The conservative immigration gamble

I would love to see this immigration bill defeated, but only if a conservative is elected president in 2008. Fred Thompson, Rudy and Mitt can be relied upon to try to bring the immigration bureaucracy to heel, and actually try to enforce the law. But there's a "but."

If Hillary gets elected in 2008, we can expect a re-run of the Doris Meissner corruption scandal when and hundreds of thousands of immigrants were illegally amnestied with the stroke of a pen, to feed voters into the Democrat machine. Clinton won in 1996 at least in part due to that massive immigration fraud.


Conservatives have to ask themselves, "What if Hillary wins in 08?"

In that case it might be marginally better to have the mishmash bill. Any president can refuse to spend money appropriated for enforcement, or divert the spending program into dysfunctional pork. Hillary is an expert at corrupting the bureaucracy, as we saw with the Department of Justice debacle under Janet Reno, which may even now be having ripple effects in the Scooter Libby case. Democrats plant their True Believers in the bureaucracy, and are able to suborn the Executive Branch for many years after leaving office -- viz., the CIA, Justice, State, and even the Clinton Generals in the DOD. The same is true for judicial appointments.

Ted Kennedy must be chortling in his whiskey. He has put Republicans and the conservative base into a bind. If we defeat the Kennedy-Bush bill, the Democrats will demagogue more Hispanics into the welfare net, degrading the GOP voting base by tens of millions of people. If it passes, the new immigration provisions can still be undermined bureaucratically if HillaryBama gets into office next year. It's a win-win for Kennedy.

If this is a poker game we have to recognize that we're in a double bind. If a Reaganesque president doesn't win next year, things may be worse.

One thing is sure: Constant, unremitting pressure will be needed on the immigration front to push for enforcement, regardless of who is in office.

James Lewis blogs at
http://www.dangeroustimes.com/
I would love to see this immigration bill defeated, but only if a conservative is elected president in 2008. Fred Thompson, Rudy and Mitt can be relied upon to try to bring the immigration bureaucracy to heel, and actually try to enforce the law. But there's a "but."

If Hillary gets elected in 2008, we can expect a re-run of the Doris Meissner corruption scandal when and hundreds of thousands of immigrants were illegally amnestied with the stroke of a pen, to feed voters into the Democrat machine. Clinton won in 1996 at least in part due to that massive immigration fraud.


Conservatives have to ask themselves, "What if Hillary wins in 08?"

In that case it might be marginally better to have the mishmash bill. Any president can refuse to spend money appropriated for enforcement, or divert the spending program into dysfunctional pork. Hillary is an expert at corrupting the bureaucracy, as we saw with the Department of Justice debacle under Janet Reno, which may even now be having ripple effects in the Scooter Libby case. Democrats plant their True Believers in the bureaucracy, and are able to suborn the Executive Branch for many years after leaving office -- viz., the CIA, Justice, State, and even the Clinton Generals in the DOD. The same is true for judicial appointments.

Ted Kennedy must be chortling in his whiskey. He has put Republicans and the conservative base into a bind. If we defeat the Kennedy-Bush bill, the Democrats will demagogue more Hispanics into the welfare net, degrading the GOP voting base by tens of millions of people. If it passes, the new immigration provisions can still be undermined bureaucratically if HillaryBama gets into office next year. It's a win-win for Kennedy.

If this is a poker game we have to recognize that we're in a double bind. If a Reaganesque president doesn't win next year, things may be worse.

One thing is sure: Constant, unremitting pressure will be needed on the immigration front to push for enforcement, regardless of who is in office.

James Lewis blogs at
http://www.dangeroustimes.com/