign neglect of the issue. But I think the increasing criminality involved in it has changed that. Even McCain, it seems, has now backed away from his own version of an amnesty program. One can say that was for political expediency, and perhaps it was, since he received a pretty sound political rebuff to his attempt. The lukewarm support for him among many Republicans in the 2008 election, I believe, attested to the likellihood there was very little support for amnesty among Republicans generally.

(continued)

(continued)
I have not seen any polls among Republicans on the subject. But I am guessing there is probably even less support among them for amnesty programs or fast-track citizenship or anything at all that would give illegals preference over legal immigrants, than there was back when McCain tried to push it through.

Maybe, as some suggest, "immigration reform" by Obama and his people is nothing but talk. To my knowledge, there is no legislation being rushed through congress (as the Democrats are wont to do when they think something is important) for it. If so, it's a poor business, because refusing to guard the border based on the insistence that "comprehensive immigration reform" must come first, really does seem to be harmful to many Americans.

And I say all of that as one who generally favored the "Hispanic preference by neglect". But it really does seem the party is over, and it's time to actually enforce immigration laws.
Border enforcement, it seems to me, is a reasonably gradualist approach.

The current Democrat proposals are very similar to Pres Bush's immigration reform proposals. How are the many Republicans that supported it then going to reconcile opposing almost the same plan now? And the article is correct in saying that many of the religious groups that the GOP has relied on for support, including the Catholic Church, are coming out more and more strongly for some kind of reform. The GOP is divided on this issue. One of their conflicts is between trying to actually getting something done and fear that the Dems will be able to take credit for it. I think they need to stop worrrying about political credit and work on moving forward on important issues like this one.

[quote="TMC, post:15, topic:204557"]
The current Democrat proposals are very similar to Pres Bush's immigration reform proposals. How are the many Republicans that supported it then going to reconcile opposing almost the same plan now? And the article is correct in saying that many of the religious groups that the GOP has relied on for support, including the Catholic Church, are coming out more and more strongly for some kind of reform. The GOP is divided on this issue. One of their conflicts is between trying to actually getting something done and fear that the Dems will be able to take credit for it. I think they need to stop worrrying about political credit and work on moving forward on important issues like this one.

[/quote]

I don't think the Catholic Church, itself, takes positions on particular legislative proposals, though some Church-related (or sort of related) organizations sometimes do. But as far as I know,there is really no specific proposal being made.

Changes of conditions can sometimes change minds. I guess McCain changed his. Possibly on his part it was due to political motivations, but sometimes political motivations can change when one's own state becomes a modern version of 1930s South Side Chicago.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:12, topic:204557"]
The fact is that our society and assuredly business interests in our society, including agri-businesses and heavily Republican, allowed the current situation to occur, somewhat in the bracero tradition. There is no other explanation.

So those workers here illegally are much more accurately called 'undocumented workers'. If people did not want things to be the way they are, the situation would have changed long ago.

[/quote]

They are illegal aliens.

Can you explain what is right and compassionate about lawbreakers and support of lawbreakers?

[quote="TMC, post:15, topic:204557"]
The current Democrat proposals are very similar to Pres Bush's immigration reform proposals. How are the many Republicans that supported it then going to reconcile opposing almost the same plan now? And the article is correct in saying that many of the religious groups that the GOP has relied on for support, including the Catholic Church, are coming out more and more strongly for some kind of reform. The GOP is divided on this issue. One of their conflicts is between trying to actually getting something done and fear that the Dems will be able to take credit for it. I think they need to stop worrrying about political credit and work on moving forward on important issues like this one.

[/quote]

As a Republican who supported Pres Bush's (and McCain's) proposals, I wholeheartedly agree. The GOP is split on immigration and has been. We had our chance to get it done but failed to do so - this is due both to GOP and Democrats members who opposed the legislation and (maybe they were worried about the GOP taking credit :p ). I don't car who gets credit. I just want us to fix our immigration problem.

[quote="Sailor_Kenshin, post:17, topic:204557"]
They are illegal aliens.

Can you explain what is right and compassionate about lawbreakers and support of lawbreakers?

[/quote]

Sure! Google alcohol laws in Kansas.

After decades, the state decided to legalize what had been allowed in the breach. They wanted to stop lying to themselves.

Now, feeding a parking meter is illegal, just like fornication and hitchhiking. In the case of the workers here, their presence supported several industries in our nation, like farming, meat packing and janitorial. The presence of the workers was known to be illegal but tolerated in the breach.

Its time we stop lying to ourselves.

There is a labor-management view on allowing rules violations. It basically states that when workers are 'lulled into a false sense of security' by the lack of enforcement of rules, it would be unfair to come after them later and say the company is going to enforce the rules. The same could be said for some long-term undocumenteds in this nation. They certainly have been lulled into a false sense of security. And now comes the crackdown.

The claim that Republicans have turned a blind eye to illegal immigration because it provides cheap labor for businesses is unconvincing. What seems more likely is that their position is forced on them by political calculations: fear of alienating Hispanic voters. If the Arizona law succeeds - as seems likely - the effect will be huge and it will have national implications.

Arizona's unemployment level is around 10% and estimates of the number of full time jobs held by illegals is roughly the same as the number of unemployed citizens. If the law is effective in detecting illegals - and encouraging other illegals to leave before they get detected - then Arizona can significantly repair her unemployment problem. Once that happens there won't be a state in the country that has any significant number of illegals that won't be compelled to pass a similar law. After that the political pressure will shift and I would expect to see Republicans more united against illegal immigration and amnesty. They may be divided now; they won't be if Arizona's unemployment numbers drop.

There is a lot riding on the outcome of Obama's lawsuit.

Ender

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.