Every presidential contender either pleads the fifth on illegal immigration or proposes to deep-six it.
With the victories of Mike Huckabee and John McCain in the first two primary contests and Mitt Romney’s failures prior to Michigan, a fiction is being bandied about: The anti-amnesty position isn’t playing well in Peoria.
A good example is this San Diego Union-Tribune piece didactically titled “Lesson Learned?” (read: Take the blue pill or your fantasy will become a nightmare in November). It’s dishonest pablum, with more spin than a whirling dervish on speed.
The editors begin with a convenient characterization, stating that amnesty proponents Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Huckabee and McCain are prevailing while opponents are faltering; Romney is losing the race and Tom Tancredo has left it. A few slippery paragraphs down the rabbit hole, a triumphant proclamation follows:
Voters have obviously had their fill of divisive rhetoric, catchy slogans and shameless demagoguery passed off as solutions to the immigration problem. And they’re letting the candidates know it.
The answer is “wrong,” bellowed with John McLaughlin intensity.
The truth is just the opposite. The “divisive rhetoric, catchy slogans and shameless demagoguery passed off as solutions to the immigration problem” voters have had their fill of emanate from the scamnesty side. And the candidates know it. This is why every presidential contender either pleads the fifth on illegal immigration or proposes to deep-six it.
With the Democrats, mum’s the word. It’s correct to say they don’t talk tough on immigration, but more apropos here is that they don’t talk about it much at all. Why do you suppose that is? While they don’t want to alienate the far Left, they’re also mindful of winning Reagan Democrats. Hence the balancing act.
As for Tancredo’s early exit, it’s not that his immigration stance has been rejected; it’s that all the Republicans are Tancredos now. Huck has reinvented himself, preaching against amnesty and rolling out a plan designed to secure the borders and toughen enforcement.
And if McCain hasn’t seen the light, he certainly fears the darkness. The Trib cites his co-authorship of last summer’s scamnesty bill to burnish its position, pretending to forget that this very proposal provoked the McCain Mutiny and sent his campaign into exile. But despite Father Time’s merciless march, McCain’s memory loss is not so profound. Twice shy on the trail, he now says he has “heard people” and emphasizes border security and not rewarding illegal behavior.
As for Romney’s woes, the San Diego paper would have us confuse cause with effect. It proposes that Romney finished second in Iowa and New Hampshire largely because he ran commercials casting his opponents as pro-amnesty.
Nice try.
Romney’s precipitous drop in the polls was not caused by the attack ads – it inspired them. He only ran them after Huck surpassed him in Iowa with Christian credentials and a populist message and the old soldier made him fade away in the Granite State.
Moreover, while the message is sound, the messenger is suspect. Romney plays the right notes, but the tune never sounds authentic. With his reputation as a shape-shifter, people just don’t think he is as good – or his targets as bad – as he would have them believe. Political ads are only as credible as their source.
The truth is that the Trib insults its readers’ intelligence by childishly casting correlation as causation. They well know that political fortunes rest more on money, mystique and marquee names than purity of policy. They know that a pro-amnesty Democrat is going to win every primary not because of said position, but because all the Democrat candidates embrace it. They know Republicans are wholly dissatisfied with the viable contenders – none of whom possess impeccable immigration credentials – and are reduced to looking for the largest lilliputian. They know Obama’s win was Hollywood, Hillary is the anointed one, Romney labors with a plastic persona and that Tancredo, lacking Ross Perot’s bankroll or Pat Buchanan’s personality, couldn’t escape political Siberia. They just don’t want you to know it.
This is why I will call these editorialists liars. If the media thought these candidates’ real record on immigration resonated, why wasn’t it front page all along? After all, it is a position with which they agree. Please, lilliputian leg men, if being pro-amnesty plays so well, I challenge you to consistently tout the pro-illegal credentials of Clinton, Obama, McCain and Huck.
I dare you.
Do it, and watch their poll numbers fall like your circulation.
I won’t hold my breath waiting, as the media are playing a game. When they want to crown a candidate king, they need only suppress reportage of any pro-amnesty leanings he might have; once he’s coronated, however, they then extrapolate those leanings to his supporters, creating the illusion that such sentiments enjoy popularity. They are then, finally, revealing the truth about these politicians, but only when doing so will give the impression that manly immigration-control advocacy is a losing strategy. Then, it is hoped, those who support enforcement of immigration law will become disheartened and adopt an “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” attitude for fear of electoral disaster.
