November 13, 2006
Internecine Grudge Match, Round 4 (or so)
Last week, in JK's latest installment of "border security is a political loser" he appears to remain convinced that campaigning on border control hurt the GOP candidates who did so. Or perhaps he's only suggesting that it didn't help them. Either way, it appears the same is also true for the new Democrat majority.
WaPo reports today in Democrats May Proceed With Caution on Immigration:
But when it comes to immigration, things are never easy. In the days after the election, Democratic leaders surprised pro-immigration groups by not including the issue on their list of immediate priorities. Experts said the issue is so complicated, so sensitive and so explosive that it could easily blow up in the Democrats' faces and give control of Congress back to Republicans in the next election two years from now. And a number of Democrats who took a hard line on illegal immigration were also elected to Congress.
Hat tip: Rush.
JK also applauded the "JG seven points" [7th comment] for immigration policy reform but added, "You think Tommy Tancredo would go for it? Wait let me answer that -- no way in hell!"
Well, here's the latest from "Tommy:"
Anti-immigration Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who was distraught after the election, believing a guest worker program was inevitable under the Democrats, now says he's changed his mind."It seemed to me that it was not going to be as easy for them as I had anticipated or feared," Tancredo said. "They're not putting it out there as their number one, out-of-the-box issue."
The more he thought about the issue, the more cloudy the future seemed.
"I don't know," he said. A temporary guest worker program "could certainly happen. I may be just skipping past the graveyard."
Immigration Internecine Posted by JohnGalt at November 13, 2006 3:06 PM
1. I should not refer to an elected representative of the US Congress by first name, certainly not a diminutive. I apologize, Johnny, for calling Rep. Tancredo "Tommy." That was bad form and I will not repeat it.
2. It most definitely hurt the GOP as a whole to head into elections without a solution to the emergency they had concocted. This was underscored nicely on the Journal Editorial Report this weekend. (scroll to bottom) Some individual races were won in spite of candidates' embracing enforcement-only, but I've yet to read a convincing case of one who won because of it and there are many examples of candidates' losing with that as a chief or high priority.
3. That Rep. Tancredo has himself tossed in the towel on his signature issue after last week's drubbing indicates that he realizes what a loser issue it is. Saying the future is cloudy and that it might happen someday does not strike me as a ringing endorsement of the JGVII.
Posted by: jk at November 13, 2006 3:49 PMHey, sorry about the scare quotes around Tommy. I didn't mean to imply that it was disrespectful. I think Tommy is a fine name for him! Don't know what I was thinkin'.
Posted by: johngalt at November 14, 2006 1:07 AMAs to point two, the crisis on the border was not concocted; it is real. The emergency is the failure to do anything about it. If JK is correct about a majority of people opposing a border fence and a muscular security presence and voting on their opposition,then so be it. The "folks" are wrong and all the situational populism in the world won't make them right. The southern border needs to be controlled, period. The rest of it, amnesty, worker programs, etc..., is another topic.
Posted by: sugarchuck at November 14, 2006 9:55 AMTommy is a very fine name. I try to always address every member of legitimately elected office by his or her title. The most difficult two for me are Vice President Gore and Rep. Tancredo. Al and Tommy just slip through.
We perhaps need to fly everybody out and hash this out over beers or cappuccinos. I don't feel my points are getting across and I feel frustration on your parts.
We all want law and order. We all want to know who is crossing the border. I think that addresses the emergency.
I think my blog brothers and the Tancredoites and the Bill O'Reilly brigades are wrong to seek enforcement only. It would require a level of militarization and aesthetics that would be unpalatable to most people.
I also believe that enforcement-only would damage the economy. I started with economic arguments. Bastiat's "Seen and Unseen" hold the day: these people contribute far more to our economy than they take out. Even with the illegal chaotic nature, the influx has made us wealthier.
Since I want to fix it and do not believe enforcement-only works, I champion "comprehensive" reform. I said a November ago that enforcement and increased immigration are complimentary, not exclusive. For this reason, I thought a compromise House-Enforcement/Senate-Guest Worker could be done in conference.
All hail the seven points! Science be praised!
Posted by: jk at November 14, 2006 10:17 AMI haven't heard any blog brothers argue for enforcement ONLY. We ask for enforcement FIRST.
It can be argued that this amounts to enforcement only for the period until immigration reform passes but don't forget about the 12 million already here. They'll keep their jobs and any negative effect on the supply of labor will be gradual and discernable. This will apply the proper market pressure for the political solution you earnestly seek.
Posted by: johngalt at November 14, 2006 3:53 PMWe're talking compromise, committee legislation. Congress cannot legally bind another Congress and intra-congressional staging requires more trust than 535 legislators can generate or sustain.
You have to bargain: "Tommy," says Senator McCain(he can use first names) "you approve guest workers and a path to citizenship, we'll add 200 miles to your fence." The whole thing gets sausaged up and placed on the President's desk for a signing. No first, no later.
As far as the current residents sustaining the labor pool, I seek a plan that will allow them to leave and come back legally.
Posted by: jk at November 14, 2006 4:30 PM | What do you think? [6]