May 21, 2010

NYT: GOP Endangered by Being on Winning Side of Immigration Issue

The New York Times is deeply, truly concerned that their precious GOP might be damaged by having a popular issue on its hands:
Immigration Law in Arizona Reveals G.O.P. Divisions
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

LOS ANGELES — Republican lawmakers and candidates are increasingly divided over illegal immigration — torn between the need to attract Latino support, especially at the ballot box, and rallying party members who support tougher action.

Fortunately, Bush apparatchiks are available to offer their time-tested wisdom to Republicans:
“I think we need to be very careful about immigration,” said Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush. “I applaud Arizona for taking action, but I think the rhetoric on all sides ought to be lowered.”

Mr. Rove and other strategists who worked for Mr. Bush were proponents of an immigration overhaul that included a path to legal status. ...

“The kindling has been lit in the states,” said Matthew Dowd, a political consultant from Texas who was the chief strategist for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign. ...

But the divisions appear more acute among Republicans, some of whom fear that the party will become identified with punitive immigration laws at a time when Hispanics are a growing part of the electorate — particularly in emergent battleground states like Colorado and Nevada.

“I am a grandson of an Irish immigrant,” Mr. McDonnell of Virginia said in an e-mail message. “The Hispanic population in this country contributes to our culture, economic prosperity and quality of life.”

Republicans who are not facing primary challenges are far more likely to take a more moderate view of immigration, and many, particularly in border states, are aware that business groups that depend on illegal immigrants for labor support a comprehensive immigration overhaul....

“It is really how you ask the question,” said Sarah Taylor, who was Mr. Bush’s political affairs director. “And it is tied up in people’s feelings about their own family’s immigration experience, and then you have elements of race.” ...

“People like Perry and McDonnell and others realize this is a very divisive issue for our party,” said Linda Chavez, the Republican chairwoman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative research organization, referring to the governors of Texas and Virginia. “The fact is, you can’t secure the borders if you don’t fix immigration, because the two go hand in hand.”

How come Tamar Jacoby isn't quoted in this article? Did she forget to recharge her cellphone?

66 comments:

Anonymous said...

How come Tamar Jacoby isn't quoted in this article? Did she forget to recharge her cellphone?

What's with all the anti-Semitic posts and comments lately, Steve? It's kind of messed up.

Kevin said...

"Republicans who are not facing primary challenges are far more likely to take a more moderate view of immigration". I like it. If I don't have to chose a side I'm not going to.

Anonymous said...

for someone so critical of the NYT, you can't seem to stay away, sir

Richard A. said...

"[Many Republicans] are aware that business groups that depend on illegal immigrants for labor support a comprehensive immigration overhaul."

Do these business groups have any voting power? What these business groups want is the free flow of indentured labor.

Beware of the "we need guest workers" Republicans.

Anonymous said...

Sneering aside, the Republican do have to be very careful about this issue. It's a potential minefield.

I am not saying that the GOP shouldn't take this position. I just don't have much hope that they'll play it right.

Yes, the anti-illegal position is popular; but the support is not deep (show me a politician who had been elected dogcatcher running on immigration.) The opposition, on the other hand, is visceral. Why do you think the liberal media works overtime to keep this issue on the front burner? Because they know that more likely than not it will work to the liberals' favor.

Dahlia said...

Steve,
At least three concern trolls amongst the first five comments?! This problem seems to have gotten worse lately, even without Obama posts luring them.
I guess this is a good thing if they're afraid of you.

Tino said...

Anon:

The support is very deep. About 16% of American voters in 2008 brought up immigration as the biggest problem facing the country (of those, 91% wanted to depot illegal’s).

The latent support is even stronger, because there are no elites articulating the arguments.

Also, the positions are quite consistent. You get a 60-40 divide in most polls.

In 2008 60% of battleground voters supported deportation of illegal immigrants.

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/05/hispanic-voters-are-few-compared-to.html

Anonymous said...

People like Perry and McDonnell and others realize this is a very divisive issue for our party,” said Linda Chavez, the Republican chairwoman of the Center for Equal Opportunity ...


