Posted on 05/14/2005 5:51:04 PM PDT by Conservative Firster
Immigration is the next big thing in political hot buttons, but who wins and who loses? Both parties are divided within their own ranks on how to position themselves for maximum advantage on an issue that is rising quickly toward the social and political surface. Both sides agree it could be a deciding factor in many races in next year’s midterm election.
“It is the strongest issue out there for the blue-collar white males,” says Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, a Virginia-based Democratic consultant who is co-author of an upcoming book, “Foxes in the Henhouse,” which will suggest ways his party can win back rural voters on issues such as illegal immigration.
Once confined to states along the Mexican border, public anger over the flow of illegal immigrants is spreading to other regions. A near tidal wave of undocumented Mexican workers into North Carolina — recently pegged at nearly 300,000 now in the state — has the General Assembly wrestling with several bills cracking down on immigrants. But as happens throughout the country in this debate, business leaders who depend on cheap labor for higher profits are trying to tone down the provisions.
The immigration fight pits business interests who favor relaxed rules against hard-pressed American workers who believe they are losing jobs to illegal residents. That tension seriously divides Republican ranks.
One indicator of how mounting grass-roots resentment bedevils the GOP is the recent emergence in Arizona of volunteer border patrols known as the Minutemen. Frustrated by the federal government’s failure to control the borders, they took matters into their own hands and slowed the flow of people — or at least redirected it to nearby states. They are now talking about expanding their operations into Texas. President Bush, who has long struggled to appeal to Hispanic voters with a pro-immigration agenda, denounced the Minutemen as “vigilantes.” But one of his party’s biggest stars, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, praised them.
The president has largely failed in his tepid efforts to move his party to the left on immigration matters.
Republicans are still stung by the furious conservative reaction against Bush’s election-year proposal to make undocumented foreign workers eligible for renewable three-year visas. Though popular with many business leaders, the idea drew legions of critics, who saw it as nothing short of an amnesty program. Congress ignored Bush’s idea. (White House aides say that fears of terrorists sneaking into the United States have made it much tougher for the president to loosen immigration laws.)
So, last week the Republican-led Congress moved to the right on immigration, and Bush tagged along. The midyear Iraq War spending bill the Senate cleared has language — known as Real ID — forcing states to make it tougher for illegal immigrants to obtain drivers’ licenses.
The White House-backed measure provoked plenty of broken-field running on both sides of the political aisle. GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee parted company with his party and the president, lining up with Democrats who spoke out against the license mandate. He warned of “unintended consequences” and railed against the strain and cost it would impose on the states. Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, in contrast, risked the ire of Hispanic leaders in her party by backing Real ID, with reservations. “If we can’t secure our borders, we can’t secure our homeland,” she said.
A Democratic Opening
Most Democrats are not as open as Clinton to irritating their base among Hispanics, whose large and growing numbers make them the most volatile demographic group in the immigration debate.
Yet Clinton is on to something. She tied worries about immigration to the terror threat. This could be the rhetorical basis for Democrats to appeal to voters upset about the influx of illegal workers — without appearing ethnically or racially prejudiced, a frequent charge against those who try to restrict immigration.
Although Hispanic leaders are quick to deride conservative views on immigration, opinion polls of Hispanics suggest that Democrats may not risk as much as they fear in adopting a tougher policy. A Gallup survey last year found that a plurality, 39 percent, of Hispanic voters believed the level of immigration should be decreased.
With Republicans torn by Bush’s moderate stance, Democrats could find fertile hunting ground in Sun Belt states by moving to the right on immigration.
Saunders says the Democrats will need to fine-tune their rhetoric to get that message across.
“Bubba doesn’t call them illegal immigrants,” the political operative noted. “He calls them illegal aliens. If the Democrats put illegal aliens in their bait can, we’re going to come home with a bunch of white males in the boat.”
I don't think so.
Politicians in both parties are trying to figure out how to "position" themselves going into the next election....
Well, it would be easy if they did like my momma told me to do regarding lying...
If you don't tell a lie, then you don't have to worry about covering for it later...
If you take a "position" on immigration the benefits the constituents and the country, you won't have to backtrack or apologize later!
it's a truism that most new immigrants will side with the democrats because they give them things. the only exceptions of the immigrants that i met in socal were some asians, providing that they are well-to-do. of course, some vietnamese in westminister, ca have never forgotten the complicity of the democrats with hanoi.
president bush's family has long ties into the mexican elite.
the american economy has an almost insatiable appetite for cheap labor. no sooner than has one illegal established himself, then he's displaced by cheaper illegals. he's safe if he's moved up the ladder.
even with illegal immigration the americna birth rate doesn't always rise because the children of immigrants americanize, likewise want material things, and thus have less kids than their parents.
I do have one thing to say that will probably get me flamed but it has been bugging me for weeks---
All of the people and articles and news reports that said that President Bush called the Minutemen "vigilantes" and doesn't like them, has the story wrong---
I SAW the press conference everyone is talking about and President Bush was asked by a reporter, "What do you think about vigilantes on the border?"---
The Minutemen weren't mentioned, it was a press conference in Mexico and all Bush answered to that above question was, "I don't like vigilantes,"...
Therefore, IMHO, the reporter set Bush up and I don't really think Bush was thinking specifically about the MM Project...
When someone says vigilantes to ME, I think of people that are more likely to shoot first and ask questions later, and I am sure it was in that context that Bush answered the question...
Now, I am a fan of the MM Project, but they are nothing like a stereotypical vigilante group...
