Republican Party's Position on Immigration Reform

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Romney on immigration...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

McCain on immigration...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Fred Thompson on immigration...

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'll support a guest worker program when the 14th amendment is reinterpreted to exclude the progeny of illegals and guest workers. Do away with anchor babies, and I'm in!

[GaryC 7]

I am for a guest worker program as long as they must apply for a visa from their home countries. No amnesty at all for any of them. I said it before and I will say it again, I will vote for the candidate that most closely reflects my views. Illegal aliens and how to solve the problem is a very important subject for me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I am for a guest worker program as long as they must apply for a visa from their home countries. No amnesty at all for any of them. I said it before and I will say it again, I will vote for the candidate that most closely reflects my views. Illegal aliens and how to solve the problem is a very important subject for me.

So which view most closely represents the Republican Party platform, the RNC or yours?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

(dated Aug. 2006)

Leading conservatives recently sent an open letter to President Bush and congressional leaders stating that “enforcement first” measures should be central to any immigration policy reform. The conservatives, including such right-wing luminaries as William Buckley, Phyllis Shlafly, and William Bennett, called for the country's political leaders to remember that “we are in the middle of a global war on terror.”

The conservative manifesto comes on the heels of another statement on immigration policy by pro-immigration conservatives published in the Wall Street Journal on July 10. “The Conservative Statement for Immigration Reform,” signed by 33 prominent conservatives including Jack Kemp, William Kristol, and George Shultz, calls for the creation of new legal channels for immigrants “drawn to the jobs created by our economy.” That same day a Journal editorial titled “Conservatives and Immigration” reiterated the paper's “longstanding position favoring open immigration.”

This summer the immigration debate in the United States has heated up as conservatives of all tendencies—social conservatives, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, free-market conservatives, national security conservatives, and Republican Party stalwarts—seek to frame the debate in their own terms.

In part, it's a battle over contending right-wing ideologies. It's also a high-stakes race to determine which approach to the immigration crisis will win the most votes for Republicans.

Before Sept. 11, 2001 immigration restrictionists were marginalized in Congress and had little pull in the Republican Party. Immigration received little or no attention from the right's battery of think tanks and policy institutes, except for single-issue institutes such as the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The breakdown this spring of bipartisan attempts to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill demonstrated the new-found political strength of immigration restrictionists. Although a comprehensive bill that included legalization and guest-worker provisions did pass the Senate, it was blocked in the House, where restrictionists, led by Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), have since Sept. 11 succeeded in gaining control of the immigration agenda.

Pro-immigration sentiment runs deep in the Senate, whose members have traditionally reflected the liberal immigration views of Corporate America and the party leadership. But this time around the increasing clout of the immigration restrictionists was quickly apparent as even the proponents of legalization dressed up their bills in the language of “national security” and “law and order.”

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/3405

[peejay 327]

* Provides incentives for temporary workers to return to their home countries and families.

Like a limit on their time here?

There is zero credibility in the US government's will or ability to enforce any employment or immigration laws.

Why pass and buy into a "pig in a poke" with new laws and new promises that expand programs that are incompetently run now? They haven't lived up to their promises for 20+ years and several rounds of "immigration reform".

The American people want to see results, not bullshit promises and expansion of already incompetently run programs and government agencies.

Lets enforce the laws and fulfill the promises already made in 1986 and 1996 before we let the politicians pull the wool over our eyes again.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

* Provides incentives for temporary workers to return to their home countries and families.

Like a limit on their time here?

There is zero credibility in the US government's will or ability to enforce any employment or immigration laws.

Why pass and buy into a "pig in a poke" with new laws and new promises that expand programs that are incompetently run now? They haven't lived up to their promises for 20+ years and several rounds of "immigration reform".

The American people want to see results, not bullshit promises and expansion of already incompetently run programs and government agencies.

Lets enforce the laws and fulfill the promises already made in 1986 and 1996 before we let the politicians pull the wool over our eyes again.

I'm well aware of your viewpoint, peejay. The point is that the long standing traditional position on immigration for the Republican Party has been quite different, and yet, many Republicans, like Gary above, are simply saying, "Well that position does not represent the Party." Just whose Party is it? In other words, it helps to know where your Party actually stands, has stood on the issue of immigration before claiming to be the voice of what the Party has stood for.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

from the WSJ (2006)

According to the most recent Tarrance Group survey, 75% of likely GOP voters support immigration reform that combines increased border and workplace enforcement with a guest-worker system for newcomers and a multiyear path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here--provided that they meet certain requirements like living crime free, learning English and paying taxes. "Support for this plan," the poll found, "is strong even among base Republican voter demographics like strong Republicans (77%), very conservative Republicans (72%), white conservative Christians (76%), and those who listen to news talk radio on a daily basis (72%)."

House Republican leaders, who passed an immigration bill last year focusing only on enforcement, want to frame this debate as a choice between more border security or "amnesty" for the 11 or 12 million illegals already here. But that's a false choice. A guest-worker program that lets market forces rather than prevailing political winds determine how many economic migrants can enter the country actually enhances security. How? By reducing pressure on the border, just as the Bracero guest-worker program in the 1950s and early 1960s did.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110008632

[GaryC 7]

Push polls suck Steven. It's dishonest on the part of the polling company.

