The Race Card
Inflaming Racial Tensions
By Daniel Muniz

Supporters of illegal aliens were stunned by the defeat of the amnesty bill in the Senate. Much like in 1986, they had a Republican president who made passage look like a sure thing. But this time, rank and file Republicans didn’t trot right behind their president. Instead, the airwaves and the Internet revved up grassroots support which created intense pressure on wavering GOP senators to back off.

The bill collapsed and so did subsequent efforts to resurrect it.

It also demonstrated that the intensity of the opposition wasn’t limited to a fringe group but was pervasive throughout a large swath of the electorate. As a result, it became clear that passage of another sweeping reform bill would not be a cakewalk. Far from it because it appears that there really is no chance of reaching a compromise in the near future partly because the previous bill in 1986 was nothing more than empty promises and such a comprehensive reform of today is very likely to be the same.

Consequently, the activists quickly retooled their approach.

If they cannot persuade the public to accept their ideas, then why not cast them as racists.

The race card has always been a lethal weapon in the arsenal of liberal activists. The National Council of La Raza is showing that they will use it to bludgeon anyone who opposes their illegal immigration advocacy. The race card has worked really well in the past so why not use it now.

But this time, inflaming racial tensions may not be very effective.

The key point that the activists overlook is that the reason for this kind of intense opposition is because what illegal aliens are doing is still illegal and the taxpayer has to foot the bill for a lot of their expenses such as education and health care. It isn’t just one or two items that people are vehemently opposed to but a wide array of social and economic issues which happen to be very expensive and detrimental to the future of our nation.

In addition, there are still many Democrats who are not exactly thrilled about embracing millions of illegal immigrants.

On the top of the list are unions. They oppose the concept of cheap labor and that is what illegal immigration is all about. Illegal aliens are not in this country to see the Grand Canyon but to take low paying jobs which is why so many Country Club Republicans want them here.

There are some poverty advocates who are torn between both sides of the immigration debate. They know that the easiest way to lift people out of poverty is to have a tight labor supply. That helps push wages up especially among a low skilled workforce. Illegal immigration smashes that whole agenda by flooding the market with cheap labor. Illegal aliens are willing to take jobs at almost any rate of pay in almost any dirty work environment which perpetually depresses the wages of low paying jobs.

As for Republican opposition, many of them have finally turned against the interest of Big Business. What was once a faithful ally of the GOP is slowly becoming a pariah because some elements of the private sector are putting greed in front of national interests and law and order. There are many Republicans who want to see managers and business owners who knowingly hire illegal aliens to be put in jail.

In addition, not all Hispanics blindly support illegal immigration. There are many (like myself) who work hard and play by the rules and feels that everyone else should.

It is no longer a slam dunk for the National Council of La Raza and other Hispanic organizations to label their opponents as bigots. The opposition is much too large and represents a much bigger cross section of America (which also includes a sizable portion of African-Americans) for all of them to be painted as hate mongers.

The race card is going to be played but this time it will be less effective.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.