Skip to main content

Democrats try to outflank the GOP on immigration.

It seems the Democrats have started to find a voice on an issue. Laura Ingraham had this linked on her site, and her comments are worth reading.
Just as we have been telling you all year long, Democrats are now waking up to the power of the illegal immigration issue. (Okay, except for Howard Dean's typically off-the-mark comment a few weeks back, that the GOP will scapegoat "immigrants" in the next campaign.) Now the proof is in the pudding--it's not enough for Hillary to talk about border enforcement in Iowa, then ignore it altogether at La Raza conventions. And we have seen plenty of Republicans talk about the problem of illegal immigration with no action to back it up. The WSJ's John Fund has an interesting take on the maneuvering.
The truth is that the illegal immigration problem is a problem for all conservatives. Illegal immigration affects security, crime, and the economy. Unlike other, though, I am not advocating reducing the quotas or closing our borders. That would go against the very values on which this nation was founded upon.

First, we need to take steps to help and motivate South and Central American countries to curb corruption. This should be up at the level of human rights issues. After all, if a government cannot provide a secure environment where it's citizens can pursue prosperity and happiness, then these citizens are being denied a human right endowed by their creator. Second, we need to put sanctions in place for those countries that refuse to do anything on their side of the border for the illegal immigration problem. Countries that help control illegal immigration should receive certain benefits and support. Finally, we need to get rid of laws and quotas that prevent a wife to be with his legally immigrated husband, laws that divide hundreds of families, and laws that blindly prevent law abiding, hard working individuals from seeking a better future in America.
The politics of immigration are changing. On Friday Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, declared a "state of emergency" in four New Mexico border counties due to "a chaotic situation involving illegal alien smuggling and illegal drug shipments." His office has pledged $1.5 million for stepped-up law enforcement and also asked Chris Simcox, the president of the volunteer border patrol group Minutemen, for a meeting. Mr. Richardson, a man who wears his ambition for national office on his sleeve, has apparently decided he has to reposition himself on border issues.

He's not the only Democrat to do so. Sen. Hillary Clinton made headlines when she embraced high-tech measures to control the border with Mexico and fines for employers who hire illegal aliens. "Democrats clearly sense frustration on immigration among Bush's base voters and are trying to outflank him rhetorically on the right," says Martha Montelongo, a talk-show hostess in California.

President Bush is vulnerable on immigration. Earlier this summer House Republicans bluntly told him that his proposal to admit guest workers would be dead on arrival unless accompanied by more border enforcement. "All my constituent town meetings want to talk about is immigration and why Washington is still spending so much money," Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas told me. Indeed, 17 of the 37 GOP House and Senate members who responded to a National Journal survey last month identified immigration as the issue "most on the minds" of their constituents. One Republican identified immigration as the issue on which "the mismatch between the federal government's inaction and the realities at home is the greatest."
To the current administration and to the Senators and Legislators, I want to see more action and more results, and less talk and rhetoric.

Tags: , , , , ,


Popular posts from this blog

Hispanic Trending: Leave your name at the border

Most people miss the fact that Hispanics do not consist of a single ethnic group. Besides that, the heritage that each one of the many nationalities represented in our immigrant population is diverse in itself. As I read Manuel Muñoz's post on his assimilation experience, I can tell you mine was nothing like his. But I can relate to this paragraph. My niece's name is Katie Belle (Sierra). It's intriguing to watch "American" names begin to dominate among my nieces and nephews and second cousins, as well as with the children of my hometown friends. I am not surprised to meet 5-year-old Brandon or Kaitlyn. Hardly anyone questions the incongruity of matching these names with last names like Trujillo or Zepeda. The English-only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish. A name like Kaitlyn Zepeda doesn't completely obscure her ethnicity, but the half-step of her nam…

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

RealClearPolitics: The Democrats Dither on Trade

The backtracking on free trade in South America has been among the frustrating news for me coming out of the beltway. Considering how the economic downturns in Latin America affect us through the increase in illegal immigration, I would think more Americans would be fighting for this one as loudly as they fought for the failed Immigration legislation. Democratic presidential candidates like to talk about "turning a page" in America's relations with the rest of the world. But what does that mean, in practical terms, on bread-and-butter issues such as trade? Are today's Democrats a party of open markets and economic development, or of market restrictions and job protection?The answer is that leading Democrats seem to want both -- they favor economic development overseas but not at the cost of U.S. jobs. That sounds like a coherent position until you begin to look carefully at the political choices in Latin America, a part of the world where …