GOP's amnesty surrender
On Monday, Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake and Marco Rubio emerged with an offer of a Republican surrender to Barack Obama.
We will accept amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens, said the four, but you must get serious about securing the border against yet another invasion. Only after an independent commission agrees that the border has been secured will the 11 million be given green cards and put on a path to citizenship.
The next day in Las Vegas, Obama, reveling in victory, instructed the four waving their white flags that the defeated do not dictate terms.
Get cracking on comprehensive reform now, Obama instructed, or I send my own bill to Capitol Hill, granting amnesty to every illegal alien, with no preconditions.
A graduate of the Saul Alinsky school, Obama can smell the defeatism in the Republican Party. But why are the Republicans surrendering their “no amnesty” stand, which has been party policy since America rallied to the GOP's opposition to amnesty in 2007, when a national grass-roots uprising routed McCain, Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush himself?
McCain fears the future. We got 27 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012, and the reason is our position on illegal aliens, he argues. Either we capitulate to Obama and La Raza or we are doomed.
Why is McCain wrong?
Republican capitulation on amnesty is not going to win Hispanic votes, but it will demoralize the party base.
When those 11 million illegals have completed their path to citizenship and become voters, why should they, or the millions more family members they will have brought in by then, vote for the GOP? Hispanics are not small-government people. They believe in and benefit disproportionately from Big Government.
Some 53 percent of Hispanic children are born out of wedlock, and 52 percent of Hispanic families are headed by single women.
Big Government provides their kids with Head Start before school, free schooling, Pell Grants and student loans for college, along with two or three free meals a day at school.
Big Government provides food stamps, welfare for Mom and earned income tax credit checks should she work. Big Government subsidizes her housing and provides free health care for the family through Medicaid.
Why would these folks vote for a Republican Party that promises to downsize the Big Government upon which they depend for sustenance, security and survival?
The 11 million illegals, who came with nothing, are poorer than the Hispanics who are already citizens. When we make citizens of them and the family members they bring in, our welfare state will explode and the social safety net will sag under the weight of millions of new beneficiaries.
Republicans win between 27 and 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. Add 10 million new Hispanic voters, and Democrats will realize a net gain of 2 million to 4 million new voters.
There goes the Southwest, and there goes the presidency — forever.
This is about more than economics. It is about our sovereignty, our security, our national culture and our national identity.
This fight is not yet lost, and even should we lose, is it not better to go down fighting than to ask for terms from Barack Obama?
Pat Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Researchers: U.S. lacks proving ground for nuclear energy innovations
- Polamalu could be next in long line of Steelers greats given unceremonial exit
- Charges held for court in robbery of Elizabeth gas station with machete
- Over the falls — Cucumber Falls that is — go 3 Kayakers in OhioPyle
- Experts: Clinton took dangerous path with email system
- Penguins’ Lovejoy embracing defensive pairing with Pouliot
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- Rossi: Kang would benefit from less attention
- Wolf reverses Corbett, says deal between Highmark, UPMC doesn’t limit continuity of care to very ill
- Race toward bigger phones eases
- Big banks’ levels of capital strong, Federal Reserve finds