Hey, the great Grover Norquist, long in the pocket of the corporations who want it all, has now zipped out a claim that the Federation for American Immigration Reform [FAIR]’s reasonable approach to patriotic immigration reform will….divide the GOP!
The problem with the pledge recently crafted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which asks lawmakers to vow not to support immigration reform that would include amnesty, is that it’s not an issue that all Republicans can get behind, says Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
In 1986, Americans for Tax Reform put together a pledge for lawmakers to sign promising to “vote against and oppose all efforts to raise taxes.
As of 2014, 219 House members and 41 senators have signed that anti-tax pledge.
Norquist explained to J.D. Hayworth on Newsmax TV’s America’s Forum on that his own group’s pledge worked because it was “an issue that all Republicans agree on.”
The problem with the FAIR pledge is that “it’s not a unifier for Republicans that the tax pledge is—it’ll divide people.”
“Not all Republicans support Ronald Reagan’s version of pro-immigration policies, not everybody supports Steve King’s more restrictionist views,” Norquist said. “So there’s a big division within Republicans.”
Grover Norquist: FAIR Immigration Pledge Will Divide GOP, By Courtney Coren, NewsMax.com, May 5, 2014 [Links added by VDARE.com]
But the article continues:
The FAIR pledge asks lawmakers to oppose measures “that would grant any form of work authorization to illegal aliens,” oppose bills that would increase legal immigration, and oppose legislation “that would increase the overall number of guest workers.”
Norquist said FAIR’s opposition to legal immigration, as well as a guest worker program will be hard for several Republicans to support.
“It’s not just saying they’re against illegal immigration, they’re against anything that would increase immigration to the United States,” he said.
This, Grover, of course is exactly what FAIR Pledge is not saying. Let’s review what FAIR has been saying for years: FAIR has been clear and consistent in calling for what has now not happened: Asking that our elected government officials obey and enforce existing laws and make sure that new ones such as proposed in the onerous S. 744 Gang of Eight (now 7?) don’t keep adding unlimited legal and illegal aliens in an economy suffering from high unemployment, burgeoning health costs and conditions of crowding, poverty and disease—which far lower numbers would have made dramatically less.
But of course Grover goes on with boilerplate responses that don’t solve anything, just repeat the cheap labor crowd’s constant demands for kicking the can down the road NOT at their expense:
“Also you have to oppose what’s important to the farming community, the ranching community, and the high-tech community, which is guest worker programs and H1Bs,” Norquist added.
When it comes to immigration reform, he said, “The easiest parts for free market Reagan Republicans is to say, ‘We ought to have a guest worker program particularly in the farm industry. There are a lot of jobs that are seasonal. It’s hard to make a living if jobs show up for three months and then disappear, but people can come in as guest workers.'”
“And that worked very well during the Eisenhower years with the Bracero program—we had very little illegal immigration during that period because people could come over and work and then head back home again and come back each year with a permit, with a card which made it OK,” he explained.
Yes, Grover, in the Ike years (1953 to 1961) the 1961 US population was 183 million, not over 320 million and the Congress then was enforcing laws which had successfully limited immigration to an average of about 200,000.
Plus why don’t you explain how a guest worker program can work without the abolition of the anchor baby loophole?
Donald A. Collins [email him], is a freelance writer living in Washington DC and a former long time member of the board of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. His views are his own.