That’s the straight dope on these cut-rate Machiavellis who play their readers for dopes.
I hope the lesson is learned.
SD@SelwynDuke.com
http://www.SelwynDuke.com
Read more articles by Selwyn Duke
All I can say is Bravo!!!
Comment by J3 | January 29, 2008
Good article. I am a single issue voter for the first time. If candidates don't plan to remove the illegals I will end up voting for myself as a write-in unless I can spell Tancredo for the write-in.
Comment by Mickey G | January 29, 2008
"Once upon a time"…I thought "single issue" voters were troubled people. I was right. I am VERY troubled by illegal immigration, and I am now a single-issue-voter !!!
Comment by Dean Smith | January 29, 2008
The Republicans who strongly support business will never agree to the draconian measures that the folks who want to get rid of all illegal immigrants. The cost is too high, both to the country and to the businesses that have been exploiting these illegal immigrants.
Comment by freelunch | January 29, 2008
I know man. How stuck in the past are these people? Like we're seriously supposed to enforce the laws that we've passed? It's just like the businesses that evade taxes. I mean what are we supposed to do, shut them down and put thousands of people out of jobs? That's ridiculous. That's why real conservatives will never support the draconian concept of tax enforcement.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 30, 2008
Can anyone explain the ambivalance of authorities in the US to enforcing immigration laws?
To an outsider, it seems the ones who have the most difficultly are those who go through the official method. The ones who chose the unofficial method, have least difficultly AND get support from elected officials and interest groups for doing so!!
Within Europe, laws are enforced to the verge of xenophobia. The EU allowed individual countries to freeze the freedom of movement for the newly added Eastern European countries. The enforcement and tracking of illegal immigrants is a big talking point in all the countries I visit regularly - if anything people want even tighter enforcement (although the ways they do so would probably make many US citizens complain about infringements to their privacy and the growth of big brother government).
Comment by Leigh | January 30, 2008
Can anyone explain the ambivalance of authorities in the US to enforcing immigration laws?
Historically, US law has been pretty easy-going about immigrants who aren't here legally. Even the immigration reform that happened under Reagan had a huge loophole that made enforcement nearly impossible, a loophole that employers wanted: employers got to assume that all of the papers they were given were valid and even a bogus Social Security number (reviewed months after the employee had left) would only be cause to send the employee to the local Social Security office for a correction of the problem.
The law only imposes small fines on employers if they somehow manage to violate this law by failing to follow the charade. It also rewards employers for hiring illegal workers because the courts have decided that illegal workers don't have the labor law protections that legally working employees do. It is no surprise that there are employers who decide that the rewards of hiring people who cannot complain about how they are treated are far greater than the risk of getting a small fine for hiring those people. Customers don't boycott restaurants just because no one in the kitchen is an American citizen or has a green card.
People talk about reform — it is strongly supported by the vast majority of Americans, but this reform group is seriously split among those who have different views of how it should be dealt with. Much of the middle is willing to compromise, just as they compromised in the '80s — including finding a way to live with the effects of the last law. That almost certainly implies that we will have to find a way to deal with the millions who were enticed here but are working here today without a green card. I would expect something similar to that law but with a law that actually makes it illegal to hire illegals by actually punishing businesses that hire illegals and taking away the incentives to hire them.
There is a strong minority in the reform camp, enough to stop any change, who want to deport all of those who are working here illegally and they aren't willing to compromise today. There are also many would think that we can somehow fix our borders so there are no immigrants who don't arrive here illegally. They don't have a solution for those who overstay their visas. Many of these same people who want every single illegal removed are intractably opposed to national identity cards. Many of them are completely unwilling to compromise on 'amnesty' (for the immigrants, they don't care about the employers' part in this). This standoff means that nothing will be done for the foreseeable future.
Comment by freelunch | January 30, 2008
Freelunch there is no free lunch. The "can't deport 20 million" mantra is a red herring. We do not need to hunt down and deport the illegals whether they overstayed visas or just snuck in. Why you say? Make jobs impossible to obtain unless authorized to work in the country! Look around self deportation is already happening in states that have closed welfare and job loopholes. So what do we need to do?
Take the pledge:
I will vote, and actively work for the election of, any candidate that is willing to sign an agreement that illegal aliens may not have:
1. sanctuary,
2. taxpayer funded benefits,
3. anchor baby citizenship,
4. drivers licenses
5. police no ask policy,
6. day worker centers,
7. legal services,
8. chain migration,
9. amnesty
10. Language support other than ENGLISH.
If no candidates for an elected position will sign the agreement THEN I will vote for a write-in candidate.
