Class and Amnesty

Facebook 0
Twitter
LinkedIn 0
Reddit 0
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon 0
WhatsApp
Email
Print

amnesty

 

 

Usually forgotten in the debates over illegal immigration is the class aspect.  A good example of this is why the House  GOP leadership embraced amnesty yesterday.  For Democrats an embrace of amnesty is obvious:  more Democrat voters down the road based on current voting patterns.  The reason why Republicans would agree to such a plan brings out the class dimension.

I can only imagine the amount of money the Chamber of Commerce and other pro-illegal alien groups must be throwing at the House GOP leadership for them to embrace amnesty, a policy hated by almost all rank and file Republicans.  Go here to read about the plan proffered by the GOP leadership which is barely disguised amnesty for illegal aliens.  The desire of many businesses for a continuing stream of illegal aliens from south of the border, drawn by the lure of eventual legalization, as occurred with the 1986 amnesty, is a betrayal of our own native workers at a time of high unemployment.  Senator Jeff Sessions (R.AL) explains this largely ignored aspect of the immigration debate:

Once again, we have  the same recycled talking points—crafted, it would appear, with the help of the same consultants and special interests. Each time, the talking points are followed by legislation that fails to match the promises—legislation that, at bottom, ensures only the amnesty and not the enforcement. The leadership talking points look like an attempted repackaging of the tired Gang-of-Eight-style formula that has been proposed, rejected, and re-proposed for years. It is no surprise then that Senator Schumer and former Speaker Pelosi are so encouraged by these developments. But while Democrat leaders and interest groups appear satisfied, this document was not voted upon by the GOP conference and clearly does not represent the consensus of Republican members. Is it not time we pushed aside the stale proposals stitched together in concert with the same lobbyists, and asked what is in the best interests of the hardworking American citizen—and the nation?

In three fundamental respects, the House leaders’ emerging immigration proposal appears to resemble the Senate plan: it provides the initial grant of amnesty before enforcement; it would surge the already unprecedented level of legal lesser-skilled immigration to the U.S. that is reducing wages and increasing unemployment; and it would offer eventual citizenship to a large number of illegal immigrants and visa overstays.

Rank-and-file House Republicans are the last line of defense for working Americans. Now is the time for rank-and-file House Republicans to claim the leadership mantle and to say, firmly: our goal is to transition millions of struggling Americans from welfare and joblessness to work and rising wages. The President has not only dismantled enforcement but has delivered for a small group of special interests and CEOs by forcing through the Senate legislation that drastically surges the future flow of new immigrant workers competing against unemployed Americans. There is a reason why these increases are never mentioned in the slick ads and radio spots: the American people reject them. Americans earning under $30,000 prefer a reduction to an increase in current record immigration levels by a 3-1 margin. Republicans have the chance to be the one party giving voice to the real-world concerns of the everyday worker whose wages have been flat or falling for more than 10 years.

House leaders should support—not ignore—the immigration officers pleading for help. They should stand with—not against—unemployed American workers. And they should expose—not join—the President’s campaign to pass an immigration plan that will hollow out our shrinking middle class.

The class aspect of the immigration debate is usually ignored, but it is real and biting.  Elites get cheap servants and businesses get workers willing to take rock bottom wages.  Ordinary Americans get to compete for jobs with illegal aliens and local communities and States get to pay for the increased social services required by this policy.  Bravo to Senator Sessions and his willingness to speak up for the losers in any plan for amnesty.  A rational plan for legalization once the border is completely sealed is one thing, this is quite another.

More to explorer

“God, Why ?” Questions, Part II

Why, God ? – Depends On Who’s Asking Atheists, agnostics, and believers ask the “God, why ?” questions in different ways. A

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

Sejanus: I have no need of a trial to prove your guilt. Gallus: A song sung by every small-town corrupt policeman, which

Open Thread

    The usual Open Thread rules apply:  be concise, be charitable and, above all, be amusing!

15 Comments

  1. “The class aspect of the immigration debate is usually ignored, but it is real and biting. Elites get cheap servants and businesses get workers willing to take rock bottom wages. ….”

    This would be a great bulletin insert. IMO there could be one little addition and that is :
    “Ordinary American citizens get to compete for lower paying jobs with people who are not citizens ”

    As we know from the life of St. Paul, citizenship matters.

  2. The Democrats and liberals want more 100%-state dependent voters and warriors for the class wars.

    The Republicans and Wall Street//Chamber of Commerce want less stuff for media lying and cheap labor.

    The middle class gets it in the end.

    Remember, everything them social justice guys say is pure feces of the male of the bovine species.

    Bend over. Here it comes again.

  3. “Hey, the President has all-time low favorability ratings, and the configuration of the House and Senate just about guarantees that the GOP adds to its majority in the House and pickup the majority in the Senate. What can we do to completely stop our momentum? I got it! Let’s put all of our efforts behind something that most of the public doesn’t care about, and those that do represent a large chink of our base, and they absolutely oppose it. Cha-ching!” – Well overpaid GOP consultant.

