Immigration - Will the Republican Party Self Destruct?

[James Kilbourne]

Will the Republican Party Self Destruct?

by James Kilbourne

We may be fast approaching a time when I will be so sickened by both the Democratic and Republican parties that I will have to stay home on election day or cast a half-hearted vote for a feckless Libertarian candidate. One can’t align one’s self with the Democratic Party. No matter how bad Republicans get, the Pelosi/ Boxer/Schumer/Biden/Kennedy/etc. party-over-principle and anything-as-long-as-Bush-is-beheaded fundamentalist crowd must be discouraged at any cost. However, a Republican Party that on a national level follows the Pete-Wilson- California anti-immigrant example set in the 1990’s will not get my vote.

In question is the breadth of the Republican vision and the nature of their hearts. On four occasions in my life, I have voted for a Republican presidential candidate- twice for Ronald Reagan and twice for George W. Bush. Both of these men championed economic and political freedom and were principled and broadminded in their view of the world. Any candidate who wants to build a huge fence to keep everybody out and kick out all the illegal aliens currently here is, besides being politically stupid, morally bankrupt in my view, and certainly not in the Reagan/ Bush tradition.

Democrats want amnesty- they are consistent in their contempt for the law and in their inability to hold people responsible for their actions. They don’t really want amnesty; they want the Latino vote. Most people are slow to realize that it is the Democrats who hold in contempt those whom they call persecuted groups, because of race or gender; it is not Republicans. It is Bill Clinton who takes advantage of his position with a government employee; it is George W. Bush who makes Condolezza Rice Secretary of State.

I am not saying suggesting that all people who want to pursue a meaningful life and provide for their families would make the choice to break the law and enter another country illegally. I am saying that the very best of them would. Those who say that their ancestors came here legally so why can’t everyone else do the same are ignorant of the facts. When their ancestors came here it wasn’t, in almost all cases, illegal in almost all cases to come to America. It still is possible to come here legally from many countries -- but not if you are Mexican. We have a separate set of laws for Mexicans that effectively make the vast number who need to come here each year illegal aliens.

There are two facts at work here; 1) illegal aliens broke the law, and 2) the law was stupid. Our current law has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. The difference in economic conditions between Mexico and the US has set created a situation whereby the very best of Mexicans are forced to abandon their homeland and seek their fortunes here. And the corollary fact many Americans like to avoid is that we desperately need illegal aliens to come here to fill the many jobs Americans no longer want to do. Those who cry that they are an undue burden on our system are not burdening themselves with another fact: that illegal aliens contribute MUCH more economically than they take from our government coffers. Have you stopped to think of the taxes taken from paychecks that never get returned? How about the Social Security payments never claimed?

I would like to know exactly how we expect to keep the Ponzi scheme called Social Security going if we evolve from 16 workers for each retiree in the 1930’s to 2 workers for each retiree in the 2030’s. Where do we plan to find tomorrow’s Social Security contributors if we send millions of workers back to Mexico?

I am not suggesting that we should pretend that illegal aliens haven’t broken the law. I am suggesting that the punishment should fit the crime, and that the bigger picture of what is best for America and for these people should dominate our vision and our national policy. All laws, even stupid ones, need to be followed in a free society, but if a law is stupid, shouldn’t our priority be to fix the law? Should we have spent our time in 1946 arresting Japanese citizens who weren’t sent to concentration camps in 1943? A penalty needs to be assessed for breaking the law, but must we have to cut off the lawbreaker’s hand and the enforcer’s hand as well. particularly when that hand labored to make our lives better? We need to have a worker’s permit program that provides for temporary stays and can lead to permanent residency for those people here now, and for those who will come in the future. Illegal entry is the only law broken by the vast majority of illegal aliens currently residing in the United States.

The groundwork has been done in 2005 by the House and the Senate for a responsible immigration bill that incorporates better border control and worker permits. This spring, we will have the opportunity to pass it. If it fails, it will be the Republicans who kill it. If this happens, it will be a great tragedy for these wonderfully courageous people, for America, and for the future of the Republican Party.

[Roger Bissell]

James, you are right on with this thoughtful, timely article.

I think that the G.O.P. must leave behind its exclusionary attitude about immigrants, if it is to avoid electoral disaster -- as well as to avoid aiding and abetting the throttling of our nation's historic vitality: new people.

Interestingly, Harry Binswanger is going to be speaking on Mar. 4 at University of Southern California on this very issue: completely open borders. The title was advertised with a question mark, so I don't know which way he is going to argue.

It might be a good idea for a bunch of us -- whoever is interested -- to show up for this talk. The more of us have a first-hand exposure to HB's (and ARI's) position on this issue, the better we would be able to speak in support of it, or against it.

