Keep The Faith—McCain (and Amnesty) Will Fail
Let`s start with
the good news.
John McCain, the likely (but not absolutely certain)
Republican nominee, will never be president.
(What are my
credentials for such a bold statement? Wait until the last
paragraph of this article!)
Coming after eight
years of the disastrous George W. Bush administration and its
legacy of war,
lunatic immigration enthusiasm, indifference to the
middle class and the
crushing mortgage crisis, McCain would have a tough climb
even if he were the ideal GOP candidate.
Good luck to
McCain campaigning on a platform that echoes Bush and his 30
percent favorable poll rating.
To be sure, it`s a
bummer that Republicans don`t have a solid patriotic
immigration reform candidate that we can count on at the
forefront of the race.
But have faith!
Don`t panic! Amnesty will not come automatically regardless of
who is elected. History and momentum are
on our side.
Here`s an example
of what I mean.
and Obama`s campaigning and especially since McCain`s
resurgence, my in-box has filled up with the direst messages—”
It`s all over now,” “This is the end!” and “Amnesty
correspondents are aghast that Obama endorses
driver`s licenses for illegal aliens. To them, it is beyond
And I agree that,
after watching N.Y. governor
Eliot Spitzer get put through the
sausage grinder on
alien licensing, it is astonishing that any candidate would
touch the subject, especially when it is so easily dodged by
merely saying that states—not the federal government—regulate
And the same can
be said about presidential opinions on amnesty: that issue is
determined in Congress, not the White House.
understand the strength of our position, let`s review what`s
happened in the amnesty wars since Bush took office.
Bush, at the
outset, blindsided many (not
all) of us. We didn`t foresee his fanatical devotion to open
As hard as this
still may be for some Republicans to swallow, it is
impossible—as a practical matter—to be a bigger open borders
advocate than Bush.
Bush`s first out-of-the country trip was to Mexico and the first
foreign leader he invited to the White House was
Vicente Fox. And Bush had barely survived the
dangling chad vote count before he
floated an amnesty trial balloon in
the spring of 2001.
Then, after his
2004 re-election, Bush vowed to use what he perceived as his
accumulated “political capital” to
push for amnesty. Result: nothing!
And yet again
2006 mid-term election and as Bush worked non-stop with the
pro-open border Democrats who controlled Congress, he still
couldn`t push through an amnesty despite a series of passionate
pleas he made in Arizona and during a rare (for a president)
personal visit to Capitol Hill.
In short, for
eight years Bush was repeatedly embarrassed on the immigration
issue by both Republican- and Democratic-controlled Congresses.
Clinton, Obama and McCain were all present and close-up
witnesses to the series of beatings Bush took, is it realistic
to expect that the first matter of business for whoever is
elected will be amnesty?
likely…and that`s not just my opinion either.
During a trip to
Washington D.C. in December I attended separate meetings with
immigration reform leaders that included
NumbersUSA Executive Director
Mark Krikorian and
Steve Camarota of
Center for Immigration Studies,
Hudson Institute Senior Fellow John Fonte and the
Federation for American Immigration Reform. The overwhelming
consensus is that amnesty is “too toxic” a subject and
that it will not rear its ugly head until 2010 at the earliest.
This is a huge
change. Remember that in January 2007, when the
110th U.S. Congress was sworn in, nearly every
immigration reform advocate on Capitol Hill assumed that the
Senate would pass an amnesty again after a tough fight (as it
did in 2006), and that we would ultimately have to stop it
in the House of Representatives.
Beating it back
in the Senate was seen as requiring something of a political
miracle, given the odds against us.
For a solid six
newspaper editorial boards, the majority of columnists and
reporters as well as the leadership of businesses,
unions, civil rights groups, universities, religions (most
Roman Catholic Church) and
ethnocentric lobbyists predicted that “comprehensive
immigration” legislation was inevitable.
They were all
wrong. Instead, the bill was stopped in the Senate without ever
getting to the House.
Senate defeated amnesty and a green card increase in May…and
again in June!
smaller amnesty, the
Dream Act, also considered inevitable because of its impact
children” went down in October.
- As a
result of three consecutive defeats and despite a massive
assault by the print media and the
Chambers of Commerce nationwide predicting bushels of
unpicked rotting fruit, an
AgJobs amnesty never surfaced.
new Democratic leadership in the House headed by illegal
Nancy Pelosi did not even attempt to move an amnesty bill
through a subcommittee—let alone the floor.
John Gingrey (R-GA) introduced
H.R. 938, the Nuclear Family Priority Act that will reduce
the numbers of family sponsored immigrants (chain migration) and
limit them to spouses and minor children. The bill currently
has 31 co-sponsors.
Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) has added 58 co-signers to his
H.R. 1430, the Security and Enhancement Fairness for America
Act that would eliminate the 50,000-diversity visa lottery. This
is a significant move forward in reducing legal immigration.
Congressional Democrats proposed tough enforcement
Heath Shuler (D-NC) introduced the
SAVE Act (Secure America Through Verification and
Enforcement) that bulks up the E-verify system to identify
legal U.S. workers. The bill has been co-signed by 142
representatives—50 Democrats and 92 Republicans.
Pryor (D-ARK) and David Vitter (R-LA) forwarded legislation
similar to Shuler`s in the U.S. Senate.
but incorrectly predicted to be a disastrous year for patriotic
immigration reform—as a guideline.
difference, in 2008, we are forewarned and forearmed.
slightest clue exists that Americans are more receptive to
amnesty than they were in 2007. In fact, the reverse is true.
yourself where we standing by asking this simple question: would
you rather be on our side, winning the battles as we fight them,
La Raza`s team, consistently losing while its captain,
Janet Murguia, becomes more
frighteningly unhinged with each defeat?
Sure, it would
be nice not to have to go to the mat again and again. I`m at a
point in my life where I`d like to write fewer columns so I
could spend more time upgrading my
confident that no matter who wins the November election—the bad,
the worse or the worst—we`ll beat back our opponents as
consistently and as thoroughly as we have for the last several
We have brought
into the limelight of presidential politics—a huge triumph
in itself—and we`ve won on the playing field.
So don`t fall
victim to negativity. Based on our recent record, there`s no
real reason for it.
credentials for saying this? I don`t like to blow my horn. But I
predicted that the McCain-Bush-Kennedy Immigration Surge/
would fail and when it was exhumed, I predicted it would be
reburied. I predicted that
front-runner Giuliani would flame out. I said that Mitt
should stop Hispandering and run against illegal immigration—without
Steve Sailer has
pointed out, Romney “would
have been tarred and feathered and run out of California on a
warned New York`s Spitzer that his driver licence plan would
Gray Davis-type humilation.
So I repeat:
McCain won`t be President. Amnesty will not pass.
Joe Guzzardi [e-mail
him] is the Editor of VDARE.COM Letters to the Editor.
In addition, he is an English teacher at the Lodi Adult School and has
a weekly newspaper column since 1988. This column is exclusive