I’ve Changed My Mind And Now Support Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants. I Just Want Something In Exchange For It.

I don’t buy the argument that Hispanics are natural Republicans/conservatives, there’s simply too much evidence to the contrary.

I also don’t agree with the idea we need to do amnesty just to have the privilege of wooing Hispanics to conservatism. That’s like saying when a salesman wants to make his pitch for a product that costs $100, you’ll listen to him but only after he pays you $150 for the chance.

What I do think is that the country has moved left and conservatives will have an increasingly hard time selling what we believe to an electorate that doesn’t want what we offer.

I’d like to agree with Gabe’s idea that “we lost an election, not an argument” but I don’t. We lost in 08 mostly because of the environment and a terrible candidate. We lost in in 12 in an environment that should have been a slam dunk for us but wasn’t (and we had a terrible candidate).

Romney will get about as many votes as McCain did. That’s a terrible showing but does it represent the ceiling of the current GOP coalition?

Maybe Obama is a unique case study. Maybe his voters won’t come out for Andrew Cuomo or Tim Kaine (if you think that, you damn well better be anti-amnesty).  It’s plausible considering how Democrats fail without Obama on the ballot (think 09/10). But would you bet the future of the country on it? Also, ObamaCare is not going anywhere (but towards single payer when the house of cards collapses).

We used to give the Democrats a hard time for blaming their messengers when they lost. They never considered it might be their message. Well, that’s the path we’re going down if we think it was just a few hundred thousand votes here and there. It’s very possible that people aren’t buying what we’re selling and a better salesman won’t change that.

So what’s my proposal for this brave new world? Give in on amnesty. Of course this is a major policy concession so the anti-amnesty crowd will want something in exchange. My price: a flat tax with no deductions/credits, none. No home mortgage deductions, no child tax credit. Nothing.

I’d also like to end withholding but I’m not greedy.

If we are going to create a hard left America where people are voting themselves other people’s money,  then we all  have to have an equal stake in the game.  As someone said, we’re all in this together and people need to pay their fair share. What could be more fair than everyone paying the exact same percentage of their income in federal taxes?

How long do you think people will be enamored with big government spending once they are paying for it?

So how about it? Amnesty for a straight up flat tax. Who’s with me?

About Drew

I blog about politics and hockey because I sort of understand those things. I'd blog about women but I'll never understand them.

Posted on November 19, 2012, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 22 Comments.

  1. Considering that your idea seems a whole lot better than what the mostly spineless Republicans will give us when they do capitulate to whatever the democrats are demanding, I’d take this deal every day and twice on Sunday.

  2. The problem with this: why would democrats agree?

    If democrats do nothing, they get higher taxes come January 2013, which is all they care about. Tax reform may happen, but there’s no way a flat tax is the end result. Lower rates and fewer deductions maybe, but not a flat tax. But either way, republicans are negotiating from a position of weakness there. You can’t say “i’ll give you higher revenue if you meet the following demands,” if higher revenue is already on the way if congress and the president take the rest of the year off.

    The same more or less applies to amnesty. If republicans don’t go along, democrats can beat the drum and call repubs obstructionist. Dems will point to Obama’s DREAM Act- like executive order as proof that they “care.” If the repubs pass amnesty, you can rest assured Obama and his party will get most of the credit. You can also bet that the entire republican caucus won’t support amnesty and someone will voice their opposition in a colorful way. The media will make them the face of the republican party.

    2014 will be a decent or great year for republicans, regardless of what happens the next two years. In 2016, provided the nominee doesn’t make statements like Romney did in the primaries (which shouldn’t occur since the latino vote will be even more crucial) the nominee will be fine. Things are never as bad as they are when you’ve lost. Or as good as they look when you win. More pandering to the middle class, less talk about tax cuts for the rich and less talk about illegals and abortion and the republican party will be fine.

  3. You know, tax rates change all the time, but amnesty is forever. How long do you think your flat tax will last when 70% of US citizens are against it?

  4. Don’t get rid of withholding, but make it optional, where people have to opt in each year if they want to use it. This will be much easier to sell.

  5. He!!z ya, count me in. You, over there, want something fair? So do we!

  6. I suppose that’s one way but a progressive income tax is pretty sacred to the Democrats so it’s probably a non-starter in the senate.

