Wednesday, March 29, 2006

A Good Fence, More Good Neighbors

Dick Morris has advice on “How the GOP can survive the immigration debate” (The Hill, 3.29.06):

In 1964, . . . when Goldwater ran for president rejecting civil rights legislation, it doomed GOP chances among black voters for at least the next 40 years. Will the Republican need to appease its anti-immigration base similarly vitiate President Bush’s efforts to appeal to Hispanic voters?

Hispanics, . . having voted for Al Gore by 30 points in 2000, . . . sufficiently trusted Bush to back Sen. John Kerry by only an eight-point margin. If the Republican Party now turns its back on these newly swing Latino voters, it may permanently lose its ability to win America’s fastest-growing voter group, perhaps dooming the party altogether.

But the demands of the GOP base must also be accommodated. Here’s how:

. . .The GOP base wants a fence. It is vital to the entire concept of whether or not we can control our borders. All efforts to beef up manpower on the border have failed to stem the daily flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico. A fence is the only way to do it. By backing a fence and demonstrably taking control of our southern border, the Republican Party will appease the demands of its base.

But to prevent disaster among Latino voters, it must accompany the fence with a more liberal policy on guest workers and criminalization. . .

The GOP base, happy with the fence, will probably go along with it. Whatever the Congress needs to do to differentiate the guest-worker program from amnesty it should do, but it must pass a generous guest-worker program. . . With a border fence to enforce the difference, a guest-worker program will work politically.

And it is also important for the Republicans to avoid symbolic acts like making it a felony to be here illegally or to employ someone who is. . . Deportation is and will be the answer to those we catch — and deportation has new meaning with a fence in place.

Yes to the fence, yes to guest workers and no to greater criminalization.

No comments: