... when it's just a question of which side of the fence you're on?
Posted on 08/17/2015 2:57:00 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Four years ago, deep within a process of convincing Republican primary voters that he was "severely conservative," Mitt Romney declared that his solution for dealing with the millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States was "self-deportation" — in other words, making life so miserable for them that they'd prefer to return to the countries they fled from rather than stay here. The chairman of the Republican Party later called Romney's words "horrific," not so much out of some moral revulsion, but because they sent a clear message of hostility to Hispanic voters, the country's largest minority group and one that is growing fast. Since then, most Republicans have acknowledged that they have to be careful about how they talk about those 11 million immigrants if they want to have any hope of winning the White House again.
Then along came Donald Trump, who isn't careful about anything (other than that glorious and extremely delicate mane of hair). Barreling into the campaign, Trump said he'd deport all 11 million, then let "the good ones" return to the United States. How would the unfathomably complicated task of locating all those people, detaining them, and moving them back to their countries of origin be accomplished? "It's feasible if you know how to manage," he said. OK then.
Compared to Trump, the rest of the GOP candidates have been models of reason and thoughtfulness on this issue, and between them they've taken a couple of different positions on how to handle the undocumented. If comprehensive immigration reform ever happens, this will be one of its key components, so it's important to know where they stand.
But first, what about the public? Gallup just released a survey that sheds some light on this question, showing both why Trump is getting support and why most of the other candidates are taking a different tack. Asked whether the government should "deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country, allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work, but only for a limited amount of time, or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time," a full 65 percent said they should be allowed to become citizens, and only 19 percent said they should be deported.
But right now, the GOP candidates aren't seeking the support of the whole country, they're going after the Republicans who might vote in upcoming primaries. Among Republicans, the numbers are different — but not as much as you might expect. Fifty percent of Republicans said there should be a path to citizenship, while 31 percent said they should be deported.
Thirty-one percent isn't a majority, but it's still a lot — and you could say the same about Trump's support in the polls. Right now he's averaging around 24 percent, and while there are certainly people supporting him who don't agree with him on immigration (and those opposing him who do), if you want the candidate taking the clearest anti-immigrant stance, your choice is pretty clear.
So where do the other candidates come down? When you ask them about a path to citizenship you'll inevitably get a complicated answer, but most of them say one of two things: either they support a path to citizenship, or they support a path to some other kind of legal status, but not citizenship itself.
Interestingly enough, among the candidates who take the latter position — the more conservative one — are the son of a Cuban immigrant and the husband of a Mexican immigrant. Ted Cruz may be the farthest to the right (other than Trump) — he spends a lot of time decrying "amnesty" — but if pressed will say that he's open to some kind of restrictive work permit that would allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the country. Jeb Bush talks about a "path to legal status," but pointedly says that the path does not end in citizenship, but rather in something that resembles a green card, allowing the immigrant to work and live in the U.S., but not be an American citizen. (Bush used to support a path to citizenship, but not anymore.)
Others have taken the same position. Carly Fiorina says that some legal status might be acceptable, but not citizenship. Rick Santorum not only opposes a path to citizenship, but wants to drastically curtail legal immigration as well. Chris Christie used to support a path to citizenship, but has since changed his mind. Rick Perry is also opposed to a path to citizenship, but doesn't seem to have answered a specific question about the undocumented in some time.
Whenever any of them describes their path, whether to citizenship or some kind of guest worker status, it contains some key features. It winds over many years, involves paying fines and any back taxes, and also involves proving that the immigrant speaks English. The truth is that this last provision is completely unnecessary — this wave of immigrants is learning English no slower than previous waves did — but it's actually an important way for voters with complex feelings about immigration to feel less threatened and be reassured that the immigrants will become American.
