Where is Bush's immigration policy helping him in this election?

Real Clear Politics Electoral Map ^ | October 22, 2003 | Plutarch

[Plutarch]

As we know, the Bush Administration has proposed Amnesty for illegal immigrants, and pressured House Republicans to strip the immigration provisions from H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act . The Administration’s pro-immigration policy is commonly attributed to Karl Rove, whose strategy is thought to be to attract a higher percentage of the growing Hispanic vote . USA Today cites the importance of the Hispanic vote in four battleground states (New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Florida). Of these, only NM and FL are truly in play. Not everyone believes that Rove’s strategy is brilliant, and FR has no shortage of posts questioning Rove’s strategy.

Bush's re-election is in doubt with two weeks to go. Below is today's Real Clear Politics' Electoral Map . It is crunch time. If Rove’s policy is as shrewd as purported, we should see evidence of its advantages on this map. Where do we see the pay-off for Bush’s supposedly Hispanic-pleasing Amnesty-pushing policy?

Which states are red that would be white? Which are white that would have been blue?

Alternatively, the majority of the battleground electoral votes are in states with low Hispanic populations. Would not a robust border protection policy be popular, and provide a reason for a potential Kerry voter, in say, Ohio, to vote for Bush?

Maybe Freepers can help sort this out.

[DoctorMichael]

Do you even know how to read?

[gubamyster]

ping

[sam_whiskey]

"discrepany in people's impressions on where the two candidates stand"

Let me be more specific. What's the discrepancy?? My impression is Bush=not good on illegal immigration; Kerry=worse. Are saying I'm mistaken?? If so, I retract my earlier apology...because then you're doing precisely what I thought you were.

[familyop]

"I said nothing of my position in the post."

Okay. Pardon me for assuming that you were supporting Kerry's position, which position would sound better to most discriminating voters (sarcasm). You obviously did not intend that.

We do get fired-up quickly about posts against the President on immigration. I, for one, have had it with their generalized complaints against immigration and no mentions of the lobby that pushes for loose labor immigration.

I know US citizens who have spent many years and many thousands of dollars trying to get their own husbands or wives into the USA. Meanwhile, people who came in illegally are telling us that they obtained work visas long after they started working for their employers, had their residence visas within less than a year and had their citizenship in less than two years.

But every time our government gets "tougher on immigration," the work visas get easier and family visas more difficult.

From now on, maybe I should forget partisan politics to issue information solely in favor of family rights and fathers' rights, which both parties have certainly opposed for 35 years.

[Cold Heat]

Bush has not proposed amnesty, Kerry has.

The Bush proposal, not even close to policy yet, was a suggestion to get the reformers working, but they are doing nothing that has a chance of passage.

The policy is the status quo.

The Bush proposal would stymie the ability of the illegal to find work, and they know it. That is why they do not support anything but amnesty and are currently supporting Kerry.

But I guess you are blind to this??????

[Cold Heat]

What flavor's that kool-aid? Making illegal folks legal is an amnesty.

It is no more amnesty than reducing the penalty for simple possession is amnesty to drug users.

When a policy fails to control the behavior of a lawbreaker, then the policy is flawed, inept, and there by useless and sometimes even aggravates the existing situation.

This is what we have now with current immigration law.

[sam_whiskey]

The good Doctor suddenly seems to be speechless. Interesting, ain't it??

[familyop]

Ping to the following. Our metrosexual and feminazi business leaders are worldwide and worldly. They divide and conquer families with their generalized immigration rants and other ruses. Boycott them. Put up the lists and draw the traffic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1253779/posts?page=29#29

[Marine Inspector]

Bush has not proposed amnesty.

Sure he has. He just does not call it Amnesty, but anyone with an IQ above zero, knows it's Amnesty.

[Spiff]

The President has put more than 1000 new border patrol personnel on each border.

We need way more than that. And we don't need them all on the border - we also need interior enforcement to include raids and deportations.

The President has put both manned and UAV flights in the air to patrol the border.

Not true. The UAVs were a pre-election show designed to shut up some of the border reformers. They have been grounded. I live where they patrol, they're not patrolling anymore, and local news reports say that they have been grounded. Manned flights? There's always been some helicopters down here used by Border Patrol - nothing new about that.