I also will not contribute to non-signers campaigns AND I will return their campaign material marked as REFUSED RETURN TO SENDER.
Comment by Mickey G | January 30, 2008
But, of course, the people who are asking for a free lunch are the ones who imagine that there is a magical solution to dealing with illegal aliens. Feel free to vote as you like, but recognize that you are in the minority and that your unwillingness to deal on the issue keeps anything from happening.
Comment by freelunch | January 30, 2008
The people asking for a free lunch tend to be illegal aliens, liberals who believe that everyone deserves a free lunch (except the dirty "rich"), and businesses who are getting a free lunch. None of those groups are vehemently opposed to legalizing an entire workforce full of illegal aliens. Not sure what the point you were trying to make there was, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.
My question to you would be: is it better to "just get something done", legalize the illegal aliens who have already broken the law, and pass more regulations on business that are redundant with ones we already have (the IRCA of '86 actually has very stringent fines and penalties, including jail time, for employers, and the 1990 IMMACt and 1996 IIRIRA only solidify and extend those regulations)? "Fixing" a problem by cooking the books isn't really "fixing" anything. You can legalize all the illegal aliens who are in the country to eliminate the problem of illegal immigration, but that's a false solution. Solving a problem by declaring it's not a problem is ignorant and lazy. As if that fact was not self-evident, as you mentioned, we already did it once! Not surprisingly, this is the "solution" favored by liberals. For people mildly interested in actually solving a problem with a solution, and not just circular logic and funny math, more is required, and they are not willing to compromise a real solution for a false one. Unfortunately, a lot of these people are too focused on the overly-simplified "secure the border" idea, and not enough on interior enforcement. We could leave the border wide open with no border patrol, and if we eliminated the incentives for coming here (jobs and welfare) you would see a decrease in illegal immigration, along with a mass exodus of those already here. No gestapo-style deportation roundups, secret police, or martial law required. And the best part is, we already have the technology infrastructure in place via the Employment Eligibility Verification Program to enforce employment laws against illegal workers AND employers. The only missing component is a willingness among government and law enforcement to actually enforce the law. And that component will be missing regardless of how many illegal aliens are legalized under a "comprehensive solution".
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 31, 2008
Freelunch, there is a solution to illegal immigration. You and all the others that want to deal with the problem by legalization or other means just agree to pick up the tab for all of the associated costs. Simple huh? But of course you want anyone else to pick up the costs for this drag on our society and economy. Just remember a simple fact the illegals have children at a much higher rate than our citizens. Take an illegal family with 4 children some of which are anchors. At today's rates K-12 education cost of $480,000 to that add food stamps for the anchors, free medical for all, afdc and other welfare goodies and if they use stolen identification and file taxes maybe the ultimate welfare program the earned income credit. They can never pay enough to even cover the education cost much less the other costs they place on our welfare state. But you are compassionate and want to open your home and your savings to them. Right?
For the record I have offered students in economics and accounting courses a cash prize if they could prove that profitable businesses paid taxes. In over 20 years at multiple colleges no one has ever collected. The business tax myth is perpetuated by politicians primarily because a tax solution like the "fair tax" leaves them no hidden tax areas where increases can be blamed on someone else. What a deal raise business taxes then blame the businesses for raising prices. Slimy politician gets pork barrell money to ensure their reelection and economically challenged goverment schooled cretins pay for it but blame the business instead of recognizing the problem for what it is.
Comment by Mickey G | January 31, 2008
Patrick, as written and regulated, it was almost impossible for employers to break that law. As long as they had some documentation, they didn't have to show any skepticism about it.
Mickey, your mindreading is failing. I want to end the problem of illegal immigration. While poverty is intertwined with illegal immigration, it is not the same problem. Are you next going to recommend that we force the poor to leave the country? I have no idea what your second paragraph had to do with anything.
Comment by freelunch | February 1, 2008
The case for self-deportation of illegals is strong largely because they do not contribute, steal jobs, health care, education, and other welfare benefits. Ideally they would be deported upon any violation from jay walking to a felony. If you do not understand that allowing an influx of poorly or non-educated then allowing them to be legalized is a formula for failure then you do not understand the effect of our current situation.
Comment by Mickey G | February 1, 2008