California Republicans are rightly worried about their future in the state. Even as the GOP tapped into the national Tea Party zeitgeist and achieved a stunning victory in mid-term elections, the party received a shellacking in California, one delivered, in large part, by a growing Latino electorate concerned about the harsh attitudes on immigration offered up and down the Republican ticket.
Seldom in politics do you get a chance for a quick redo -- but one is coming. Sometime in the lame duck session of Congress, the House and Senate are slated to take a vote on the Dream Act, legislation that would allow young people who entered the country illegally a path to citizenship.
To be eligible for the Dream Act, one would have to have arrived before the age of 16 and have finished high school and completed some college or military service. Opponents fret that this will encourage more illegal immigration; proponents argue that these young people did not make the choice to come illegally and could contribute mightily to our American future.
But forget about the policy questions and think about the politics. The Dream Act -- unlike other aspects of immigration policy -- actually has widespread support amongst Californians. A November 2010 LA Times/USC College poll showed that 76 percent of Californians support granting citizenship to people who came to the country illegally as children and meet the Dream Act requirements. Latinos are the most enthusiastic -- but white voters are 75 percent in favor and even 68 percent of Republicans support such an approach, with nearly half of those interviewed strongly supportive.
This is not just a statewide mandate but a statewide interest. Over one-fourth of the young people likely to meet national Dream Act requirements are Californians -- and they include valedictorians, heads of student government, and others whose skills are needed by a state working to regain its economic footing.
Support from California Republicans is therefore low-cost and high-yield and reflective of their constituents. For example, David Dreier (R) of San Dimas (and the foothills of the San Gabriel Valley) is slated to continue as head of California's Republican Caucus -- and his district is thirty percent Latino and nineteen percent Asian Pacific. Yet his legislative focus has been entirely on border security and tougher enforcement -- and he has historically opposed Dream Act-style legislation.
This is a chance for California Republicans to represent their state and not just their party. It's also an opportunity for them to call the Democrats' bluff. Buried in the same LA Times/USC pool is another startling fact: about 68 percent of Latinos support a guest worker program, just about the same margin as white voters. Such a guest worker program has often been considered part of comprehensive immigration reform -- but resisted by Democrats in Congress. Passing the Dream Act now could open a broader and more balanced discussion of how best to move the needle on immigration reform.
Reflecting the people's will is what our representatives are supposed to do. They will have a chance to do just that soon. The dreams of more than half a million young Californians -- and the long-term future of the Republican Party -- may hang in the balance.
Mexico, our neighbor to the south, would very much like to move in, en masse. And, for years they have tried to manipulate the US political system to their collective advantage. Will they succeed, next year? Or, or, will they finally decide it's time to stop trying to live off the United States and instead start doing more for themselves? Familiarity breeds contempt, and over the years, our relations with Mexico have degraded, as a result. I say 'no mas' to illegal immigration, and 'please take it back to your country' to the rest of the people trying to manipulate the American public. Americans have problems, Mexicans have problems, the people living in the countries are best suited to solving them. Jumping the border is illegal. So is all the dope pushing. Let's put a stop to all of it, and have a real border that both countries can respect. So, wake up from the DREAM, and do what's right, here.
The DREAM Act will cost the U.S. Taxpayers $6.2 billion each & every year it's enacted
Expecting the U.S. Taxpayers to support granting amnesty "gift" to illegals is one thing
And then expecting the U.S. Taxpayer to pick up the tab ~ is considered double dipping
I assert, Dr. Pastor can fund it
We don't "depend" on labor from Mexico, big business, the wealthy, special interests depend on it but WE certainly don't.
Every job category that had high levels of illegal labor has accordingly high levels of unemployment and wage stagnation.
What we need is an end to flooding the market with labor so we can force employers to pay us a fair wage.
long live the roman republic!
and just a question for you not from the border area. have you ever been to nuevo laredo? welcome to third world america.
Second: entry without authorization is an administrative infraction, not a crime. To call them "lawbreaker" is way overblown.
"Illegal aliens should be removed from California as quickly as possible."
The scourge of xenophobic bigotry should be immediately removed from society, too... but both are clearly impossible.
Since removal is impossible, other approaches which are actually possible must instead be considered.
Productive, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens are preferable to a non-productive, excluded, and resentful underclass.
Yes, it is sad for your simplistic, self-serving myopia that more brown people will become equal citizens, but bigotry is a luxury that we just can't afford.
Neither are we responsible for their parents actions.
"Second: entry without authorizatÂion is an administraÂtive infractionÂ, not a crime. To call them "lawbreakeÂr" is way overblown.'
Working here illegally, driving illegally and document fraud certainly are crimes. Have you seen what's happening in Puerto Rico with their birth certificate situation? Yeah, we need more of that.
"The scourge of xenophobic bigotry should be immediatelÂy removed from society, too... but both are clearly impossibleÂ."
Someone suggests simple deportation after breaking our law instead of a much harsher punishment and that's xenophobic? Explain that to me..
"Since removal is impossibleÂ, other approaches which are actually possible must instead be consideredÂ."
Self deporting is very possible and it's an approach that works very well.
"ProductiveÂ, law-abidinÂg, tax-paying citizens are preferable to a non-producÂtive, excluded, and resentful underclassÂ."
Yes but since they're our fellow citizens on the far left we're stuck with them, unfortunately.
"Yes, it is sad for your simplisticÂ, self-serviÂng myopia that more brown people will become equal citizens, but bigotry is a luxury that we just can't afford."
You seem to affording it quite well.
NO AMNESTY! NO AMNESTY! NO AMNESTY! Do I have to say it again? OK. NO AMNESTY!
Minor children are not responsible for the acts of their parents. They are here, and have largely been raised from a young age as Americans.
There is no possibility of "getting rid" of such people... your enraged, self-serving bigotry notwithstanding.
You bluster about "problems" and "facts," but remain blissfully unaware that said "problems" exist only in your own fevered imagination, for the actual fact is the long-term net contribution of such people to the country always greatly outweighs any short-term costs... which are largely baseless trumped up nonsense anyway.
You've not proven a single thing you've said. Not one.
You talk quite a bit but your arguments have no facts.
Care to share some with the ignorant masses?