Immigration Watch International (2)

Friday, February 22, 2013

More evidence immigration reform won’t fix GOP’s Latino problem

The Leftist writer below has probably got it right, for the moment anyway. If all Democrat efforts for change get blocked, disillusion with them might set in. At that point the GOP could present themselves as the only ones who can get anything done

This afternoon, Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told NPR that he wouldn’t support an immigration bill containing a path to citizenship:

“People have a pathway to citizenship right now: It’s to abide by the immigration laws, and if they have a family relationship, if they have a job skill that allows them to do that, they can obtain citizenship,” Goodlatte said. “But simply someone who broke the law, came here, [to] say, ‘I’ll give you citizenship now,’ that I don’t think is going to happen.”

Ignoring, for now, the fact that the administration’s proposal (to which Goodlatte is presumably referring to) does not just give unauthorized immigrants citizenship — at the earliest, they’d have to wait eight years — it’s worth noting that not even supporting immigration reform will be enough to fix the GOP’s Latino’s problem.

The new survey from the Pew Research Center shows that 63 percent of Hispanics now approve of Obama’s handling of immigration, a near reversal from November 2011, which 28 percent approved and 59 percent disapproved. While some of this is the product of Obama’s reelection — winning tends to boosts your standing with people — my guess is that a substantial amount of the change has to do with the current conversation over immigration reform, and more importantly, the fair odds for a comprehensive bill.

It seems unlikely, then, that a GOP embrace of comprehensive immigration reform will be enough. Given the huge Democratic lean of Latino voters and their general enthusiasm for Obama’s agenda, the most likely political outcome of a comprehensive bill is higher approval for Obama, and a stronger bond between Latinos and the Democratic Party. At most, Republicans might stem the bleeding with Hispanics.

Repairing the relationship is a much larger project. It will require far more than support for a more sensible immigration regime, because Latinos disagree with Republicans on a range of policy priorities, and even when it comes to basic conceptions of the proper role of government.

SOURCE

What Back Taxes?

Sen. Schumer Ensured Illegals Amnestied in 1986 Would Avoid Paying What They Owed

As a member of the House of Representatives during the last big amnesty, Charles Schumer worked behind the scenes to ensure that illegal aliens being legalized through the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) would not be penalized for past failure to pay taxes.

Now a senator, Schumer, along with Marco Rubio and others, is a key figure in the Gang of Eight, a group that put forth an immigration plan pledging that illegal aliens benefitting from a new amnesty would be required to “earn” their amnesty by “settling their debt to society by paying a fine and back taxes”. Schumer's past machinations cast doubt on the sincerity of this pledge.

These are the conclusions of a new analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies, authored by former Rep. Virgil Goode. The report includes a copy of Schumer's January 1987 letter urging Treasury Secretary James Baker to exempt illegals applying for amnesty from having to disclose past non-payment of taxes.

The report can be found here

Rep. Goode’s report provides a strong basis for skepticism that the tough-sounding requirements spelled out in the Schumer/Rubio amnesty proposal would ever be enforced. Only if enforcement comes before discussion of amnesty is there likely to be any compliance with either immigration laws or tax laws.

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Friday, February 22, 2013

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors