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...
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.