New Zogby Poll Shows Americans Overwhelmingly Support Enforcement Over Amnesty

An opinion survey conducted by the Zogby polling organization on behalf of the Center for Immigration Studies shows that by better than a two-to-one ratio, Americans prefer the enforcement approach offered in the immigration bill passed by the House of Representatives last December to the Senate’s guest worker amnesty bill. The poll, conducted in late April amidst a heated national and congressional debate about immigration policy, found that 64 percent of Americans favor legislation that includes enforcement measures only, while only 30 percent would approve of a bill that includes amnesty and new guest worker programs.

Public support for the House enforcement-only approach cut across all political, racial and ethnic groups. While President Bush has actively promoted an illegal alien amnesty and massive increases in guest workers (who, in reality, will not be guests but permanent residents), 81 percent of Republican voters disagree, as do 57 percent of registered Democrats, 72 percent of independents, and even 53 percent of registered Hispanic voters.

The significance of the Zogby poll is that it refutes numerous “push polls” that have been conducted over the past several months, designed to create the appearance that Americans support “a pathway to citizenship” for millions of illegal aliens. President Bush and other amnesty supporters have actively engaged in an effort to convince the American public that the only options for dealing with the illegal immigration crisis are mass legalization or mass deportation. In an April speech in Orange County, California, President Bush justified amnesty as the only practical solution because, in his words, “we cannot deport 12 million people. It’s just not practical.”

President Bush’s contention is a political straw man, as proved by the Zogby poll. When provided realistic enforcement alternatives to amnesty, the American public overwhelmingly supports a comprehensive strategy that includes deportation, but also enhanced border enforcement, work site enforcement, secure work authorization documents, limiting access by illegal aliens to non-essential benefits and services, and greater involvement by state and local law enforcement. These strategies compose the core of H.R. 4437, the legislation approved by the House.

FAIR has prepared a seven-point strategy called Encouraged Reverse Migration that lays out in detail how a rational enforcement approach would result in millions of illegal aliens getting discouraged and leaving on their own.

Among the key findings of the Zogby poll are:

* 74 percent of Americans believe that there is an ample supply of workers in this country, versus just 15 percent who believe that more foreign labor is needed.

* Only 19 percent of Americans believe that the government has made a serious effort to combat illegal immigration.

* 73 percent of Americans have little or no confidence in the government’s ability to screen out terrorists and criminals if an illegal alien amnesty is enacted

* While the Senate and the Bush Administration are calling for large increases in immigration, only 2 percent of Americans support any increases at all.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?page...earch_jun06nl11

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Push polls suck Steven. It's dishonest on the part of the polling company.

I'm not debating poll numbers, Gary, but the position of the Republican Party on immigration. You've said that Bush doesn't represent the Party's position, but I've given more than ample supply of facts that show his position is right in line with the traditional position of the GOP. While the GOP certainly has room for different viewpoints on immigration, I think you've convinced yourself that your hardline stance on immigration is lock and step with the GOP's stance and it isn't nor has it been.

[SMOKE 1,426]

So we either have the two major political parties way out-of-sync with the American People, or.....perhaps some people here think their views on immigration are more popular than they really are...hmmm.

or we have left wing whine bag that does not realize people don't agree w/ his "america should just bend over & take it" views on illegal immigration. Oklahoma has done something about the federal gov't non enforcement, & now you & the rest of the cheerleaders can sit back & watch this law spread across the country. like it or not steven, you are in the minority on this issue.

[peejay 327]

Push polls suck Steven. It's dishonest on the part of the polling company.

I'm not debating poll numbers, Gary, but the position of the Republican Party on immigration. You've said that Bush doesn't represent the Party's position, but I've given more than ample supply of facts that show his position is right in line with the traditional position of the GOP. While the GOP certainly has room for different viewpoints on immigration, I think you've convinced yourself that your hardline stance on immigration is lock and step with the GOP's stance and it isn't nor has it been.

I really don't trust either party when it comes to fulfilling promises. That said...as far as immigration enforcement goes...the Republicans are far more outspoken, transparent, and trustworthy than the Democrats. Not to mention that most Republicans have leaned toward enforcement and away from amnesty as a solution. Of course you have crossovers from both parties, but the Republicans are by far more aggressive on the enforcement side. The Democrats just pander to whoever they are with at the moment.

In the past it has been Democratic cheap votes vs. Republican cheap labor that has gotten us into the bloody mess we are in now. The pink elephant in the room is too big to ignore anymore and the American people are pissed off at how it has turned out to our detriment. The politicians for too long have made decisions that were good for themselves, their parties, and their high dollar cronies while screwing the bulk of the general American public.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

I'll support a guest worker program when the 14th amendment is reinterpreted to exclude the progeny of illegals and guest workers. Do away with anchor babies, and I'm in!

until i see some firm way to keep track of them in the usa, i can't support a gwp. i do agree to the 14th amendment reinterpretation