Pages

Friday, April 19, 2013

Anti Immigration Reform Forces Marshalled to Kill Bill

     There's a determination on the Right to kill reform in its crib. We saw early that some opponents will go anywhere to attack it-even using the Boston Marathon bombings.

      http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/04/oh-no-they-didnt-immigration-opponents.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29

     There is a group that calls itself Federation for American Immigration Reform that is directly opposed to increasing immigration reform. They have a website full of attacks on it with a picture of Rubio's face at the top of the page. There's a huge headline "Amnesty 2013! How You Can Stop It." Another piece purports to explain how immigration hurts Oregonians fiscally and another how it hurts New Mexicans on the fiscal side.

       http://www.fairus.org/

      This group tries to argue that Americans are worse off with immigration; their goal is apparently the less immigration the better. They must not be familiar with the economies of Europe and Japan lately were both are suffering from declining birth rates. A major positive factor in economic growth is population growth. A large part of the story of Japan's 20 year stagnation-there's now hope that Abenomics will turn this finally-has been Japan's total hostility to immigration. It's hard to find a good reason for this opposition that's not about prejudice. The most coherent reason to oppose it seems to be that Latinos don't vote Republican.

      "Right wing gears up to kill immigration reform: Related to the above, just look at the mobilization that’s already underway among conservatives, documented in today’s big New York Times overview of the immigration debate:
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which has called for reducing levels of illegal immigration, organized a two-day summit meeting of nearly four-dozen conservative talk radio hosts from around the country. The hosts descended on the nation’s capital to broadcast their concerns to listeners back home that the new bill amounted to “amnesty.” … Senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama and David Vitter of Louisiana, both Republicans, held a competing news conference during which they denounced the bill.
     "The right is not going to make it easy for the GOP to repair its relations with Latinos or to keep pace with America’s changing demographics."
      Well this goes to the fact that many things that very much need doing engender implacable opposition. This gives more gist to the point of Greg Sargent, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and other immigration reform proponents that true reform is a long game that often takes a long time. Consider how long it took to get healthcare. Even the assassination of President Kennedy wasn't enough to achieve gun control: that also took the assassinations of his brother Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Brady had to wait many years for the Brady bill. 
    The gun control debate is not over but only just starting. Immigration reform on the other hand had it's moment of defeat in 2007. This time I think it has enough to get it over the finish line regardless of the determined opposition. 

3 comments:

  1. We're seeing a fight on the right. There's always been one on this immigration issue. The WSJ has always been pro-immigration. Rush Limbaugh (back in the early 90s) used to poo-poo callers bellyaching about illegals (back when he let the WSJ editorial page influence his opinions). It wasn't until the right wing media entertainment complex (RWMEC) found that they could instigate some ugly emotions on this (which boost their ratings), that conservatives turned against it (~2006).

    Now they're left in the lurch again. Rubio went on Limbaugh and Mark Levin's shows, and Hannity too and got a generally warm reception. Coulter is dead set against it. This is a real split. On the one side you have pragmatists who want the GOP not to be the party of the old Confederacy because they know that's a losing position to be in... and increasingly they're going to be labeled "RINOs" by the hot heads. Puts Hannity is an uncomfortable position... and perhaps Limbaugh too.

    I'm ashamed to admit that I was a member of FAIR back in the early 1990s. I lived in California, but came from a very homogeneous (i.e. Anglo) small desert town, and was galled by the thought that we were being "flooded" with "illegals." (We got all our TV from Los Angeles stations, so that was really my only contact with "illegals" and the "trouble they were causing"). I didn't want us to turn into a "3rd world country" and couldn't believe that our laws were being flaunted so openly. It was all a play to the ugliest of emotions... yes, I'd say even bigotry. Now, having lived over half my life in an area of California which is thick with immigrants, I don't feel the animosity I did at the time. Immigrants are clearly some of the hardest working people I encounter on a day to day basis, and I have nothing against them. They're like anybody else... most are hardworking decent people... you NEVER see Latinos out holding up a cardboard box on the street corner asking for spare change... although you find them gathered at designated places looking for honest work. Do some of them join gangs and commit crimes? Absolutely... just like members of ALL ethnic groups.

    I think perhaps some of these red states, who didn't used to care about immigration too much, are now experiencing what I did as a member of that small homogeneous desert town... that didn't even have many immigrants! They are starting to look around and their anxiety is going up. Perhaps not directly racial anxiety, but cultural anxiety for sure! The RWMEC is fanning the flames for their own purposes: they thrive on ugly emotionalism. I'd like to think, like you do, that it's just a matter of time. The level of anxiety will decrease once people literally GET USED TO IT! Get used to living alongside "the others." We did this with the Irish didn't we? (Perhaps that's what softens Hannity a little bit on this issue). Now who get's worried about Catholics and Irish in the country? What... perhaps 0.1% of the population is still bigoted against them?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Tom. Has the WSJ always been pro-immigration? I seem to have read some anti immigration screeds off of there-if memory serves me. Of course through the years they may have had some pro and anti. If they have been generally pro immigration that's interesting. I am aware the Rupert Murdoch personally-who took over WSJ about 5 years ago-is more or less pro immigration.

    I also don't remember rush making fun of immigration phobia-again not to say it didn't happen but on most things he represents the hard conservative line.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that at this point of so much jealousy hate from those anti immigrants in general the time is came to call and involve in this dirty debate to all the existing U.S.A. Natives Americans Tribes and ask them for their opinions about this delicate matters, and also ask them if there is any blood relationship between them and those lookalike Natives Americans south Americans immigrants that so many call it "Americans "hate so much because of the opinion that they will rip off "our lands " Its funny to seen the descenders of the historical lands rip-offers protecting so much what grand grand Pá obtained with they hands full of natives Americans blood.
    Must be very interesting.

    ReplyDelete