Las Vegas Sun

July 30, 2014

Currently: 97° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

OTHER VOICES:

Amnesty’ not looking so bad to GOP

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Elections have consequences. After losing the popular vote for the fifth time in the past six presidential elections, I expected to see Republicans make some changes or risk following the dinosaur and the dodo on the path to extinction.

But even I have been surprised to see so many changes so soon, beginning with the Grand Old Party’s brand new vigor for making new amigos with Hispanic voters.

For the first time since the collapse of President George W. Bush’s bipartisan immigration-reform effort in 2007, a genuine debate over immigration is re-emerging within the GOP. The debate stalled primarily over Bush’s proposed “pathway to citizenship” to bring the estimated 11 million people in the U.S. illegally out of the shadows. To the right wing, “pathway to citizenship” has been the same as “amnesty for lawbreakers.” They wanted to “secure the borders” first, and then maybe, just maybe, they would talk about amnesty.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s presidential campaign imploded partly because Mitt Romney and some of his other primary opponents pounced on his humane and realistic policy of extending in-state college enrollment benefits to undocumented immigrants. Arguments like that, as well as Romney’s odd suggestion that illegal immigrants might “self-deport” under his presidency, help to explain why Bush received 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, compared with Romney’s 29 percent in November.

If Romney had received the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as Bush, we’d be calling him President-elect Romney now. It was appropriate in that light for the former president to help get a new debate rolling with a recent speech in Dallas. Bush called for Republicans to embrace a “benevolent spirit” when writing national labor and immigration policy, sounding themes he has promoted since the beginning of his presidency.

Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas pushed the ball further down the field with their own version of the Dream Act, a failed bill that would have allowed a path to citizenship for immigrants brought here illegally as children. Their version, called the Achieve Act, would give legal status to undocumented youths but not a pathway to citizenship. Unfortunately, without a path to citizenship, the proposed bill would leave the youngsters in a limbo between neither “illegal” nor citizens, for an indefinite length of time. The Achieve Act needs work, but it’s a start.

At least, we appear to be seeing an end, for now, to the can-you-top-this hysteria that produced dangerous legislation such as Arizona’s “show your papers” law. It requires police to ask people about their immigration status if an officer believes they may be in the country illegally. Wisconsin’s Republican Gov. Scott Walker said as a candidate that he would sign such a law. But he now says he would fight any Arizona-like proposal. A spokesman said Walker changed his mind after doing more research, according to the Green Bay Press-Gazette. It’s not hard to believe Romney’s vote count had an effect, too.

Will the party’s new attitude work? Even Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and a longtime proponent of reduced immigration rates, sees hope for “a common ground on immigration,” he wrote in a recent blog, with “amnesty for long-term, deserving illegal aliens in exchange for an end to future mass immigration” after enforcement tools are beefed up.

Yet I think Richard Land, a leading conservative evangelical leader, had the right idea last year when he said fellow Republicans who called the pathway “amnesty” needed to get “a course in remedial English.” To get “amnesty,” he said, “you’ve got to have done something wrong. These young people are innocent.”

With a more compassionate conservatism like that, Republicans will have a better chance to reach more voters in constituencies that are growing instead of relying on those whose population percentages are shrinking. Today’s problems call for a vigorous, innovative debate. For that, we need two healthy parties, at least.

Besides, I’ve seen what happens when Democrats get too cocky after Republican defeats. They become their own worst enemies, just like Republicans do.

Clarence Page is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. He writes from Washington.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 1 comment so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. This last Presidential election caused many Americans to hold their nose as they voted. Thanks to Super PACs, gone are the days of balanced, civilized campaigning. Writer Clarence Page notes, "Today's problems call for a vigorous, innovative debate. For that, we need two healthy parties, at least."

    Maybe we Americans need more political party choices instead; while we're at it, go to popular vote during Presidential elections.

    From my point of view, the Republican Party needs "amnesty" for their self-serving decisions. Most recently, they voted down a United Nations version of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Their "perfect world" has no room nor accommodations for those who possess a life-altering challenge or impairment. This, among the many such acts of attitude, condemns the Republican Party as they arrogantly traverse the path towards political extinction. May the BOOOOs from the down-trodden follow them on their way out.

    Americans can do better than support such a dysfunctional lot.

    Blessings and Peace,
    Star