The Lobbying Blitz for Immigration


Looking at the political motivation of the groups pushing higher immigration and amnesty, it’s obvious that the Democrats promote large-scale immigration because it produces more Democratic votes. But why are some prominent Republicans pushing amnesty?

The New York Times, a big supporter of amnesty, gleefully reported as front-page news that Republican big donors and big business leaders have been engaged in a “lobbying blitz,” backed up by money threats, to get Congress to pass amnesty. It’s clear that big business wants amnesty in order to get more cheap labor, which will keep wages forever low. That is a gross betrayal of the legal immigrants who hope to rise into the middle class and achieve the American dream. As long as wages are kept low, they will never rise out of the poverty level.

The big Republican donors are the ones who poured $400,000,000 into the campaigns of losing establishment-backed Republicans would rather elect Democrats than conservative, social-issue, Tea Party-type, grassroots Republicans who don’t take orders from the establishment.

If the Republican Party is to remain a party that is conservative and nationally competitive, it must defeat amnesty in every form. Congressman Raul Labrador of Idaho summed up the problem like this: “I think it would be crazy for the House Republican leadership to enter into negotiations with Obama on immigration, and I’m a proponent of immigration reform. He’s trying to destroy the Republican Party, and I think that anything that we do right now with the president on immigration will be [Obama having] that same goal in mind, which is to destroy the Republican Party and not to get good policy.” The lesson is, we should be amnesty in any form.

Contributing Editor, Phyllis Schlafly, is the Founder and President of Eagle Forum, a national radio show host, and a best-selling author.

Used with the permission of Eagle Forum.

The Moral Liberal recommends: Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade (Politics and Society in Twentieth-Century America)

Your comments