... and director of the biggest poultry processing company in America. Chavez is one of the single biggest employers of illegals in the country. For some reason that detail gets left out of her description when amnesty is being talked about.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the anti-illegal position is popular; but the support is not deep (show me a politician who had been elected dogcatcher running on immigration.) The opposition, on the other hand, is visceral. Why do you think the liberal media works overtime to keep this issue on the front burner? Because they know that more likely than not it will work to the liberals' favor.

Actually its the anti-illegal sentiment which is visceral. As you admit its only by constantly poisoning the discourse that the liberal media can keep the tide flowing their way. Support for mass immigration illegal or otherwise is a mile wide and an inch deep.

How lucky for you though, to control the discourse or else, heaven forbid, there might be immigration restricionist dog catchers popping up all over the place.

Whiskey said...

Conflict deepens. Contra comments upthread, Jan Brewer is above 55% for the first time, over Immigration. Her Dem opponent is polling 39%.

Calderone blasted Arizona, and top Dems applauded, while wearing anti-Arizona bracelets. Pelosi, Hoyer, etc. wore the bracelets provided by Congressman Baca who thought of the Lance Armstrong bracelets.

Obama is intent on making about 50 million Mexicans instant citizens. While "unexpectedly" last week's initial jobless claims increased 45K to 425K.

Dems are all in for a cultural war of instantly remaking the US into Mexico Norte. While Reps at the grass-roots level or up for reelection are all in for defending traditional culture.

Even McCain is endorsing a fence. To the ridicule of the guys at Ace of Spades (who rightly don't believe him).

Anonymous said...

Yes, the anti-illegal position is popular; but the support is not deep (show me a politician who had been elected dogcatcher running on immigration.)

Nonsense! If the Republicans run on an immigration restriction platform in 2012, they will win by a landslide. The Republicans have to decide whether to listen to the lobbyists for the agriculture, meat packing, and construction industries or to the the only people who still vote for them, the white working class. They had damn well better listen to the people on this one, or they are finished as a Party.

Chief Seattle said...

What's with all the anti-Semitic posts and comments lately, Steve?

Anonymous, you should stop projecting your own anger and hatred on others. It's not very attractive.

eh said...

“I think we need to be very careful about immigration,” said Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush.

He's right about that anyway.

stari_momak said...

for someone so critical of the NYT, you can't seem to stay away, sir

You might not be interested in the NYT, but the NYT is interested in *you*.

With apologies to Trotsky, and just about every blogger not actually a Trotskyite.

Fred said...

I wouldn't call the Tamar Jacoby quip "anti-Semitic", but the first anon does sort of have a point. In this story we've got Irish-American, Norwegian-American, Conquistador-American (Chavez) and WASP political hacks agitating for open borders, and the Irish guy makes the Ellis Island nostalgia non-argument in favor of immigration.

It's almost as if Steve was deflated that there wasn't a prominent Jew to point the finger at in this story.

Anonymous said...

McDonell, Dowd, what do those names have in common? Oh, this has been a long time coming, that's for sure. How's documenting the decline going? Good?

Anonymous said...

Might be of interest, twin comedians being interviewed :

http://thisweekin.com/kevin-pollaks-chat-show/

Steve Sailer said...

From Tamar's biography page on ImmigrationWorks.com's website:

"Tamar Jacoby is president and CEO of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of employers working to advance better immigration law."

"A nationally known journalist and author, she is a leading center-right advocate for immigration reform."

"Her articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Weekly Standard and Foreign Affairs, among other publications. She is a regular guest on national television and radio."

It's her _job_ to get quoted in the NYT as "a leading center-right advocate for immigration reform." Her funders are possibly wondering why all the other usual suspects are in the article but she's not.

Anonymous said...

It's her _job_ to get quoted in the NYT as "a leading center-right advocate for immigration reform." Her funders are possibly wondering why all the other usual suspects are in the article but she's not.

