Party above all

The draft GOP platform, according to the NYT:

...it also supports the expansion of legal immigration, a position that is already drawing opposition from some in the party's conservative base...

On immigration, the platform supports Mr. Bush's call for a new temporary worker program that would also be open to some current illegal immigrants...

It's definitely time for new GOP leadership. Perhaps even a new party that would put the country's interests ahead of those of a small elite.

Why would Bush and Rove encourage millions of people who want real immigration reform and real border control to stay home or even vote for someone else? Their calculation is that those people will hold their nose and vote for Bush; perhaps we should call their hand.

Maybe Karl Rove has been too smart by half. This would be a perfect opportunity for the Democrats to come out in support of real immigration enforcement. If they did that, how many millions of votes could they pick up?

See "Hillary: 'Secure our borders'", "Conservative gets immigration plank" and "Aliens program costs Bush".

If the Democrats could start making real immigration reform and real border control a campaign issue, that might force Bush to take the pledge.

UPDATE: Responding to the first comment: Reagan regretted his amnesty and he also built enforcement provisions into it that were gutted by Ted Kennedy. The latter-named great American is now nosing around the Bush/Fox Amnesty. In the unlikely event that the Bush/Fox Amnesty included stronger immigration enforcement, expect Teddy to work his magic on that just like he did before.

And, the Democrats could not only come out in favor of real immigration reform, they could do it successfully and use it to win the election. By pledging to support border control - and I mean a real pledge, not just happyspeak - they could severly undercut Bush's supposed homeland security advantage. They could show that he's endangering the country, and any talk of TANG would fade from the headlines.

By supporting the rule of law they would gain millions of new voters - both centrist and conservative - who are aghast at Bush's policies.

And, their numbers are the opposite of Bush's. The vast majority of the GOP opposes Bush's plans, but only a small but vocal segment of Democrats supports Open Borders.

The Democrats would lose the support of MALDEF, but where are they going to go? This is the opposite of the "Rovian" calculation: he thinks those who support real immigration reform have nowhere to go. On the other side, those in the Democratic party who support massive immigration are small in number and if the Democrats supported real reform they would be forced to choose between the Green party and holding their noses and voting the Kerry.

See "It takes a Democrat to raise an issue": "Senator [Zell] Miller could energize not just the 82 percent of Republicans who support tighter immigration policies, but he could end up helping Republicans make huge inroads with the 76 percent of Democrats and the 76 percent of Independents who also support tighter immigration policies".

UPDATE 2: Furthermore: The Dems could do this without appearing to be "mean-spirited racist xenophobic anti-humans." They'd simply explain that we need real immigration reform. Kerry came out against driver's licenses for illegal aliens. MALDEF had a hissy fit, but it doesn't seem to have hurt his chances one bit.

Comments

There is no chance that the Democrats are going to touch a tougher immigration plan.

You are right about the GOP needing new leadership?

What are your thoughts about Reagan's Amnesty?