The Center Of Our Discontent
Over at Real Clear Politics, Michael Barone points out what should be obvious to politicians by now: immigration reform is a central issue defining voter discontent with the direction the country is moving in. Barone didn't say that, incidentally. Democratic strategists James Carville and Stanley Greenberg did. Open border advocates routinely smear opponents and call them racist. Barone points out that this is simply not true.
But if you listened to the opponents, you heard something else. They want the current law to be enforced. It bothers them that we have something like 12 million illegal immigrants in our country. It bothers them that most of the southern border is unfenced and unpatrolled. It bothers them that illegal immigrants routinely use forged documents to get jobs — or are given jobs with no documents at all.
You don't have to be a racist to be bothered by such things. You just have to be a citizen who thinks that massive failure to enforce the law is corrosive to society.
That was apparent to me as I listened to a focus group of Republican voters in suburban Richmond, Va., conducted by Peter Hart for the Annenberg School of Communications. One voter after another complained that the immigration laws were not being enforced. None of them made any derogatory remarks about Latino immigrants — two said they admired how hard they work. They don't want to see Latinos banished from this country. They want the immigrants here to be legally here.
Which leaves Democratic politicians and political candidates out on a pretty flimsy limb. Most of them reflexively back a comprehensive bill, and some of them (like Bush and a number of Republicans backing such a bill) have dismissed opponents as racists.
Most Democrats have also been backing bills extending various benefits to illegal immigrants, like the Dream Act for college education for illegals brought over as children. There are appealing arguments for such bills. But most voters reject them. And most voters certainly reject driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. That was one of the issues that led to the recall of Gov. Gray Davis in California in 2003.
The Republican presidential candidates have taken note. Only John McCain, a longtime backer of a comprehensive bill, stands apart, and he concedes that voters are demanding tougher enforcement. In the special congressional election in Massachusetts on Oct. 5, the Republican was able to hold the Democrat to 51 percent by stressing immigration as one of his two top issues.
Immigration reform is taking center stage. Carville and Greenberg, quoted by Barone say: "The centrality of illegal immigration to the current discontent about the direction of the country may be taking us back again to a welfare moment." That is going to hurt candidates, like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who back Eliot Spitzer's licenses for lawbreakers initiative. The Washington Post may gleefully point out that voters want change, but they may - in fact are, I suspect - missing the change the voters really want.
The vast majority of Americans - regardless of political affiliation - welcome immigrants to this country. So long as they come here legally. The vast majority of Americans - regardless of their position on other political issues - want secure borders. Politicians are ignoring that at their own risk. There may indeed be a vast discontent among voters that demands a change in direction for the country. But it may not be the change the Washington Post and the media expect.
A high fence, a wide gate and a hearty welcome for people who play by the rules. That simple. That powerful. That American.
Immigration Reform | Gaius Monday, 5 November , 2007
By syn, Monday, 5 November , 2007 @ 7:50 am
Illegal really does mean Illegal; what I find disheartening is the idea that supporting laws meant to protect American citizens of all race, creed and color is somehow a racist concept.
By Steev, Monday, 5 November , 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Giuliani seems pretty soft on immigration. I’d consider voting for him if he were tougher on illegals and enforcement.
I like his position on Abortion. I’m tired of the Repubs bending over for the Religious Right.
By Neo, Monday, 5 November , 2007 @ 2:13 pm
The underlying question that many citizens are asking themselves is ..
Why do we need any laws when the current laws are a joke ?
If we aren’t goint to enforce the current laws, why do we need another set of laws ?
So they can be ignored too ?
The defining premise of any government is that they have “a monopoly on the use of force“. If this government doesn’t want to use that monopoly, then this government will simply cease to exist.
With something like 12 million illegal immigrants in our country, this government is on the road to obvilion.
By Wayne, Monday, 5 November , 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Steev, I feel Rudy is fairly soft on all the issues. If he becomes president with a democratic senate he would have to stand tall on all the issues … Taxes, Immigration, courts writing the law instead of the people who were elected to do so.
In the debate he said, line item veto is dead, he was the one who killed it during the Clinton administration.
I just don’t see him as someone who would put up a fight if needed if he thought he was going to lose. And, by not putting up a fight on what he knows he will lose the fight will move to the left. Bush is willing to fight and lose - as he did last week by vetoing a bill filled with pork - he will lose but at least he is making a stand.