For most of the candidates, the end of the long process is indeed citizenship. Scott Walker, after a bunch of incoherent and seemingly contradictory statements, finally said that he could eventually foresee a path to citizenship, once the border is secure (more on that in a moment). Marco Rubio will describe for you an intricate process that ends in citizenship, even if he seems reluctant to say so (Rubio was essentially cast out of the Tea Party temple after he proposed a comprehensive reform bill, which he has since dropped). Rand Paul has essentially the same position — he describes a path to citizenship, but doesn't like using the word. Bobby Jindal also supports a path to citizenship, as does Mike Huckabee, and John Kasich, and George Pataki, and Lindsey Graham, who has even said that he would veto any immigration reform bill that didn't contain a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Ben Carson has been vague on the subject, and as far as I can tell no one has asked Jim Gilmore.
But don't get the idea that any of these candidates are all that eager to move undocumented immigrants down that path too quickly. All of them say we need to "secure the border" before we even begin talking about how undocumented immigrants might eventually become citizens. And they seldom elaborate on what "securing" the border would mean. Would it mean not a single person could sneak over? If not, then what? In practice, they could always say that we can't get started on laying that path to citizenship because the border is not yet secure.
What all this makes clear is that you have to pay very close attention to understand what most of the candidates actually want to do, and even then you might not be completely sure. And even if there are plenty of Republican voters who would like to see a path to citizenship, at this point their voices are far quieter than the ones complaining about the invading horde. So if a Republican gets elected next fall, I wouldn't expect him to be in too much of a hurry to create a way for undocumented immigrants to eventually become Americans under the law.
It sounds like this was written just before Trump made his formal immigration plans public...
Oops...
Journalists and pundits are a lazy breed.
Whaaaaaa? No. Trump is pulling from dems, Hispanics, blacks, indies and repubs. Americans. IMO he doesn't lose an indie run.
This means Gallup polled anyone in the U.S. including those ineligible to legally vote - such as non-citizen legal & illegal aliens and felons. And you can be certain that Gallup made sure to include enough of these non voters or it would not have targeted such a misleadingly labeled group as "U.S. adults."
... when it's just a question of which side of the fence you're on?
I’m pretty sure Trump has sense enough to realize the first thing to do is look at the economic angle. Limit job possibilities (and therefore paychecks) for illegal immigrants, they will start to go home on their own. Why stay here if you can’t make a living?
As for the rhetoric of securing the border first, I’ve wondered about that. Yes that should be priority number one, but removing as many as possible should be doable WHILE you secure the border. Not just afterward. Political rhetoric.
Finding many will be easy, I’ve seen reports that up to 80% are already on welfare, there’s a paper trail. Follow it. Don’t know about that 80% figure, but quite a few of the more recent ones are signed up within days.
There is also a very good chance of getting Mexico to help. Economics again. We give Mexico loads of money every year. Cut it off. No foreign aid, shut down tourist traffic at the border going into Mexico in the interest of public safety, Mexico will start helping secure the border for us.
Hit Western Union with a fee of some sort for all wire transfers of money to Mexico. They will pass it on to their customers. Once it becomes too expensive to send money back home, the incentive to come here in the first place is decreased.
Crack down on employers hiring illegals, fewer job opportunities. Less incentive to come here. When jobs start going away so will illegal immigrants.
Finding and deporting all of somewhere between 11 and 30 million illegal immigrants will not be as tough as a lot of people may think. Remove the incentive to come here and stay here, a large number will leave on their own.
Then there’s the legal system. It’s already illegal to come here, start prosecuting.
A lot of t his goes back to what a lot of people have been saying all along, enforce existing laws. “immigration reform” is political rhetoric, and not needed. Let ICE and border patrol do their jobs, remove the incentive to come here, make Mexico pay for letting them come here, the problem will almost solve itself.
