We keep hearing insistent claims that if Republicans don't pass amnesty yesterday it will be the end of the party.
Can I see the math on that? I can see why bringing in 30 million new Democratic voters would be good for the Democrats, but how does it help Republicans? Maybe conservatives shouldn't blindly trust the calculations of the guy who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy.
Step One: Everyone's amnestied. Step Two: After they're amnestied, they can bring in all their relatives.
If Hispanics voted 50.1 percent for Democrats, amnesty would be a bad deal for Republicans. But, in fact, they vote 70 percent to 80 percent for Democrats. How did it become an urgent priority for Republicans to bring in 30 million new voters, 80 percent of whom will vote Democratic?
Democrats want 30 million new voters and they will say anything to get there:
-- It's a crisis! Illegal immigrants are "living in the shadows"!
That's not a "crisis." At most -- and this is highly dubious -- it's a crisis for the illegal immigrants. But evidently, "living in the shadows" is at least better than living in Guadalajara. Otherwise, there's an easy solution.
We're told, "You don't know what it's like to live in the shadows!" Yes, you're right, and that proves it's not a crisis.
Sorry to sound legalistic, illegal aliens, but you broke the law and -- look me in the eye -- you know you broke the law. You hid in the backs of trucks, traveled across remote desert locations, ran from U.S. agents and stole American IDs.
It's supposed to be uncomfortable to break the law. We aren't required to grant amnesty to people just because they've put themselves in the awkward position of being here illegally. (Or because the Democrats need 30 million new voters.)
If illegals were Republicans, Chuck Schumer would be a "Minuteman," patrolling the Mexican border 24-7.
-- Oh boy! Are Hispanics ever going to take revenge on Republicans!
The obvious retort is: If these people vote 80 percent against Republicans, how does it hurt Republicans if they can't vote? Is the claim that next time legal Hispanics vote against you, they'll have an angry glint in their eye? Voting machines don't register angry glints.
-- How could any decent person be against granting amnesty to lawbreakers?
In common parlance, "the decent thing to do" is usually defined as "following the law." The fact that Democrats want 30 million new voters is not a good enough reason to ignore the law and screw over the millions of people who have been waiting 20 years to immigrate here legally.
-- We already have "de facto amnesty."
I gather Marco Rubio considers this his big showstopper, since he says it in every interview as if he's announcing the Kochen-Specker theorem. But if we already have de facto amnesty, why is this bill even necessary? Oh, that's right! The Democrats need 30 million new voters.
It's curious that Democrats don't hysterically demand amnesty for other lawbreakers, such as tax-cheats or polluters. Right now -- hold on to your hat, Marco! -- we have "de facto amnesty" for tax-cheats and polluters! (Also rapists and murderers and every other crime that doesn't have 100 percent enforcement.)
And if we won't grant amnesty to tax-cheats and polluters, what about their children? Why punish the children? They did nothing wrong. Their parents told them they had lots of money for houses, clothes and college tuition. How can you put a tax lien on the homes of innocent children? Think of how BP executives' children have suffered -- the divorces, the deferred dreams, the broken families ...
And by the way, polluters are also hard workers. They love their families and want the best for them, too. I bet illegal aliens who rape women and kill people in drunk-driving accidents love their families. Members of MS-13 work very hard at gang activities, such as, for example, when you cross them, they are very dogged about having you killed in a drive-by shooting. That shows a real stick-to-itiveness.
But weirdly, Democrats are obsessed with amnesty only for the lawbreakers that will get them 30 million new voters. (Violent felons come next.)
Republicans don't have to be brave to vote against amnesty. They need to not be idiots.
This isn't a single issue. It's every issue. Presidential elections are decided by a few million votes. Giving the Democrats 30 million new voters means Republicans lose on everything -- Obamacare, public sector unions, big government, abortion, gay marriage, racial preferences, and on and on and on.
In another few years, the whole country will be California and no Republican will win another national election.
Maybe New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie supports amnesty (as he did, via his appointed senator), hoping to be the last Republican ever elected president. There's one for the history books!
But if Christie says he's pro-life while giving the Democrats 30 million new voters, he's a liar. Hispanics favor abortion by 66 percent, compared to 50 percent of other voters.
If he says he opposes Obamacare, court-mandated gay marriage, wants small government and loves his country while voting to give the Democrats 30 million new voters, he's a liar.
Hispanics support Obamacare by 62 percent, gay marriage by 59 percent and big government by 75 percent.
If he says he opposes bloated, expensive public sector unions, he's a liar. Look no farther than California for our future.
Instead of the elites bringing in another flood of low-wage immigrants to clean their homes and manicure their lawns (and vote Democrat!), how about we start getting some immigrants to compete with Florida senators and New Jersey governors?
COPYRIGHT 2013 ANN COULTER
- Politics & Government
- Society & Culture