[Plutarch]

This is a pro-Democrat vanity post

Well it is a vanity post, you got me on that. ;-)

But Pro-Democrat? C'mon. Maybe considering whether Rove's strategy is effective should wait until after the election. But now our attention is riveted to the finer points of electoral politics, and it is no sin to consider whether or not one element of Bush's strategy is effective (And maybe I am not the only one tired of being fretting over contradictory weather vane polls day after day!).

Concern over our borders is a powerful reason to vote for Bush. There is hope with GWB, absolutely none with Kerry.

[Marine Inspector]

The President has put more than 1000 new border patrol personnel on each border.

What are you smoking?

The majority of agents that went to the northern border came from the southern border. Very few of the promised new hires were hired and agents are leaving almost as fast as they are being hired.

On the southern border, our manpower is basically the same as it was prior to 9/11, give or take a few dozen agents.

[janetgreen]

read up on the FTAA and see how it will erase the borders then get back to us

FTAA - the BIG elephant in the room that Americans either don't know about, or are so blind with "party loyalty" that they ignore it.

[TexasCowboy]

"we get the President elected, then we hammer him on immigration and help him find his veto stamp."

I agree.
We really have no choice.

If, after he wins this election, he continues to push for amnesty, I'd like to hear the distant drums of impeachment.

[familyop]

...one recent report of many.

Feds launch border air patrols from northern NY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1239312/posts

[Joe Hadenuf]

Ok...I'm all ears. What's your position?? What they heck are you trying to say Kerry's position is?? I obviously can't unravel it.

Look sam, anyone that isn't in a coma knows Kerry is a leftist screw worm. I think few if anyone on this forum supports this fraud. If this is the best the other beltway party can put forward, then you *know* they are weak. I think the issue here is what is the position of the Republican candidate on this issue. You know, the conservative guy.

Looking at his track record on this issue, and considering we are suppose to be at war, some of his own statements and lack of action over the past four years is disturbing, to say the least. When comparing Kerry with Bush on immigration, to summarize it, it's safe to say one will destroy the country faster than the other will. That's what this boils down to.

It's not rocket science sam.

This country, any country, cannot tolerate one to three million people a year pouring across their borders illegally. It's causing epic social and economic problems and growing worse by the week. Eventually, it will cause untold problems, and leave our country in chaos and ruin.

[familyop]

"What are you smoking?"

To answer your snotty irrelevance, would your paycheck be bigger under Democrats? Or we can stop begging questions and work with the facts here.

From the the Record of the First Preidential Debate:

PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap -- anyway, that's for another debate.

My administration has tripled the amount of money we're spending on homeland security, to $30 billion a year. My administration worked with the Congress to create the Department of Homeland Security so we could better coordinate our borders and ports. We got a thousand extra Border Patrol on the Southern border, more than a thousand on the Northern border. We're modernizing our borders. We spent $3.1 billion for fire and police -- $3.1 billion.

I believe what the President said and tend to discount bureaucratic rumors for Kerry.

[seastay]

PRESIDENT BUSH last month:
My administration has tripled the amount of money we're spending on homeland security, to $30 billion a year. My administration worked with the Congress to create the Department of Homeland Security so we could better coordinate our borders and ports. We got a thousand extra Border Patrol on the Southern border, more than a thousand on the Northern border. We're modernizing our borders. We spent $3.1 billion for fire and police -- $3.1 billion.

PRESIDENT BUSH this month:
"White House rejects clauses on immigration" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1250907/posts

So whats the difference between this flip flop and Kerry? Whose worse, well that is a toss up on this issue!

[AWestCoaster]

[familyop]

Most of our fellow citizens who are calling for more immigration control want to close the borders to the extent of calling individuals like myself back to ranks (Army NG, etc.).

It would take about three new divisions of us to do it like that (both borders). If that's what enough people want, then fine. I'll come down to join you and be posted in the heat and misery again. ...for a lot more pay than we used to get, though.

But that's pretty drastic, socialistic and expensive, don't you think? Wouldn't it be better if we just slowed down the demand, somewhat? As long as there is an employer preference for Mexican labor, those poor folks south of the border are going to come.