I’m betting Trump already knows a lot of this. He’s already said why he’s not letting out a lot of specifics. You don’t win a football game by telling the other team your plays before the game starts. (my analogy not his) He’s strongly hinted at that already, and reporters and pundits are still hounding him for specifics. I’d like to see some specifics myself, but at the same time I realize it’s a bad idea to telegraph your intentions to your adversaries. That’s what happened when Obama announced 2 weeks in advance he was going to start air raids into Iraq. ISIS just started to melt into the population. He wasn’t trying to do any serious damage anyway, bombing parked trucks and empty buildings at 2 AM doesn’t take many casualties...
IMO this is the classic survey question that is worded such that deportation sounds like the mean fringe—and people don’t want to give a mean fringe answer in a survey. Also, they’ve been told over and over and over that such simple law enforcement is totally impractical.
But the ‘silent majority’ is, indeed, with Trump. Now that he’s boldly staked out his position it is going to start sounding like a plausible option again—and people will go with Trump on it.
“(Bush used to support a path to citizenship, but not anymore.)”
Let me help here: “(Bush used to support a path to citizenship, but not anymore. For now.)”
” Fifty percent of Republicans said there should be a path to citizenship, while 31 percent said they should be deported.”
Time to READ BETWEEN THE LINES, everyone:
If the above were true, then why did Bush flip on the “path to citizenship” and now is against it? Seems like with 50% of Republicans supposedly ‘supporting’ a “path to citizenship”, Bush could jump into a HUGE LEAD based on the support of those people alone...plus, just given the numbers above, another 19% would be open to a path, to varying degrees.
If Bush had simply stuck to his Amnesty plan he would be SMOTHERING the competition now...not even close, according to that poll.
Well, I don’t feel like trying to dig into that poll, but looking how Bush and Gram are doing, especially compared to Trump, it’s safe to assume that the poll is a BOLD FACE LIE intended to push Republicans to the left on immigration and probably would have worked, until Trump called it out by going the other way.
But it’s a shame that our other candidates, with the possible exception of Cruz (maybe) believe this poll before they believe their phone calls and what they hear at their town meetings and campaign stops. Bummer...but there is one candidate that does hear us on immigration - and I LIKE IT!
Thanks, that was a great analysis of how simple this is, and how this can work.
I hope you post that on other threads too.
Only thing that matters to them is getting invited cocktail parties, orgies, and who can out lie the people among one another.
The MSM is setting the narrative for Jeb Bush, and Hillary.
Setting the narrative for Jeb Bush among Republicans to look compassionate , while Hillary can play both sides of the fence while appearing to look like she cares for the average Joe, the American worker by taking a hard stance on immigration ( in which will be a total lie ) while at the same time distance herself from the likes of Trump and Cruz by appearing to be compassionate towards suffering illegal immigrants.
I’m pretty sure Trump…
BUMP!
Yep, I’ve posted basically the same thing on other threads. I think that’s t he main reason Trump is the best bet for prez so far, he can see the economic side of many issues while most other politicians may see it, but won’t stick their necks out to try and implement it. Anything that may cost them a few votes is off their list.
I’ve also posted the method I’ve been telling people would minimize illegal immigration for at least 10 years, with Mexico doing most of the heavy lifting. Since this is basically related, here it is again:
1. Cut off all foreign aid to Mexico. Why should we keep giving them insane amounts of money every year while they ignore a serious problem? In their view, they’re getting rid of their riff raff.
2. On a temporary basis, shut down tourist traffic into Mexico in the interest of public safety. Americans are in danger south of the border.
3. AT the same time, beef up border security, give border patrol back their authority.
4. Now you have their attention, tell Mexico to stop illegals leaving their country and we’ll talk money.
No wall needed, but we should finish the fence we started.
I give it 6 months and you won’t be able to get a mouse across the border without papers.
That’s the angle I expect Trump to take when he says he’ll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. It’s not that difficult. Politicians the world over share one trait. Money talks. No matter what their ideology, hit their finances and you have their undivided attention.
But all of this can be done WHILE securing the border, not afterward. As a part of the overall plan. I see no reason to make it required that you secure the border first, that’s political rhetoric.
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.