That's BS, Steve, and you know it. You and your buddies like Mangan have been on an anti-Semitic rampage as of late, attacking and smearing Jews wherever and whenever you can. It's disgusting. You're better than that.

Fred said...

"It's her _job_ to get quoted in the NYT as "a leading center-right advocate for immigration reform." Her funders are possibly wondering why all the other usual suspects are in the article but she's not."

Fair enough, Steve. I take back my previous comment. Frankly, I didn't even know Jacoby was considered "center-right". I assumed she wasn't quoted in the article because she was a Dem. On what issue does she lean to the right? Invasions?

Grumpy Old Man said...

"If the Jew fits, wear it."

Jews have been admitted to the American élite. When they take stupid positions, they're just as fair game as anyone else.

Get a life.

troll said...

What's with all the anti-Semitic posts and comments lately, Steve? It's kind of messed up.

Gee, I woudn't have known she was Jewish if you hadn't derided Steve.

Anonymous said...

No concern troll here, but the immigration issue needs to be handled carefully, not because of popular opinion on the issue itself, but because of elite and popular opinion on 'adjacent' issues - i.e. Race.

This is why outfits like Vdare.com are so ineffective (and perhaps counterproductive) in day-to-day politics. Not because they push an unpopular position on immigration, but because they push a deeply, deeply unpopular opinion on race (and because of that connection, they attract iconoclasts, etc. who drive away "normal" people by default).

To put it in a vulgar manner: From a polling perspective, they are bundling ice cream and dog shit.

In short: If you want to stop immigration in the short- to medium term, never talk race. Ever, except to denounce racial quotas, division, etc.

For the long-term defeat of the lies of equalist liberalism, however, the dirty work of Steve, Altright, Auster et al is completely necessary.

But anyone planning on accomplishing change before they retire should stay away from race (In public at least), and should address immigration firmly (if you hesitate, the dogs go for your throat), but calmly and in a cool manner.

headache said...

Fred you're reading tea leaves. Jacoby has been the proverbial Duracell Bunny on immigration, so it is natural for Steve to ask what's up with her.

bjdouble said...

OT

Great interview with J-burg mayor ahead of WOrld Cup.

Isteve readers will like this.

http://i.imgur.com/yDk8C.jpg

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, Steve - did you just write that Republicans are on the "winning side" of this issue? Surely you aren't referring to our party leaders, who have to be dragged kicking and screaming to support a law that will be moderately effective, at best?

In states with hotly contested elections, several Republican candidates are finding their positions mobile, reflecting the delicacy of the issue and a growing body of polls that suggest many voters support the Arizona law.

As I wrote above.

Anyway, one of the interesting facets of the recent primaries and conventions that's been overlooked is the strong undercurrent of opposition to amnesty. Most of the attention paid to Bob Bennett's convention defeat focused on his support of TARP and his healthcare proposal. But Bennett also voted for both amnesty proposals. Two other entrenched Republicans in Utah, Ben Ferry and Steve Mascaro, also got knocked out in convention and guess what? They were both big opponents of enforcement. And of course Chris Cannon got his ass whipped back in 2008.

“The Hispanic population in this country contributes to our culture, economic prosperity and quality of life.”

Has this guy picked up any newspapers lately? Noticed the state budget deficits lately, like his own? Noticed the federal deficit, trade deficit, stagnant wages, etc?

How odd that our economy should collapse after two decades of record, uncontrolled legal and illegal immigration. Who could've ever predicted it?

Anonymous said...

Finding herself increasingly on the defensive on the issue, Ms. Whitman even proclaims in a new advertisement: “I’m 100 percent against amnesty for illegal immigrants. Period.”

In every other way Whitman seems like the perfect candidate - WASPy, beautiful (in her younger days), smart, rich, successful. One of the rare female self-made billionaires.

But she is not a culture warrior. She is too genteel for that. This country needs politicians who are willing to be culture warriors - people who're willing to take on the forces of political correctness - affirmative action, quotas, multiculturalism, and immigration - because those are the source of so many of our problems.

