The WSJ sets up a straw man argument by claiming people with anti-illegal stance are really anti-immigrant.
The article also implies that Pete Wilson's immigration stance let California become Democratic is the biggest red herring fallacy that I've seen in a while. Pete Wilson got re-elected as governor in 1994 and 59% of Californians supported Prop 187! California is a staunchly liberal Democratic state and there are many reasons why Wilson's successor was a Democrat. Two of the Senate's most liberal Democrat members, Boxer and Feinstein, are from California. Is Pete Wilson to blame for their
election in 1992 as well?
As for the false dilemna fallacy between reducing big government and securing our borders ... a person can support both! This article is purely complimation of logical fallacies.
As a final side note, it was also pointed out to me that Spc. Lito Santos-Dilone is a legal immigrant, another sleight-of-hand.
Earlier this year President Bush was shaking hands at the national Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in Washington when Spc. Lito Santos-Dilone, an American soldier who lost his left leg in Iraq, grabbed his hand. "I'm not a citizen of the United States, and I want to be one," he told the president....
There is no disputing that illegal aliens are a tempting political target. If there is one issue that inflames the right more than 12 million people in this country illegally, it is that many of them are also on the public dole. Illegal aliens cashing in on government-provided health care, education and even food stamps has done more to drive the immigration debate toward increasing border security and away from increasing the number of legal immigrants than perhaps any other single issue. In the age of the welfare state, there is little appetite among the taxpaying public to bring in more people at the bottom of the income scale.
The temptation is to capitalize on this voter anger with anti-illegal-immigration policies. This is the route California Republicans took in the 1990s. In 1994 Gov. Pete Wilson considered reforming welfare too difficult and instead set about enacting policies to deny illegal immigrants government benefits--not an unpopular thing to do. But the results were disastrous for his party. By the end of the decade Democrats controlled every statewide elected office as well as both houses of the Legislature. In addition to being turned out of power, the GOP also saw the centerpiece to the Wilson reform agenda--Proposition 187--ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge--a decision Mr. Wilson's successor, Democrat Gray Davis, decided not to appeal.
Regardless of where one stands on the get-tough approach to immigration reform, it's clear that the 1990s was a squandered opportunity for Republicans in California. The GOP ended the decade without enacting much in the way of meaningful and lasting reforms in the largest and arguably most influential state in the union. And with the implosion of the GOP, big-spending Democrats led the state to near bankruptcy. No wonder Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is unable to find a political consensus to rein in the power of the state. For much of the 1990s, the California GOP wasn't the party of limited government, it was the party of limited government for some.
California aside, Republicans have a more positive example from the 1990s. While Gov. Wilson went down the anti-illegal-alien road, Republicans won control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years by promising to reduce the overall size of government. Just over a year after the stunning 1994 election victory, Republicans cornered a Democratic president into mouthing the words "the era of big government is over." Soon he signed into law sweeping welfare reforms. These reforms, though once controversial, have become so embedded in the political culture in Washington that renewing and even expanding them this year has drawn little if any objection from Democrats.
Today the Republican Party again confronts the choice of whether to cut the overall size of the welfare state--by reforming Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other entitlements--or going after illegal aliens. And so far it appears the GOP is heading down the same road California Republicans took a decade ago. Faced with a tough re-election cycle this year, congressional Republicans opted to make immigration reform a central issue. Rather than lasting reform, however, what the party is getting so far is gridlock, or, worse, reforms that would strengthen the GOP's political opposition....
This isn't a position Republicans had to put themselves in. Voters angry over the cost of illegal immigration are also angry over the steep price they pay through taxes for generous government benefits. Getting big government off the back of taxpayers once united the party and handed it the confidence of the voting public.
Wall St Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment