Posted on 02/10/2005 3:40:08 PM PST by madfly
Not so many years ago, immigration - especially illegal immigration - was one of those topics best discussed in lowered tones and in small settings. Time passed and suddenly there are signs all over the place that immigration has become one of the nation's most fashionable topics. For example, last Sunday's Denver Post contained an article detailing Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo's plans to keep the issue front and center even if it means he will have to mount a quixotic campaign for president. Tancredo's determination to go on the offensive is best understood as part of a larger political shift that has been taking place for years. Gone is the time when opponents of illegal immigration were entirely on the defensive, forced to scrape together the necessary resources to beat back a series of schemes by the pro-immigration crowd, schemes like driver's licenses for illegal immigrants or reduced college tuition or expanded health and welfare services. Instead, there are several major developments that indicate how much the political landscape has changed - suggesting that pro-immigration forces may now have to play a little defense themselves. There is, for instance, a bill pending in Congress that would, among other things, make it more difficult for immigrants to seek political asylum. The bill would require the immigrant to prove that he or she would face persecution if deported. It also would deal with the issue of driver's licenses and how to control the burgeoning traffic in false documents.< At the state level, there are 20 co- sponsors for a bill now before the Colorado legislature that mirrors a restrictive ballot measure passed last year in Arizona. The chief sponsor, Rep. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, admits his proposal faces an uphill fight since Democrats control both houses of the General Assembly. Still, the important point is that the measure offers yet another chance to debate the pressing question of what, if anything, Colorado should do to slow the growth of its illegal immigrant population. That population is variously estimated at between 150,000 and 250,000. Nationally, estimates average 10 million. House Bill 1271 provides that non- emergency services and public benefits will only be available to U.S. citizens in Colorado and it would require state and local officials to enforce that policy by requiring that persons seeking such services demonstrate they are "legally present" in the United States. The bill, along with the Arizona initiative that inspired it, provides an exception for those benefits that are mandated by the U.S. government. These include such things as emergency health care and public education from kindergarten through high school. Schultheis' bill offers a nice contrast with a couple of other proposals that would grant in-state college tuition rates to certain illegal immigrants or the more general right to obtain a state driver's license. While HB 1271 will be viewed as mean-spirited by some, it is a fact that public opinion polls nationwide have consistently shown opposition to any measure that further blurs the distinction between the rights of U.S. citizens and those who are merely residents. Schultheis has said that even if the bill is defeated this year, as expected, the debate over its provisions will likely hasten the prospect that the same type of measure can be put on the general election ballot in 2006. President Bush, in his State of the Union speech, repeated his familiar call for a national guest-worker program, but the prospects for such a broad program are dim. Critics have labeled the proposal "amnesty by another name," knowing full well that most Americans oppose amnesty. When all of these developments are combined, a political picture emerges that is starkly different than the one in place prior to the Sept. 11 attacks. While it may well be that neither side in the immigration debate can get what it wants, that shift to a legislative deadlock must be viewed as a victory for those who seek new restrictions on illegal immigration. It is now decidedly respectable to not only argue against the excesses of the open-borders advocates but to argue in favor of steps such as HB 1271 that would actually force a change in the way the state deals with those who, in the bill's delicate phrasing, aren't "legally present in the United States."
Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) ) is a former member of The Post's editorial-page staff. His columns appear on Wednesday.
ping
IIRC the Denver Post used to trash Tom Tancredo on a weekly basis.
And the Denver Post associates itself with which party?
It goes without saying that they'll trash Tancredo.
They probably still do. Al Knight is just a Wednesday columnist -- a great one!!!! He used to be on the editorial board but left a year or so ago. Too bad. I'm still mad about it.
Now that the illegals are a national problem, not just a California problem the story has legs.
The Dem opposition may well give the legislature back to the GOP next time..
ping
...Hillary took the bait - heheheheeee.
What a historic opportunity FOR America and our national LEGACY of FREEDOM! Restore our sovereignty NOW!!
And I would respond were it not for the recent purges.
Hi madfly glad you're back and pinging again.
Thanks! Good to see ya'
Thanks for the ping. It's about time that the problem of illegal immigration is being recognized nationally. What a shame that the White House isn't concerned. Tom Tancredo was told by Rove to "never darken the doors of the White House again" because Tancredo is against illegal immigration. Strange viewpoint from the White House, since most Americans are clamoring for the human tsunami from Mexico to stop...
PS: I've just received my invitation to the White House annual Christmas party :)
Was he kidding? :^)
I remember how frustrating it was when the problems arising from the growing number of illegal aliens, from their trespassing/trashing residents property in SE AZ to the costs to states in benefits and their growing numbers across the country, were simply not acknowledged (pro or con) by MSM or Washington. I remember when O'Reilly first had Tom Tancredo on his show and let him talk about the elephant in the living room. What a breakthrough!
No,not at all. But full of glee, I'm sure.
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.