Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole (47 page)

Gallup has been asking Americans to name “the most important problem facing this country” for years. Going back decades, immigration had ranked as the “most important problem” for only about 4 to 5 percent of respondents. Then, suddenly, in April 2006—just after Bush had launched his plan for “comprehensive immigration reform”—immigration shot to the number one problem for 30 percent of Republicans, 16 percent of independents, and 11 percent of Democrats.
³⁹

Lest there be any misunderstanding, poll respondents didn’t think immigration was a “problem” the way Bush thought it was a “problem.” Sixty-one percent of Americans wanted to criminalize illegal aliens.
⁴⁰
Fifty-three percent of Pew respondents said illegal immigrants should be required “to go home.”
⁴¹
Twenty percent of respondents in a
Washington Post
–ABC News Poll agreed with: “Declare all illegal immigrants to be felons.”
⁴²
Compiling results from a series of polls in February and March 2006, Pew Research found that about 90 percent of Americans called illegal immigration a “serious problem,” while a clear majority called it a “very” or “extremely” serious problem.
⁴³

Seventy-nine percent of those with “less tolerant” views on immigration, as ABC News put it, said immigration would be a “top issue” in their vote.
⁴⁴

As long as Bush had brought it up, Americans said they wanted to stop
legal
immigration, too. In the Quinnipiac poll, 72 percent of respondents wanted immigration to decrease or stay at the same levels (39 percent for “decrease,” and 33 percent for “stay the same”). In the Pew Hispanic Center poll, 77 percent of Americans wanted immigration to decrease or stay the same (40 percent to 37 percent). Even in the
New York Times
/CBS poll, 73 percent opposed an increase in legal immigration (34 percent for “decreased” and 39 percent “kept at present level”).
⁴⁵

More Americans support Obamacare than support an increase in legal immigration.

Gallup found that nearly 60 percent of Americans considered the country’s future “population growth” a “major problem”—and those with “less formal education” were “most likely to correctly attribute population growth to immigration, while Americans with post-graduate education are least likely to do so.”
⁴⁶
Apart from the maid, immigration is barely noticeable in the better neighborhoods.

Midterm elections, the
New York Times
has said, “tend to be won by whichever side can motivate more true believers to vote.” There’s no question
but that Bush’s push for amnesty in 2006 infuriated his base. In June 2006, influential conservative leaders including Brent Bozell, Phyllis Schlafly, and Howard Phillips issued a statement lambasting the amnesty plan being pushed by Bush, as well as a “compromise” measure proposed by Republican Congressman Mike Pence. The leaders pledged to oppose any member of Congress who voted for either bill.
⁴⁷

YOU’VE GOT ONE MOVE, GOP

It’s a sucker’s game to think that Republicans can ever get to the Democrats’ left on immigration. A terrible year for Democrats is winning only 60 percent of the Hispanic vote. The vast majority of the Democrats’ ethnic base is voting for them no matter what. There could have been a 1929 stock market crash in 2012, and Obama would still have won more than 90 percent of the black vote and upward of 70 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. When they’re being honest, Democrats admit that Republicans “are delusional if they think they’re making any inroads with Latinos,” as Texas Democratic Party spokesman Rebecca Acuna said in 2012. Acuna noted that out of 728 elected Hispanic officials in Texas, 668 of them were Democrats. Only 60 were Republicans.
⁴⁸

The GOP’s only move is to run the table on white voters, as Reagan did.

By unapologetically opposing the transformation of America into a Third World country, the GOP would sweep the white vote—once white people recovered from the shock of any candidate asking for their vote. Why should Republicans be ashamed of getting white votes? How about the party work on getting more of them? By fighting for black jobs, Republicans will also win a lot more black voters—as Romney did in 2012, winning a jaw-dropping 20 percent of the young black male vote.
⁴⁹

Unfortunately, the public’s opinion is of little interest to Republican consultants who have hefty college tuition bills to pay. Their solitary interest is in pleasing big donors by constantly apologizing to Hispanics for not
moving fast enough on amnesty. They would rather engineer a forty-nine-state defeat than abandon the cheap-labor advocates on immigration.

What might these genius GOP operatives think about a presidential candidate running ads bashing immigrant welfare scams? Something like: “She is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.” What if a Republican presidential candidate accused self-appointed Hispanic leaders of running “organizations based on keeping alive the feeling that they’re victims of prejudice”? I’m guessing that wouldn’t impress the big thinkers in the GOP who are squeamish about “self-deportation.”

But Reagan said all that—and was called a racist.
⁵⁰
And he won the largest electoral landslide in history.

17

MOST OF OUR CHAMPIONS ARE SELLOUTS—HALF OF THE REST ARE INCOMPETENT

T
HE PRACTICED LIARS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY KNOW DAMN WELL
Americans do not want more immigration, but the leadership won’t give it up. To please well-heeled donors, elected Republicans compulsively push for amnesty, in-state tuition, driver’s licenses, and welfare payments to illegals. And the media cover for them:
Don’t worry, we won’t write about what you’re doing with immigration! And if we do, it will only be to talk about your moral courage, Marco.
Only when they need actual voters do Republicans suddenly start saying: “Complete the dang fence!” (2008 McCain campaign).

It’s always interesting to see what politicians lie about. At least they know what’s actually popular with voters. Back when he was running for office, Senator Marco Rubio criticized “comprehensive immigration reform,” saying, an “‘earned path to citizenship’ is basically code for ‘amnesty.’”
¹
He pledged, “I will never support—never have, and never will support—any effort to grant blanket legalization amnesty to folks who have entered this country illegally.”
²
Then Rubio got to Washington and
spent the next three years pushing for amnesty. Representative Renee Ellmers of North Carolina came out for a path to legalization and, as a result, was headed for defeat, until Mark Zuckerberg came to her rescue with election ads that claimed her position was “No amnesty. Period.” Within a month of returning to Congress, Ellmers voted in favor of Obama’s executive amnesty. I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word “period” is.