    In general, I think we lose no matter what we do as long as we concede the cultural playing field to the other side. The good news is we start with about 59 million votes; the bad news is we need another four million. We live in an echo chamber of our own making (blogs, talk radio, etc). We speak only to each other and never directly address anyone outside the conservative ghetto. Our ideas, our candidates, our words are all filtered through the dominant media culture and they never pass through intact.

    This dominant media culture is created and maintained by a steady stream of funding that comes from the extension of copyright law into the digital realm. The money comes from fees paid by device manufacturers (ereaders, mp3 players, DVD players, computers, etc) for the right to include software that protects the intellectual property of third parties. It also comes from things like consumer media purchases, box office sales, concert ticket revenue, merchandising, cable subscriptions, advertising revenue, product placements, patent trolling, consumer harrassment, etc. In effect, this is a giant in-kind donation to the Democratic party.

    The money collected by means of our intellectual property law enriches the wealthiest donors to the Democratic party: entertainers and media companies. Not only is this a source of campaign funds it also enables them to dominate the cultural landscape. It provides a stage for Bruce Springsteen to exhort his paying audience to vote for Democrats. It provides for nightly newscasts that ignore stories unfavorable to Democrats and emphasize narratives harmful to Republicans. It provides for things like NPR, the New York Times, and Candy Crowley. It lets George Clooney shill for Democrats in the pages of People magazine. It lets the poor and delude think Obama gave them a free phone. It denies any conservative voice access to the public square instead only allowing it description through carefully chosen surrogates like David Brooks, David Frum, Peggy Noonan, and Megan McCain.

    Ironically, it is Republicans who have fashioned much of the IP law that limits their access to the marketplace. It seems they are intent on sticking by that mistake under some misguided notion of property rights. See here: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/11/18/republicans-rethinking-copyright-reform/

    The way out — perhaps the only way out — is to repeal much of what passes for digital copyright these days. Doing so would count as a win among the technophile liberterains and probably younger voters in generally. It would also break the current funding model for the Democratic party and, probably, substantially weaken the vulnerable media companies that prop up the dominant media culture. Weaken that infrastructure and another four million votes might be getable.

  7. Retain the charitable deduction. Tax dollars are simply social dollars run through the least efficient provider of services: the government. Allowing a deduction for gifts to nonprofit organizations recognizes the benefit of providing these services privately. By not crediting the payment for private provision of social services, you are guaranteeing the growth of government.

  8. I’m ok with it. Would like to see an end to withholding first, though, rather than a direct move to flat tax. I’m of the opinion that if we did that and required everyone to calculate and remit a quarterly tax payment we would have a tax revolution in about 2 quarters.

    Which is why the numbnuts in DC will never let that happen. I can dream, can’t I?

  9. Two words: underground economy. It’s out there and it is sustained mostly by immigrants.

  10. It’s an interesting proposal, but I’m stuck on the initial premise. You think amnesty would boost Democratic votes with Hispanics, right? Are you suggesting making this deal would swing more (independent? moderate?) voters our way than we give to the other side? If not, we might get something out of the deal, but wouldn’t that be the last scrap we get for decades?

  11. If we are throwing away any chance at having power in the federal government, we should at least go for amendments mandating the Fair Tax. Simple laws can be over-turned by a free-stuff-craving electorate (which we would have once we grant amnesty to the illegals).

    I want amendments that end the income tax, remove the IRS and implements the Fair Tax so that everyone really does have skin in the game.

  12. >> So how about it? Amnesty for a straight up flat tax. Who’s with me?

    Trade permanent amnesty for millions of illegals for a flat tax that won’t last as long as the ink takes to dry on the brand new Internal Revenue Code of 2013? Sounds like a sucker’s bet to me.

  13. Quite aside from your premise, I agree with your conclusion.

    Sure, if you want to work and pay tax and obey the law and respect the Western cultural tradition and not take welfare, come on in.