I honestly no longer see much point in electing Republicans who are not culture warriors. Their plan leads us to the same destination as the Democrats, because eventually, no matter how great your bean counting is, no matter how correct your free market principles are, the demographics will catch up with you.

"Mr. Rove and other strategists who worked for Mr. Bush were proponents of an immigration overhaul that included a path to legal status."

Amnesty. Amnesty. My God, why can't they call it what it is? "Amnesty." The fact that they can't even be honest about what they want is proof that they can't be trusted. But even if the pro-amnesty pols don't want to call it amnesty, why does the press have to play along?

Peter A said...

Steve - are you high or something? The GOP is controlled by big business, they have no interest - absolutely none - in stopping illegal immigration. It's all for show. You can't really be this naive.

Jim Bowery said...

Dahlia wrote: At least three concern trolls amongst the first five comments?!

I had noticed the same thing prior to reading your reaction.

Did Sailer get some old media attention recently?

Anonymous said...

"How come Tamar Jacoby isn't quoted in this article? Did she forget to recharge her cellphone?"


What's with all the anti-Semitic posts and comments lately, Steve?



You think that comment about Tamar Jacoby is anti-semitic?


I think we can coin a new internet law: Any mention of a Jewish person which is not explicitly laudatory will be deemed by some people to be "anti-semitic".

Jews give lip-service to the idea that yes, of course, it's possible to offer criticism of Jews or Israel without being a Nazi, but in practice they expect you to just keep your mouth shut.

Anonymous said...

Even McCain is endorsing a fence. To the ridicule of the guys at Ace of Spades (who rightly don't believe him).



As opposed to which people who do believe him?

Anonymous said...

....so I am sure that the NYT has published similar things about Israel's immigration policies. and how both parties support for them might damage their political future.

Yeah, the NYT is 'concerned' about the Catholic Church, Christianity in general, Republicans, Anglo-Saxons... but its anti-semitic to think they're concerned about Israel..

ben tillman said...

... and director of the biggest poultry processing company in America. Chavez is one of the single biggest employers of illegals in the country..

I've explained this to you before. Linda Chavez does not employ anyone. She sits on the board of directors (and serves on the audit committee) of a company run by a man named Bo Pilgrim. He employs the illegals. She is a diversity bean.

David Davenport said...

Yes, the anti-illegal position is popular; but the support is not deep (show me a politician who had been elected dogcatcher running on immigration.)

So tell us why Sen. Juan MacAmnesty has changed his tune.

ben tillman said...

I wouldn't call the Tamar Jacoby quip "anti-Semitic", but the first anon does sort of have a point. In this story we've got Irish-American, Norwegian-American, Conquistador-American (Chavez) and WASP political hacks agitating for open borders, and the Irish guy makes the Ellis Island nostalgia non-argument in favor of immigration.

It's almost as if Steve was deflated that there wasn't a prominent Jew to point the finger at in this story.


Are you sure Linda Chavez doesn't qualify? She is of Sephardic Jewish ancestry (on her father's side), married a Jew, and raised her children as Jews.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, the anti-illegal position is popular; but the support is not deep (show me a politician who had been elected dogcatcher running on immigration.) The opposition, on the other hand, is visceral. Why do you think the liberal media works overtime to keep this issue on the front burner? Because they know that more likely than not it will work to the liberals' favor."


I can offer you this view from California: this time the *anti-illegal* opposition is visceral.

In fact, they are spittin,' shit-faced mad. Patient and good-willed about the issue for a long time, they have awakened. They understand just how much both the politicians, the media, and the illegals themselves have played them for fools for years and they are mad at themselves for having been too pc, too "good-natured" about it all.