So we know they know where Americans stand on immigration. (
Please stop!
) In February 2015, more Americans said they had a favorable opinion of North Korea (11 percent)
³
than wanted to increase immigration (7 percent).
⁴

The baffling question is why Americans are so utterly incapable of influencing public policy on immigration. True, all the money and power are on the other side of the issue. Zuckerberg, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Bloomberg, Sheldon Adelson, Rudy Giuliani—all of them support amnesty and mass immigration. But the rich and powerful also support gun control and abortion—again, Zuckerberg, Murdoch, Bloomberg, Adelson, and Giuliani. Money and power don’t seem to help them on those issues.

It is impossible to imagine a Republican candidate for president who is not pro-life and pro-gun. But it’s becoming increasingly impossible to imagine a Republican candidate for president who
doesn’t
support amnesty—Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, George, Jeb, Zeppo, and Shemp Bush. Why is that? At least as many Americans would like to see a total immigration moratorium as support gun rights and oppose abortion. So why does National Right to Life have decisive influence over the Republican Party, while Numbers USA has none? Why do Gun Owners of America always win, while immigration opponents always lose? More Americans oppose amnesty than oppose restrictions on guns. But even after the mass shooting at a grade school in Newtown, Connecticut, Congress was able to enact no new gun laws. By contrast, even after immigrants bombed the Boston Marathon, Congress went ahead and funded Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty.

The reason the National Rifle Association wins is because it knows how politics works. Gun activists do not try to discern what a politician believes in his heart or try to take the measure of the man. They look at voting records—specifically, a politician’s record on guns. Rather famously, the NRA will not oppose any politician who votes right on guns, no matter how awful he is on every other issue (Harry Reid); and they will not support a politician who opposes gun rights no matter how wonderful he is on other issues (Rudy Giuliani). The NRA doesn’t demand some impossible political purity. If a politician votes to protect gun rights, the NRA won’t insist that he also celebrate “Gun Appreciation Day.” Vote for gun rights and you will be rewarded on Election Day; oppose gun rights and you will be punished. Left to their consultants, most elected officials would be terrified to oppose gun control. Instead, they’re terrified to oppose the NRA.

By contrast, most immigration opponents seem to have no concept of how to influence politicians. They announce that Senator Jeff Sessions or Representative Steve King are the only acceptable presidential candidates, and think their job is done. Consequently, Americans who would like to vote on immigration have no idea which governors granted illegals in-state tuition and which governors vetoed those bills. Conservative leaders won’t tell them. Their long-term plan is to keep demanding that Jeff Sessions run for president and stay home and pout if Tom Tancredo isn’t anywhere on the ballot. There are plenty of enticements for selling out on immigration, but none for doing the right thing.

If the NRA behaved this way, the country would be living under the policies of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. How about we look at politicians’ actual records on this one issue? America’s suicidal immigration policies are the single biggest threat facing the nation. What happens with immigration will determine whether America continues to exist or becomes a Third World republic that will never elect another Republican—in other words, “California.” It’s more important than gun rights, right to life, taxes, or Iran’s nuclear program—or whatever other
issue you care to cite, because immigration will decide all issues, once and for all, in favor of the Democrats.

VOTER GUIDE

Now ask yourself if you had any idea where the following presidential candidates stood on immigration and tell me if immigration activists are doing their job.

JEB BUSH

Jeb Bush is what’s known as “a wolf in wolf’s clothing” on immigration. As governor of Florida he aggressively pushed a bill that would allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses,
less than three years after thirteen of nineteen terrorists in the September 11 attack had used Florida driver’s licenses to board the planes
.
⁵
(And Jeb is supposed to be “the smart one.”) In 2012, Jeb openly refused to endorse Romney before the Florida primary because of Romney’s opposition to amnesty. He made it well known to the press that he was offended by Romney’s statement that illegal aliens would “self-deport” when the jobs dried up. The day before the primary, Laura Bush showed up in Sarasota, Florida, and announced that both she and George wished Jeb were in the race.
⁶

Demonstrating the Bush family’s uncanny feel for the concerns of ordinary Americans, the next day Romney swept the Florida primary, winning 46 percent of the vote in an eight-person field. He did better among Florida’s Hispanic voters than with Republican voters at large. Throughout the rest of the year, Jeb kept running to the press saying Romney should “tone down his harsh rhetoric on issues like illegal immigration,” as the
New York Times
admiringly put it. This was fantastically helpful in a close presidential election. About once a month since then, one or another Bush has issued a statement lecturing Republicans about Romney’s “harsh tone” on immigration.
⁷
This always makes the
New York Times
swoon. Needless to say, the
Times
could barely contain its esteem for Jeb when, in April 2014, he called illegal immigration “an act of love.”
⁸

RICK PERRY

Texas Governor Rick Perry pushed for Texas’s in-state tuition for illegals and then lectured Republicans about it, saying, “If you say that we should not educate children who’ve come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart.” (Romney’s response: “I think if you’re opposed to illegal immigration, it doesn’t mean that you don’t have a heart, it means that you have a heart and a brain.”)
⁹
Perry opposes E-Verify.
¹⁰
He also opposes a fence, either on the grounds that he has that witty quip about ladders
¹¹
or because “the idea that you’re going to build a wall from Brownsville to El Paso, it’s just—it’s ridiculous on its face.”
¹²
(Wait until Perry hears about the Great Wall of China!) He opposed the Arizona law allowing state officers to check the immigration status of those they detained, as did Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.
¹³