  14. yes yes. I’ve been having this conversation with liberal and conservative friends all week.

    you can’t have the welfare state and open borders. we go bankrupt quick.

    the Democrats are the party of saying yes to EVERYTHING.
    the Repubs are then by default saying no to the barrage of conflicting givaways, and look scroogy.

    one way is close the borders and homogenize the culture. keep everyone in that’s in.
    english only and flat tax. Then we can talk about paying for everything and high taxes.

    I don’t like that one so much. we can get that in Cuba or Sweden, 2 extremes, I guess.

    OR, similar to your idea, I thought

    open borders (more or less) I would tolerate if we had a flat federal sales tax. 10 or 20 percent, maybe, and everyone would pay it, citizen, tourist, illegal, politician, etc. no exceptions and NO other taxes. No taxes except perhaps for what the states can levy legally.

    on all sales. Nothing else.

    oh yeah, and no welfare, food stamps or subsidies.

    Come and go as ya please, but you pay your own way and are responsible for you and your dependents.
    arrange your own insurance or avail yourself of a private or religious charity for a hand up.
    But it’s your responsibility. Everything.

    With the (really) free market, citizenship becomes more of a legal protection thing than a pay up sucka thing.

  15. shoulda said this is not my genius. It’s the Fair Tax of which I’ve been a fan since I heard Herman Cain talk about it 8 years ago on talk radio.

  16. caregiversofamericasucks on November 19, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    Sorry to be OT but my curiosity is killing me. What do u have against CGA?

  17. I too want something in exchange for amnesty. But not from the D’s. From Mexico. Let’s say Baja California and Baja California Sur. We take 10% of their population as immigrants. It’s only fair we get 10% of their land area.

  18. Wow! That’s actually a reasonable trade. I admit that I had low expectations when I first started reading.

    But Democrats would never go for it. Progressive taxation is the core of their argument and class warfare would be veeeerrrrrrry difficult without it. It was the original premise that made it acceptable to assign class identities to people, and to hold them to different standards. Multiculturalism is just an extension of this same idea. It replaces our republic with an ‘Identity Confederation’, where individual sovereignty does not exist. In liberals philosophy, all political power flows from the identity group that liberals have assigned to people.

    It’s easy to understand how this approach could lead to a “stateless society”, but how exactly does socialism ever expect to create a “classless” society by practicing ‘classism’? It seems far more likely that geographic ‘state’ grouping would be replaced with the new ‘identity/class’ designations. (We might one day see the emergence of ‘Africa America’.)

    Obviously this tactic would have to be used as leverage for some other concession because liberals would never accept an outcome that would effectively neutralize their strategy. Creating a different flat tax rate for each identity class would be too blatantly ‘classist’.

  19. ‘Rich’, ‘Middle Class’, and ‘Poor’ are really only arbitrary groupings. There is no reference to them in our constitution. An equal stake in the game is exactly what liberals will desperately try to avoid. They conquer by creating different rules for each different arbitrary grouping they create; black/white, rich/poor, male/female, gay/straight, etc.

    Our founding documents however sees every INDIVIDUAL as ‘culturally unique’, and it applies the same rules to everyone in exactly the same way. We are supposed to be ruled by laws, not by the good intentions of other men. All tyrants have good intentions when they start out.

    If liberals truly respect “diversity”, then why do they not recognize that every individual is different from every other, regardless of race, creed, color, religion……….?

  20. msr – yes to this. my friends and I have tongue in cheek joked about just appropriating mexico, warts and natural resources and all. we have colonized baja already.
    but now I’m afraid we’ll just ruin mexico.

    gatorgrab. you are so right about why this is nigh impossible to achieve with all this resistance for all those reasons you listed. and ace and the cob loggers elaborated on the woeful and destructive school system and its impact.

    makes a remote cave in manitoba look pretty good.

  21. On second thought, I’d prefer to agree to tax increases on the rich. Here’s why:

    1. Raising taxes is unlikely to do much to close the deficit and so will exhaust a key Democrat talking point — probably by 2014.

    2. They will be more easily undone by a subsequent congress than immigration amnesty.

    3. The havoc wrought by Fiscal Cliff & the Tax Increases is likely — on net — to be less than a blanket amnesty for illegals.

    4. The rich have made it clear: they are Democrats, they want to pay more. We should let them. Close the loopholes, eliminate deductions, and raise the rates. Pay up suckers…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: