Is your position that the American people just have to suck it up and accept that their leaders of both parties want to force open borders and amnesty down our throats? And that somehow we are wrong to disagree with our betters?
If the R's would nominate someone who would campaign on "build the fence" and "enforce the current laws," that would force the dem to take a position. If it's open borders and amnesty, the dems lose the election because we peel off the Reagan democrats. OTOH, if it's secure borders and no amnesty, the dems lose their death grip on the recent immigrant vote and a lot of them stay home (or go home). Either way we win. Either way, America wins.
But we have to present the issue squarely. Otherwise, the media will let the dem slither out of taking a position.
The way for R's to lose this year is to nominate a pro-amnesty, pro-open-borders candidate or a candidate that says the right things but isn't going to make an issue about it because they don't really believe what they are saying.
AS tired as this debate is, I will state again:
I do not think open borders and amnesty is a fair description of any Republican positions. It is hyperbole. I would love to a see a careful reaction to Huckabee’s positions on immigration as they are stated on his web site.
It may not be ideal but if borders are a federal issue, then Huckabee’s practices as a governor may not be particularly relevant.
The hyperbolic view of anti-illegal immigration advocates is returning the party to its 1990s positions which did not do that well.
I do think increased border stricture is completely warranted, but we better find a reasonable sense of this [not mass deportations] or we will lose the election.