Election 2010: No Moratorium Candidates Yet—But Don’t Lose Hope

A very interesting post from http://www.vdare.com/ about an Immigration Moratorium. This follows this post about an immigrant gang terrorizing the United States and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso across from the recent Juarez shooting. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Election 2010: No Moratorium Candidates Yet—But Don’t Lose Hope
By Washington Watcher
As I reported in a recent column (Yeah, Yeah, “Attrition Through Enforcement”—But It’s No Substitute For An Immigration Moratorium, March 1, 2010), not one elected official in Washington D.C. has called for a moratorium on legal immigration. Indeed, despite record unemployment, not one has even made an issue of just reducing legal immigration to protect American jobs.
Former congressmen Tom Tancredo and Virgil Goode are very sorely missed in this respect.
With the current Congress hopeless, patriotic immigration reform’s best bet is to get some fresh faces who are willing to stand up for American workers and make cutting legal immigration a priority in their election campaigns.
There has never been a better political climate. Americans are fed up with the Democrats. The Tea Party movement is fed up with the conservative establishment. Immigration is a perfect wedge issue to attract “Hillary Democrats”—union members and other working class Democrats who are seeing their jobs disappear.
Unfortunately, however, no major candidate to date has called for moratorium.
Even well-known immigration patriots running for office, like J.D. Hayworth (AZ Senate) Senate and Lou Barletta (PA-6), avoid the platitudes about legal immigration, but their platforms only have an “illegal immigration” section. (In fairness, I expect Barletta to bring it up later.) John Hostettler, who was a reliably lower immigration vote in the House and is running for the Senate in Indiana, is a little slow in writing his platform but says that immigration is forthcoming.
What about outside of these races? I get lots of e-mails from conservative Republican fundraisers, so I took a look at a few of the races with fresh faces to get a random sampling aspiring conservative Congressmen.
About half do not mention immigration on their websites at all. The rest of the responses are hopelessly predictable.

A few examples:
“We are a nation of immigrants. The debate and problems we have today are not about legal immigration, but illegal immigration. The debate is also a matter of national security. We must secure our borders. We are a nation of laws; therefore, we first need to enforce our existing immigration laws. I will oppose efforts to provide amnesty for illegal aliens.” (John Koster, WA-2)
“No other state in the nation has paid a higher price from the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce our immigration laws. I believe in the American dream, I believe that we are a beacon of hope for immigrants all across the world. But it must be done legally and we cannot compromise when it comes to fighting illegal immigration.” (Pamela Gorman, AZ-3)
“As Americans we welcome legal immigrants willing to learn English, assimilate into our communities, and become productive citizens.” (David Schweikert, AZ-5)

The only two of the only major immigration groups to call for a moratorium on legal immigration are Tancredo and Bay Buchanan’s Team America PAC and Numbers USA. Fortunately, they are also the only two that are actively involved in elections. (Fair's USIRP Pac is more or less defunct.) Team America can contribute to and endorse candidates and Numbers USA sends out questionnaires on immigration policy and judges politicians voting records, and lets the voter draw their own conclusions.
Still, Team America and Numbers USA have yet to force the issue into the campaigns.
I took a look at the websites of all of the candidates Team America supported. Not one mentioned reducing legal immigration. A few even repeated the platitudes about how great it is.
Numbers USA’s candidate survey includes a number of questions on legal immigration including ending chain migration and the visa lottery. While not using the word “moratorium”—unwisely in my opinion—the survey lists two questions that address total numbers:
“Until 1976, U.S. immigration tradition was an average of around 250,000 a year; since new legislation in 1990, it has averaged 1,000,000 a year. More than 38 million foreign workers and dependents now live in the U.S. At current rates, immigration will add more than 100 million additional people to the U.S. population by 2060. This government-forced rapid population expansion will require huge increases in energy, roads and other infrastructure and services. Do you favor reducing overall immigration numbers toward the traditional levels?”
“Should Congress institute safeguards that will prevent importation of foreign workers any time they would threaten the jobs or depress the wages of American workers?” [2010 Congressional Candidate Survey on Immigration, Numbers USA (PDF)]
A number of candidates answered the right way on these questions. But of the dozen websites of those I scanned, not one mentioned reducing legal immigration in their platform. Some even contradict their answers.

