Like it or not, the debate of a couple of weeks ago regarding the employment practices of the California Republican Party will now continue — at least for a few more months — with the submission of the "Paule Amendment" (see post here).
As noted by Tom Hudson as a comment following Jon Fleischman’s post of yesterday, the language in the proposed bylaw amendment makes no mention of immigration. In fact, it makes no mention of requiring CRP employees to be citizens. It does, however, ensure employees are "legally registered to vote in California as members of the Republican Party."
The only reference to anything regarding citizenship is in the title, "Bylaw Amendment Concerning Employee Eligibility and Citizenship." That said, it seems odd that citizenship is referred to in the title, but not in the text of the amendment. I respectfully suggest that it be mentioned nowhere, leaving the title a simple, "Bylaw Amendment Concerning Employee Eligibility."
**There is more – click the link**
July 8th, 2007 at 12:00 am
A long time ago, when I was a campus-based activist with California Young Americans for Freedom, I always thought it interesting that our chapter President at UCLA, Colin Metcalfe, wasn’t an American at all. He was a Canadian. But you know what? Colin believed in the same conservative principles as I did, and joined me shoulder-to-shoulder in attacking the campus left, and going after liberals up and down California.
The point being that I don’t think you need to be an American citizen work for a political party — but you do need to believe in the principles of that party.
I understand that there is a question about whether we have enought talented, capable California Republicans to fill out our staff at the CRP.
But, to be honest with you, if Colin (who has dedicated his adult life to battling liberalism back in his native British Columbia) were to have applied for a job with the CRP back when I was Executive Director, he would have been a strong applicant. Maple Leaf on his passport and all.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I still don’t think it’s legal to require that someone be registered in California and a Republican. Besides, weren’t some of the Victory staffers from out of state? I doubt many reregistered in CA before interviewing for the job. I also think it’s unlawful for any employer to discriminate due to political affiliation. So if an independent applies for a job with the CRP, and they are the MOST qualified candidate and they can prove that they didn’t get the job because of their political affiliation, then you have a lawsuit on your hands. Again, I think someone should consult an employment lawyer. The ACLU would love to sue the CRP and in this case I think they can win.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Again, I ask- if we don’t have some sort of principles at the California GOP we really don’t have a Party. The Roman Empire fell when they decided to outsource everything to everyone but Romans.
In the SDUT article today Tony Quinn noted that the Gov has figured out that the Republican Party isn’t relevant to where the state is going. This is what happens when principles go out the window and anything goes. I will stand by my Rules Change and hope to have a healthy debate at the convention.
July 8th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jon…
Where did Colin Metcalfe stand on Canadain health care?
July 9th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Andrew you are wrong. Equal Opprotunity laws allow exemptions when something like party affiliation directly affect the job duties. Which arguably COO of the party would.
I support legal immigration. In fact migrated here from Cananda myself 25 years ago.
However, I find it very hypocritical of our party to be opposed to any sort of guest worker program and then hire a guest worker to run the day to day operations of our party.
Where does it stop? If one can’t vote in our elections or for our president. Why would we want them running the largest statwide organization in the country?
July 9th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I think Jon’s first post has merit. Yes, we can respect those who pick up and support our goals and values even if they are not a US citizen.
However, supporting a cause and directing it are two different animals.
Aside from my VERY strong fundamental concern over the rhetoric that we would lessen our pool of qualified candidates if we limit the search to the skilled, educated, and politically dedicated US citizens that can even be found on this board, it does send a message that we cannot stand on our own feet.
Now, what happens when a well qualified Mexican nationalist applies? They have a history of winning elections in Mexico, and let’s just say they too have worked the trenches with fellow Republicans to promote a Republican candidate. Would the party rush a Visa through and hire them to the top posts? Would there be a lesser or greater outcry?
The very question may be uncomfortable but it does open the door for discussion. Where do we draw the line on outsourced leadership? How many would find the situation I mentioned above intolerable and leave the party? And why should we even be going down that road?
I may be a little too proud of my citizenship and country or believe too blindly in the talent of our citizen Republican loyalist but my gut tells me that we should be establishing rules that limit the leadership of the most powerful political party in the most powerful state in the union who can make or break Councilmen, Congressmen, Governors, and Presidents to people who can vote.
Understand, it is not just the fact they can vote but in order to vote a level of dedication and commitment must be there that goes beyond supporting a cause. I can go to another country and support a cause with great passion but I would NEVER leave my first loyalty to this great nation. And when the metal hit the road this countries values and people would take front seat. There is a difference in supporting a cause\party\country and living it.
Richard Rios
July 9th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Let me reply to Barry’s question with a question. Are we saying that of the 5.5 million registered Republicans, no one was qualified and capable to handle the job. The action is an slap in the face to all Republicans who seemed to have lost sight of their principles and goals of the party.