-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 39 comments
-
DeMint's Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant...And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
President Obama made news yesterday when, according to the Wall Street Journal, he told Sen. Scott Brown that Democrats would try to move on immigration reform next month. Brown, for his part, said he would read any proposal, but won't commit to anything.
The question is, with the public already inflamed after the Democrats rammed through their health care legislation and a heated Supreme Court battle on tap for the summer, why would the White House, during an election year, want to take up an issue that is among the most contentious in politics?
I can think of several reasons. The most obvious one is that there's a risk that Hispanic voters, who helped fuel Obama's victory in 2008, will grow disillusioned if he doesn't deliver for them and thus won't turn out in large enough numbers this November. As the Los Angeles Times reports today, "Immigration advocates fear the White House is doing the bare minimum needed to appease Latino voters before the midterm elections in November, while concentrating its efforts on issues it considers more urgent."
James Carville argued recently that Democrats should push immigration, because right now voter intensity is on the side of Republicans, and the immigration issue divides the GOP more than it divides Democrats.
It's true that for a lot of Democrats running in swing districts, an immigration bill would force them to take a tough vote. But the thinking among leadership may be, essentially, that the conservative base is already as fired up as it can be, and moderate Democrats in swing districts have already been forced to vote on health care and "cap and trade" anyway. So, Democrats may be thinking that bringing up immigration could energize their voters while merely making an incremental difference to the already energized GOP base by just adding to a mix of issues they're angry about. And perhaps Carville is right and we could see some fissures among the libertarian and conservative wings which have been united on issues such as energy, health care, the stimulus bill, but have different perspectives on immigration.
Should Democrats pursue immgration, my guess would be that their political operation -- as well as their allies in the media -- will be working overtime to portray anybody opposed to their legislation as racist. Any controversial comment by any Republican or opponent of the legislation will be blown up to drive this point home, not only to fire up Hispanic voters, but to discourage white suburban voters from wanting to vote for the "racist" GOP.
Whether they'll actually go through with the immigration push remains to be seen, but these are likely some of the reasons that they're considering it.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/21/the-politics-of-immigration
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- United Faiths of America
- …And a Young Child Will Lead
- Handicap the Handicapper
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Derek Leaberry| 4.21.10 @ 12:21PM
Carville's right. Not only does immigration rip apart the Republican Party, immigration leads to a Third World demographic majority which would relegate conservatism to the ashcan of history. That is why John McCain, Lindsey Graham, the Bush family, Grover Norquist and the Wall Street Journal are the bitter enemies of conservatives. BarackObama is up to mischief and if a few dozen Blue Dog Democrats are sacrificed in an effort to Brazilianize America, so be it.
William R| 4.21.10 @ 12:31PM
With the real unemployment rate closer to 20 percent the idea that the United States would grant amnesty to people that shouldn't be in the country would cut across political lines. Blacks are hurt by mass unskilled immigration more than any other ethnic group. This isn't going to happen.
Crusader| 4.21.10 @ 12:47PM
How sad is it that our elected officials view illegal immigration as a "political issue." Wow. D or R it should be a problem for you that millions of illegal, disease-ridden welfare-seekers (not to mention untold nyumbers of islamic terrorists) are streaming across our border and killing Americans and causing hospitals to close and costing American taxpayers billions.
But no, it's a "political issue."
Shrug.
Norm Nolte| 4.21.10 @ 12:48PM
I agree with the sentiment against amnesty, but we definitely need immigration reform, and I think Mr. Norquist and the Journal are on the right side of the issue.
ed| 4.21.10 @ 1:07PM
"Reform". What a joke. It's a word used when the real description - amnesty, socialized medicine, etc. - is completely unmarketable. And the idea of dumping 25 million (75 million with "family reunification) third world refugees into the middle of our current economic and political environment is something that only someone with dubious motivation could be for.
WM| 4.21.10 @ 2:35PM
I hear you, but it's highly unlikely the Dem plan will come to resemble or be made to resemble anything like that which Norquist and the WSJ are promulgating.
gsr| 4.21.10 @ 1:18PM
Historically, the US has moved from periods of high immigration to periods of low immigration, every 20-30 years, under the belief that the new immigrants needed time to assimilate and Americanize. This was wise.
However, since 1965 (Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy's immigration act), we have had higher and higher immigration levels, especially over the past 15 years or so. This needs to change.
The US needs LOWER LEGAL immigration, including most of all, reducing the number of relatives a legal alien is allowed to sponsor to our country.
Illegal immigration is of course a major problem to but it is mostly about Mexico and it's national policy which is to encourage it's peasants to "migrate" to the USA and let the naive, liberal Yankees devise social programs to help Latino illegal aliens.
With a poor economy and unemployment expected to stay high (European levels) for the next several years, the USA needs a reduction in all immigration, across the board.
Warrior| 4.21.10 @ 2:27PM
To piggy back on your post, what is also lost in this discussion is that if for arguments sake 10 million illegals are made legal. The families that will then be "imported" with them will be crushing and probably increase the number five or six fold.
MarkJ| 4.21.10 @ 1:29PM
James "Corporal Cue-Ball" Carville couldn't be more wrong. If thinks the Right is fired up now, he ain't seen nothing yet. For Obama and his good-time buddies, it'll be a "long, hot summer":
"Ev'rywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boy...."
William R| 4.21.10 @ 1:36PM
The Wall Street Journal and Grover Norquist are pimps for the cheap labor lobby.
Margie| 4.21.10 @ 2:02PM
Norquist is a fraud. Michelle Malkin did a fine job of outing him. He's a Palestinian sympathizer. Beware of him.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009.....t-problem/
WM| 4.21.10 @ 2:32PM
Carville is a moron. An immigration push by Democrats will probably tear away their white Jacksonian working class base permanently. Has he talked to these people lately? There is already a hum of profound discontent lurking under their surface.
And he is a fool if he thinks there will be breakaway republics on the right over the issue. Not going to happen, not even among the rabid Open Borders Not Now But Right Now people.
Gutierrez is a loudmouth who always caves to the leftward agenda anyway, so why should Obama fear his bluffs?
Margie| 4.21.10 @ 4:00PM
What's interesting to me is how, the Democrats like Carville et al with all of their snake-ish calculating on political moves and maneuvering, still underestimate the sheer force of the tsunami that is coming. It's called the will of the people! Like Mr. Ferrara said, "Take the pain killer, and go home!"
Jocon307| 4.21.10 @ 4:56PM
Well, they just might try and do it. And don't forget Sen. Menendez of NJ has been quoted as saying they'll try for it in the dead duck session after November, when they will litterally have nothing to lose.
However, anyone who thinks that amnesty (and everyone knows "reform" is amnesty) is at all popular amoung ordinary Americans is nuts.
Sure, the elites of both parties like it, but to average people it is anathema. It's not the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal who have been attending the Tea Partys.