For example, Terry Davis Newman, who recently won the primary for Illinois’ 12th Congressional District, answered the Survey that she supported lowering legal immigration. But her platform limits her opposition to illegal immigration only:
“This isn't to be confused with legal immigration which I have no problem supporting. It takes great courage to leave the only life you've ever known, to come to a strange place, for try for a better life by way of the American dream.” [Terry Davis Newman (IL-12)]
And Dave McIntyre (TX-17,) who also told Numbers USA he supported reducing total immigration and foreign workers, wrote in his immigration platform that
“Securing the border does NOT mean closing it down. The legal flow of people, commerce, and ideas across our borders—north, south, east and west—by air, land and sea is a good thing. We need foreign workers to be able to come into the US, do their job, and go home.” [Dave on Immigration, Mcintyre for Congress (pdf)]
As it happens, McIntyre lost the primary and there is now a runoff between Rob Curnock, who answered the right way on all of NumbersUSA’s legal immigration questions, and pro-amnesty Bill Flores. But Curnock’s website does not mention immigration outside of one bullet point in his National Security platform: “Fighting to enforce existing immigration laws, increasing manpower, and supporting innovative technology-driven methods to keep our nation’s borders secure.” [Rob Curnock, (TX-17)]

Whatever the case, if candidates are not going to be vocal about patriotic immigration reform when campaigning in the Republican primaries, then they won’t say a word in Congress. This is a winning issue with the electorate, but a losing issue with the House leadership and lobbyists.
Nevertheless, I am optimistic that reducing legal immigration can become a campaign issue by November. With the public discourse totally focused on the health care bill, which has now passed, and no one pressing the candidates on the immigration issue, most simply have not given any thought to the issue.
Regardless of whether or not Obama stays true to his latest pledge for amnesty or backs away from fear of the consequences, there is going to be a serious push for amnesty coming soon.
When it begins, every Republican and every Democrat in a Republican district will immediately start condemning the amnesty. As I previously noted, the amnesty bill as written has huge increases in legal immigration. This will give a perfect opportunity to put candidates on the spot and demand they go on the offensive and lower the numbers.
Also, keep in mind that the empty platitudes about legal immigration are still empty. None of us are against legal immigration per se; we just want a lot less of it. This doesn’t change the gestalt of the “legal immigration is great” platforms, but it means that when the pressure comes down to support a moratorium, the candidates can follow the tides without contradicting themselves.
But until that tide comes, it looks like VDARE.COM will remain largely alone in forcefully making the case on behalf the moratorium movement.

"Washington Watcher" [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

Bye-bye Bayh And Amnesty. Hello Hostettler And Immigration Moratorium?

An interesting post from http://www.vdare.com/ about a possible replacement for Evan Bayh of Indiana and follows this post about immigration's costs. This could be a huge swing in the nation's momentum. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog. To get more information on John Hostettler click here.