What Bush has done wrong, IMHO, was make that distinction when he got back to US, and at least acknowledge that the MM Project was NOT a vigilante group...
Thank you for letting me say that---
Sadly, there is little chance for any serious immigration reform to pass Congress unless it is a plan supported by the far left and idiots like McLame. As long as Tancredo has his little clique holding up anything Republican sponsored legislation (other than Tancredo's), all it would take is a few RINOs joining with the Democrats to pass something like Kennedy-McCain. Tancredo would rather nothing get done (so he can grandstand the issue and ask for donations) than see any bill passed other than his own.
I love it when vital national issues are reduced to "who does it help win an election?" arguments. If an officeholder has to consult a poll to decide what position to take, we may as well have Zogby or Gallup doing the job.
I don't think so, either. The operative mentioned above shows everything that is wrong with their party. They think that only white males are involved in the GOP or Conservative politics. They seem to blame everything on "angry white men" or "the religious right" these days. This is the same analysis they had in the 1980s and again with the Revolution of 1994, by the way.
Once again, they are fixated on the message rather than the actions.
Conclusions of the U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1402132/posts
It explains the Immigration policy, IMO.. and where we are headed.. cursor on down the thread as well... ~jj
Wowser. I was not aware of the border zone. Thanks for the referral.
R O T F L M A O
I know I didn't explain it well, plus I may be totally wrong, but he was asked about "vigilantes"---the MM project was not mentioned....
He could have been remarking on "vigilantes" in general---because don't you think that the word "vigilante" has a negative conotation?
I mean, when the reporter asked him what he thought about "vigilantes", what was he supposed to say, "yes, I like vigilantes and encourage them"---he was IN Mexico and in front of a world wide audience---with the negative conotation that the WORD vigilante has, I don't think he could have answered any other way....
But, I do understand why no one else might see it that way--it is just the impression I got from watching the press conference...
Thank you for pointing this out. I had the presser on but was doing other things & of course only heard the President's answer clearly, which has REALLY BUGGED me ever since.
I have also seen/heard that there had been some mention made regarding the white supremacist groups trying to join or follow along with the MMP, alluding to the fact that they may have been who the President was referring to.
I agree with you that he should have clarified his statement once he was back in the US.
Don't forget the gangs from Mexico--there are some really bad ones in the Dallas area--and they behave like the terrorists in that, they won't hesitate to shoot kids if they get in the way of a good drive-by...
I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America. I'm for enforcing law in a rational way. And so we've got a Border Patrol and they ought to be in charge of enforcing the border.
This vigilante thing has been out for so long uncorrected, he has effectively endorsed the story of calling people in lawn chairs with binoculors and cell phones vigilantes.
Yes---as I stated before, I don't think (considering what I said in my last post) it was what he said in Mexico that was so bad....
It was the fact that when he got back to US, he should have acknowledged that the MM Project was NOT a vigilante group and how he reallizes that he needs to meet with as many people/groups as possible to find the BEST way to control the border...
THAT was his BIG mistake---ignoring the MM project!
Okay, everyone, I am on the same side as ya'll---
I just think that the ONE press conference shouldn't be the focus of all of the frustration re: illegal immigration.
Remember, Bush can't DO anything, he can recommend, cajole, threaten maybe, lobby, scream and shout, BUT he cannot DO anything---it is congress, but also the JUDICIAL SYSTEM!
There are already laws on the books the the Justice dept could see that are upheld, BUT you have the lawyers down there on the border telling the illegals that THEY have all the rights... and judges that won't deport the ones that come in front of them...
Then there is our congresscritters---how come all of the condemnation is aimed at Bush...he is guilty, but unless and until there is an immigration bill in front of him to sign...well, we well be on FR---knocking our heads on our keypads, I reckon...LOL
I don't think I implied he is impotent--I listed things he CAN do---but he can't write legislation, and until the congress does he shouldn't be the ONLY one blamed...
Did you not see where I said he is to blame? I did say that, but I also am realistic--the ACLU, judges and the congress have their OWN agendas....like the dems like to remind us Bush is not the KING!
I cannot believe the naivete of so many FReepers. Bush wanted amnesty, and has done everything in word and deed to encourage illegal immigration. He sold us down the river lock, stock, and barrel. How to stop him from his plan is the only question left to resolve.
I agree. The time to correct it, if he chose to, has long past.
And so we've got a Border Patrol and they ought to be in charge of enforcing the border...
Okay - BUT THE BORDERS ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED!
Put down your Kool-Aid, we see right through you bushbot. You are not fooling anyone here.
Check out this link including the side bars. According to the information regarding NAFTA,CAFTA,GATT,WTO, it would appear that there is not much that can be done.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Spivey/phyllis2.htm
He could have said, "What vigilantes are you talking about?".
Vigilantes in general? Oh bosh, he knew he was speaking about the Minutemen. So did everyone else. Why would a reporter ask about, oh, just any vigilantes that may happen to be about at any one time?
Good try. Doesn't pass the snicker test.
You're right, but it's not going to make one bit of difference to many here.
Bush wasn't set up. He knew exactly what that reporter was referring to. If he hadn't heard of them, the first thing he would have said was, "What 'vigilantes'?" He wouldn't have just uncritically accepted the premise of the question. And then a short time later, Condi Rice repeated the same "vigilante" refrain.
yes that is all true but the mexicans are not at war with with christianity and the west. alot of mexicans are jehovah witnesses and the vast majority are catholic. all societies need criminals to justify the the rich;in that way, "the chosen" are guaranteed to survive. plus, all the lawyers themselves would be forced to turn to crime if they didn't have crooks to defend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.