It's been building and building. The average Joe and Jane tried to look at the human aspect of it all for a long time, but as the Mexican flags were waved in their faces, as their kids came home from school telling them about the gangs, about the special classes and extra attention for those from over the border, as the kids told them about the special assemblies on "diversity appreciateion," as greeters at their local B of A and Wells Fargo rushed to the door to meet not them but the "others," as they saw the special phones in those banks installed for money transfers to Mexico, the posters in Spanish advertising special services, as the houses across the street from them filled up with 15-20 people and every imaginable parking spot on the street occupied with vehicles belonging to those people, as they dropped their kids off at school in the morning and saw the men on the corner staring at their teenaged girls, as they saw the food vouchers presented to the cashiers in front of them at the grocery store by people who speak no English (and by clerks specifically hired because they could speak Spanish), and as they visited their doctors and overheard the discussions about the Medical coverage those people were receiving, they realized the vast amount of social services tax dollars being eaten up---and all the while they watched the pimping immigration lawyers and mushy-headed libs on tv talking their shit.


I think this time it's different.

Kylie said...

Dahlia said..."At least three concern trolls amongst the first five comments?! This problem seems to have gotten worse lately, even without Obama posts luring them."

I've noticed the same tiresome trend, Dahlia. I don't mind pointed disagreement but these generic, unsubstantiated accusations are like a swarm of gnats, harmless but irritating.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't call the Tamar Jacoby quip "anti-Semitic", but the first anon does sort of have a point. In this story we've got Irish-American, Norwegian-American, Conquistador-American (Chavez) and WASP political hacks agitating for open borders, and the Irish guy makes the Ellis Island nostalgia non-argument in favor of immigration.
you think the Jewish elite, hasn't caught on that people are beginning to realize that they seem to be the main ones agitating for the open borders?

After the "passion" debacle, there were articles in The Forward saying in effect 'in a future we have to get more gentile front men' . Who do you think generated the passion 'controversy' ? Why was it in so many papers, etc? Because of Liberal WASPs?

Anonymous said...

a cell phone is the only way i'd want to see Tamar Jacoby
http://us.altermedia.info/images/tamar-jacoby-immigration-1.jpg

Anonymous said...

I have never understood this "logic" that you can't criticize immigration if your ancestor was an immigrant 300 years or so ago. By this "logic" one cannot condemn slavery in the world today because at one time, ones ancestors were slaveowners. Bizarre.

Anonymous said...

NYT: GOP Endangered by Being on Winning Side of Immigration Issue

Fortunately, Bush apparatchiks are available to offer their time-tested wisdom to Republicans

I see your sense of humor is running on all cylinders today.

I think it's hysterical when the left approvingly quotes the Bush hacks it claims elsewhere spent the last 8 years destroying the country. Everywhere else they screwed up royally. Everywhere else their motives were pure evil. But suddenly on immigration they're right! Suddenly on immigration they're on the side of the angels!

Now if only we could, uh, actually get the GOP on the winning side of the issue, where its voters already are.

Anonymous said...

In a poll released by the Pew Research Center this month, 59 percent of 994 respondents said they approved of the Arizona law, while 32 percent disapproved. An Associated Press/Univision poll found that 42 percent of those asked favored the Arizona law and 24 percent opposed it.

“It is really how you ask the question,” said Sarah Taylor, who was Mr. Bush’s political affairs director. “And it is tied up in people’s feelings about their own family’s immigration experience, and then you have elements of race.”


BS. This is supported by an extremely wide majority of the people. Unlike health care, or Iraq, or anything else. The divide is between the people who run the MSM and the people who have to work for a living and compete against illegals.

Svigor said...

for someone so critical of the NYT, you can't seem to stay away, sir

Fighting fire with fire.

Anonymous said...

My toilet is dirty and I don't want to clean it myself. I'm going down the hill and hire an illegal from the street corner. I know that I will have contributed to crime, I know the public schools will be filled with kids whose parents don't pay taxes and who are very bad students, I know that the emergency rooms will also be crowded with uninsured Mexicans, and I know that the parks will be filled with people I will want to avoid. I will have coarsened the culture - but my toilet will be clean and most of the expense will have been borne by the public in general while all of the benefits will have accrued to me. Sort of like throwing trash out my car's window.

Paul Mendez said...

Tamar Jacoby is is an elitist, traitorous, exploitative, mendacious, self-serving, ugly POS mercenary.

To call an attack on her "anti-Semitic" is anti-Semitic.