I gag a bit at the thought that ARI, who seem to favor nuking Iran and whoever else threatens Israel, might actually take a position I'd have to support. But I for one am prepared to back them, if they do.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James,

I enjoyed this article. I am fully in favor of the solution of worker permits for the illegal aliens who are here now.

In Brazil, in a state called Minas Gerais, there was (and maybe still is) quite an industry of getting Brazilians to the USA at any cost. The highest cost, of course, is for a green card, but a temporary tourist visa is quite acceptable. I read a month or so ago that a group of Brazilians were caught and turned back trying to cross the border through Mexico like illegal Mexican immigrants do. So it looks like the black market is finding ways to cut its overhead.

On political parties, I find both Democrats and Republicans a holy mess in terms of acting on principles. I see principles used more as window dressing for non-principle-related interests of specific individuals.

Michael

[James Kilbourne]

Over the years, I have slowly come to believe that most of us expect too much from political parties, and that included, from what I read of her opinions, Ayn herself. Although Washington thought that there shouldn't be political parties but that the nation should rally around the one man most suited to be president, he was the last man strong enough to pull it off. From Adams on, we have essentially been a two party system, and this necessitates that the parties coalesce around the country's political center. You may not get everything you want when your party wins, but you probably won't lose everything when your party loses, either. This system as kept America from veering off course as much as Europe has over the last century.

The two parties are further apart since the Vietnam war than is healthy for this kind of system, in my opinion. The extremes rule both parties in some very unfortunate ways. Immigration is possibly the topic that could bring us back to a healthier central political compromise on the most important issues of the day. I hope it will lead to the two parties having closer positions on the war on terrror, as was the case with the cold war.

[Barbara Branden]

James, I am in essential agreement with your article, but there is a question of fact that I want to raise. You wrote: "Those who cry that they are an undue burden on our system are not burdening themselves with another fact: that illegal aliens contribute MUCH more economically than they take from our government coffers. Have you stopped to think of the taxes taken from paychecks that never get returned? How about the Social Security payments never claimed?"

These points are certainly powerful. But I keep hearing and reading that they are outweighed by the costs of illegal immigration -- the burden on our schools, our hospitals, the income tax not paid, and so forth. My question is this: Can you tell me where I can find some of the facts and figures that each side of the debate uses to buttresss its position?

I realize that this may be a difficult question to answer, since by definition the illegal economy is an underground economy. But if you can point me to any information, I would appreciate it.

Barbara

[James Kilbourne]

On the subject of taxes and public services, there are lots of reports claiming both sides of the issue. In truth, because they are illegal, no one knows. However, illegal aliens generally use fake social security numbers, so they only contribute from their paychecks and never receive the benefits for social security and Medicare. They are probably less likely to seek services for fear of being discovered as illegal, although, again, I am not sure how one would get reliable info here.

As to whether they contribute more to the economy, I base that mostly on the fact that they will do work that Americans won't do for the money offered. This enriches all who receive the services, although I do understand that the poorest in America can have an issue that their pay is lowered by the willingness of illegal aliens to work for wages they wouldn't accept.

As far as why we are enriched when we receive services for less, obviously if a year's vegetables cost $500 instead of $750 due to lower labor costs, that leaves us with $250 to spend on other things. I don't know of anyone who suggests that most illegal aliens aren't working, so they are making all of us richer each day they work for less.

[Aggrad02]

Im not sure about other states but in Texas public education is paid by for with property taxes. Since illegal immigrants have to live somewhere they contribute just like everyone else by paying rent (which goes to the owner and who pays the taxes).

Also in Texas this issue is not that big a deal, we have lived with immigrants both legal and illegal in Texas for hundreds of years and everyone gets along, it is part of life here. We have a booming economy (proof is that we took in probably 200,000 Katrina victims, and any of them who wanted jobs were able to find them). We don't really have any unions in Texas and pay no state income tax, and no one is really complaining about "losing jobs to immigrants". Also the immigrants are extremely valuable to our economy. I have 5 business locations in South Texas and I would say about 15% (maybe more) of my business there come from illegal immigrants. In general these immigrants are not criminals and work very hard.

[Aggrad02]

James,

In Brazil, in a state called Minas Gerais, there was (and maybe still is) quite an industry of getting Brazilians to the USA at any cost. The highest cost, of course, is for a green card, but a temporary tourist visa is quite acceptable. I read a month or so ago that a group of Brazilians were caught and turned back trying to cross the border through Mexico like illegal Mexican immigrants do. So it looks like the black market is finding ways to cut its overhead.

In Texas we have seen a huge increase of nonMexican immigrants coming over the border, especially from South America and Central America, but even from Asia as well.