Replies

Okay DD I understand about an issue getting worn out, especially when you live it, but we have to keep fighting.

NFN I did a good deal of campaign work in VA and I found that dems and reps were in-sync on the immigration issue. That is how I was able to get the dems to vote for my candidate. We still lost. Until the reps realize that this is a winning issue, they will not force it. Kilgore only halfheartedly promoted his stand against illegal immigration, ran to Bush at the end, and lost big. Had the reps run on a Contract with America style message on illegal immigration, I believe many more of them would have won.

BF don't know about H-5's, but I did not approve of the Senate increasing immigration green cards (selling them) by 350,000 a year. At this point, I would like to see a moratorium to allow assimilation. The entire thing is out of control, but obviously, the illegal side is way out of control.

Thanks for the perspective HF. I assume (obviously) when you say dems and reps were "in-sync" on the immigration issue you mean they both came out in favor of cracking down.

Here's what I think about this. I believe there are several ways we could solve this problem tomorrow; the problem is that both parties have compelling reasons not to do so. The Republicans, like I said, have a cheap labor agenda, and the Dems know that eventually illegal immigration will mean 'cheap' votes.

Both parties know the electorate wants to hear that they are committed to stopping the flow of illegals, but they've calculated that the benefits of continuing to allow the flow of illegals outweighs actually doing anything about it - so they take the pragmatic approach and talk tough and look the other way. Hence the apparent bipartisan state of agreement you described.

You imply that the Republicans haven't realized this is a winning issue. Well, let's face it - it's been simmering just below the surface since 9/11; it's been a huge issue for four years now. I can't believe that the Republicans haven't noticed there's a groundswell of opinion here, and judged that it is indeed a winning issue. I think they have considered running on this issue carefully, and in the final analysis, when they weighed the benefits of allowing illegal immigration against the benefits of the political capital gained by running on a 'cracking down' message -or more correctly actually doing anything about it- they found running on that message lacking. That's the only plausible explanation I can think of.