  4. I guess as an attorney you are accustomed to reading statements with an eye to discovering what the enunciated language allows the other guy to do to your client. I did not see the salient points of the statement as such where you see them

    Reince Priebus in particular has conducted himself in recent days in a manner that should induce the Republican National Committee to remove him from his position ASAP.

  5. I wonder if the bishops of the US, because of the humanitarian concerns, have considered meeting and working with the bishops of Mexico (and Central America) to find ways of improving life where the people are, that they might be salt and leaven and “bloom where they are planted”.
    The poorest and the most needy don’t get to emigrate. The bishops put pressure on government in this country, but what about going to the roots of the desire to emigrate illegally, at great cost and in great danger.
    Right now some Church leaders in the US and in central America provide the language and the philosophical framework for socialism. They don’t give the people the linguistic framework for capitalism, although, they at least seem to recognize the benefits to be gained here in this economy.
    As the pope speaks about capitalism he may also want to speak about its obvious benefits- people are voting with their feet, even if they words/philosophy given them by their political and religious leaders may be marxist, they are moving toward capitalism as fast as they can.
    It would be great if the bishops could throw some effort into educating front line priests and people to be able to articulate conservativism. …. and (continuing my dream) these immigrants who are now going to become citizens would become the kind of Catholic Americans Gov. Cuomo etal. dread.

  6. Roger Simon, “A Modest proposal for Immigration Reform: Illegal immigrants, assuming they have lived here for a decent period of time and have not committed a felony, can have amnesty, but they can NEVER be allowed to vote. They can do anything else that is legal, but if they want to vote — or run for office or practice law in our country, as just happened in California — they must return home and go through the normal immigrant application process, however long that may take until they have citizenship.”

    Here’s my Modest Proposal for Preventing Illegal Invaders From Being a Burthen to Their Neighbors and America, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick: Put a bounty on them.

  7. Ok explain to me this legal status that is Not Citizenship . I don’t get it. Is there ant meaning or I privilege attached to being citizen . Why become a citizen ?

    Pay taxes?

  8. Americans earning under $30,000 prefer a reduction to an increase in current record immigration levels by a 3-1 margin. If this is true, and Jeff Sessions is a guy who does his homework, why is this not on the lips of every Republican who steps in front of a camera? How on God’s green earth would that simple statement get spun away from them by the media in 2014?

  9. If this is true, and Jeff Sessions is a guy who does his homework, why is this not on the lips of every Republican who steps in front of a camera? How on God’s green earth would that simple statement get spun away from them by the media in 2014?

    ==

    It does not register with them because they only converse with people drawn from a narrow circle.

  10. tamsin,
    .

    Art Deco is being charitable.
    .

    Cheap labor!
    .

    Evidently, the rump, professional GOP is in bed with the Chamber of Commerce and the monied interests.
    .

    They fear and loathe the tea party, in particular, and conservatives, in general. That’s one reason they keep their imbecilic mouths shut about the Obama/Holder/IRS wars on conservatives and the American way of life.

  11. Y’all realize that many voters believe our Catholic bishops pump scamnesty because they wish to fill the pews and collections baskets, yes?

  12. Perhaps the GOP would make more headway toward a sensible immigration policy if it could do a better job of explaining why unchecked illegal immigration is bad for EVERYONE — not just U.S. citizens, but illegal immigrants themselves (who place themselves in a situation where they can be perpetually exploited by employers and by the federal government) and Hispanics in general (who are subject to constant suspicion of being illegals even when they are not). It does not necessarily have to be framed as an us-vs.-them issue, although I suppose that’s just how politicians operate.

  13. In addition, I think the Church would be wise to make a distinction between the general human charity and respect due to all people, which of course would include immigrants regardless of their legal status, and the rights of U.S. citizenship, which are NOT due to everyone but only to legitimate U.S. citizens.

    It’s one thing to say that the Church should welcome everyone to attend Mass and receive the sacraments, or that its members should voluntarily offer food, clothing, shelter, etc. to a family in need without having to check their immigration status first. It’s something else entirely to argue that federal and state governments should make no distinction between citizens and non-citizens for purposes of voting or for other benefits or privileges that are funded by taxpayers (e.g. holding driver’s licenses or receiving Medicaid or TANF).

    There’s also the fact that many, perhaps most, illegal immigrants use fake or stolen Social Security numbers — often assigned to them by the persons who arrange for their passage to the U.S. — to obtain jobs; this can lead to all sorts of headaches for the persons who legitimately hold that SSN and constitutes a form of theft.

    As for the “rule of law” argument, I’d say as I have for years, that it would be better to have a more liberal legal immigration process and consistently enforce it than to have a process that is strict on paper but which is enforced selectively or not at all.

  14. The virtue of Charity is an issue of the human soul and one’s private conscience. The crime here is that the government has taken over the virtue of charity and demands obedience from the people and the bishops are campaigning that the government should oversee amnesty. Immigration is under the control of the government but amnesty is not.

Comments are closed.