Bye-bye Bayh And Amnesty. Hello Hostettler And Immigration Moratorium?
By W. James Antle III
Indiana just became a battleground state in the politics of immigration. Senator Evan Bayh announced Monday that he would not be seeking reelection. He was a solid vote for amnesty—and the man most likely to keep that Senate seat in Democratic hands.
Republicans now have a prime pickup opportunity—and so does the movement for patriotic immigration reform. One of the GOP candidates, former Rep. John Hostettler, was among the leaders in the fight against amnesty in the House. He's also someone willing to openly mention the immigration dimension of the jobs crisis and contemplate bold new policies to address it.
Consider: Middle-class wages are stagnant and employment opportunities are gloomy. Although the official unemployment rate dipped below 10 percent last month, the real economy still shed more than 22,000 private-sector jobs.
Over the same period, however, the federal government added about 125,000 immigrants and foreign "temporary" workers to the labor force, a total that could reach 1.5 million this year despite the lingering economic malaise.
And even though some 15.3 million Americans remain unemployed, it is estimated that roughly 8 million illegal immigrants continue to hold jobs in this country.
In this political and economic climate, an immigration moratorium—a policy of zero net immigration, with admissions equaling departures—would seem to have obvious appeal. There's just one odd problem: no politician seems willing to campaign on such an idea. Most would simply prefer to appeal tacitly to voters concerned about immigration levels without actually doing anything about them.
Until now. John Hostettler concentrated on immigration policy during his six terms in Congress. He relished the opportunity to contrast his views with Bayh's in a general election—and may now get an even bigger opening with Bayh out of the race.
"Evan Bayh voted for amnesty in the Senate", Hostettler says of the "comprehensive immigration reform bill" (S. 2611) that passed the Senate in May 2006. "I stopped it in the House". Hostettler was chairman of the House Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Subcommittee when it refused to consider McCain-Kennedy-style machinations and instead took an enforcement-first position on illegal immigration.
As such, Hostettler was an underappreciated part of the team that killed amnesty in the House when it appeared to be hurtling toward bipartisan approval. Then-Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) led the troops in the href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:vdare.com+" target="_blank" btng="Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi='">In the end, the Washington Post reported, 75 percent of the House Republican Conference opposed the "comprehensive" approach to illegal immigration. (Immigration Deal at Risk as House GOP Looks to Voters, By Jim VandeHei and Zachary A. Goldfarb, May 28, 2006). So the amnesty that late Ted Kennedy and his partner in crime John McCain pushed through the Senate—with President George W. Bush's blessing—died in the House.
Hostettler, by contrast, favors a strategy of enforcement through attrition. "The main thing to do is shut off the jobs magnet", he told me in an interview. "We are already seeing where that can work without any 'mass deportation'". While still in the House, Hostettler co-wrote an op-ed with his predecessor as House immigration subcommittee chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), showing that illegal immigrants are a distinct minority in virtually every occupation where they are presumed to be indispensable. [Illegals hurt Americans, By John Hostettler and Lamar Smith, Washington Times, December 2, 2005]
"These are not jobs Americans won't do", Hostettler maintains. "These are jobs Americans and Hoosiers can't do at the wage rates offered in a labor market distorted by illegal immigration."
Yet Hostettler goes beyond the standard Republican critique of illegal immigration. He supported the efforts of the late Rep. Barbara Jordan, the courageous black congresswoman who chaired the commission that nearly delivered meaningful immigration reform and reduction under the Clinton administration. And Hostettler supports an immigration moratorium today.
"That goes back even further than the Jordan Commission", Hostettler says. "The idea that a country cannot sustain indefinitely unlimited immigration was endorsed by the Hesburgh Commission. Father Hesburgh was no right-wing xenophobe."
Neither is Hostettler, although his opponents are likely to portray him as such. He is a measured and thoughtful voice for patriotic immigration reform, typically judicious in his rhetoric and impeccably "citizenist" in his motivations. But he's not an establishment favorite in either party.
Republican bigwigs first turned to Rep. Mike Pence, the conservative media-savvy chairman of the House Republican Conference. Overall, Americans for Better Immigration gives Pence a B + for his immigration-reform voting record. But his Pence plan on illegal immigration was essentially the Vernon Krieble Foundation's guest-worker proposal masquerading as a compromise to divide the House Republicans in their opposition to amnesty.
It didn't work. In 2006, the Hostettler enforcement-first position carried the day within the House Republican Conference. And Pence decided to take a pass on the Senate race, after a Rasmussen poll showed statistically about even with Hostettler in head-to-head match-ups against Bayh.
According to Rasmussen, Pence led Bayh by three points, 47 percent to 44 percent. Hostettler trailed Bayh by three, 44 percent to 41 percent. A third candidate, state Sen. Marlin Stutzman, was 12 points behind Bayh.
Pence thought it better to stay put in the House, where he is poised to continue rising up the Republican leadership ranks. Hostettler stayed in, looking forward to a race against Bayh.
Then the Republicans retrieved from the Washington lobbying business former Sen. Dan Coats—the same fellow who left his Senate seat because he didn't want to face Bayh in the 1998—for another go at it. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is reportedly going to help him get on the primary ballot (Hostettler is relying on grassroots supporters and Tea Party volunteers).
Americans for Better Immigration awarded Coats a D for his voting record on the issue—worse than Bayh's C+ and nowhere in the same league as Hostettler's A+. And a Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll, showed Bayh strong—and Coats running two points behind Hostettler in the general election.
Of course, the Daily Kos poll assumed that voter turnout would resemble the patterns of 2008. But those aren't the voters who turned out during the recent Republican triumphs in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
Now Evan Bayh himself has seen the handwriting on the wall. Two years ago, Barack Obama carried Indiana. Now Bayh—the biggest name in state Democratic politics and a senator who won 62 percent of the vote in 2004—has opted to retire rather than face defeat.
The rap against Hostettler is that he doesn't raise enough money—he refuses PAC donations on principle—and will require too much help from a national party with resources it would prefer to commit to states of less reddish hue.
There is also the small matter of his independence, and not just on immigration. Hostettler was one of just six House Republicans to vote against the Iraq war in 2002. He hasn't backed down on the matter since.
But these "problems" may resolve one another. Ron Paul's Internet "money bombs" have been imitated by other antiwar Republicans and have been successful at bringing in large sums of money. In 2009, Peter Schiff raised nearly $1.5 million in Connecticut despite dismal poll numbers. Rand Paul brought in $1.8 million in Kentucky.
That's not enough money to keep pace with whomever the Democratic Party bosses pick to replace Bayh. But it's a good start—and the numbers are likely to get better this year as voters and activists become more engaged.
Without Evan Bayh in the race, moreover, the Democrats can no longer count on a candidate who has a $13 million campaign war chest.
Thanks to John Hostettler, patriots contemplating an immigration moratorium finally have their candidate.
And thanks to Evan Bayh, they may finally have their moment.
W. James Antle III (email him), associate editor of The American Spectator, writes from outside Washington D.C. He profiled Hostettler in the June 17, 2006 issue of The American Conservative. [PDF 1, 2, 3]