PS: This blog is popular enough that it's time to ban anonymous posters.

Fred said...

"Are you sure Linda Chavez doesn't qualify? She is of Sephardic Jewish ancestry (on her father's side), married a Jew, and raised her children as Jews."

That's news to me. From a bio of her:

Linda Chavez was born into a middle-class family in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on June 17, 1947. Her parents, both devoted Catholics, came from different racial backgrounds. Her mother was Anglo American and her father was Hispanic. Racial prejudice was not a concern during her early years as the city of Albuquerque was mostly Hispanic. Her father was proud of his heritage as a descendant of seventeenth-century Spanish settlers and also took pride in the United States.

And

During her undergraduate studies, she married Christopher Gersten in 1967, but she kept her maiden name.

Linda and Christopher raised their kids as Jews? Odd, if true.

"you think the Jewish elite, hasn't caught on that people are beginning to realize that they seem to be the main ones agitating for the open borders?"

If it were only lefty Jews agitating for open borders, we wouldn't have them. We have open borders because it's in the interests of the Democratic party to have more NAM voters and it's in the interests of Republican cheap labor lobby (e.g., the Bo Pilgrim mentioned above).

Marc B said...

"I can offer you this view from California: this time the *anti-illegal* opposition is visceral."

Excellent post! Your descriptions are spot on, and it's not just like that in California. The locusts have spread to Middle America and the Southern US.

Anonymous said...

That's BS, Steve, and you know it. You and your buddies like Mangan have been on an anti-Semitic rampage as of late, attacking and smearing Jews wherever and whenever you can. It's disgusting. You're better than that.

Lol!

If only jewish people and their friends had some way of getting their voice heard. How else can they combat these media titans?

If only they had some influence over newspaper publishing or even TV perhaps.

ATBOTL said...

Tamar Jacoby has been the most frequent "conservative" advocate of open borders in the media for the last 10 years or so. I can't think of anything she has written that wasn't about immigration.

Anonymous said...

Some of the comments I write that do not make the cut are pretty straightfoward, like simply asking for clarification on the meaning of the post, and pointing out that Jacoby has some views on immigration that many of us would consider liberal.

But pointlessly abusive comments seem to regularly make the cut.

What gives Steve?

Jack Aubrey said...

This is why outfits like Vdare.com are so ineffective (and perhaps counterproductive) in day-to-day politics. Not because they push an unpopular position on immigration, but because they push a deeply, deeply unpopular opinion on race...To put it in a vulgar manner [and why wouldn't you want to?]: From a polling perspective, they are bundling ice cream and dog shit.

I agree, in part. But VDare, iSteve, et al. are not the front PR offices in the pro-enforcement wars. They are the back offices, where strategy and arguments are hashed out, and where op research is conducted. Granted, they are "back offices" with big, giant windows and unlocked doors, but most people aren't paying attention and don't even care. I've seen many arguments brought up here that eventually get hauled out and used in public, and nobody on the left ever seems to know or care that they've been circulating on these sites for months, if not years. The arguments used here go viral.

Besides if you want real hate, go visit a leftist site. The air's usually thick with it. We're mild by comparison.


Nonsense! If the Republicans run on an immigration restriction platform in 2012, they will win by a landslide.

Yes, and no. To quote TR, "talk softly but carry a big stick." You can't sound like you're demagoguing the issue, like you're attacking minorities, or like you're running only on immigration, but immigration will move a significant percentage of voters your way, such that if a politician's weak (see: Spencer Abraham, Bob Bennett, Chris Cannon, Alan Mollohan, Arlen Specter, etc.) it will bring him down.

I have never understood this "logic" that you can't criticize immigration if your ancestor was an immigrant 300 years or so ago.

I always ask if by that they mean that we have to let immigrants do to us what our ancestors did to the Indians, like some crazed form of penance.

My ancestors conquered this land. I intend to hold onto it. Those who came along later, from Ellis Island on, profited from that conquest. Unless you're willing to give up your ill-gotten gains and return to Europe, Asia, South America, or whatever other hole you crawled out of (which your ancestors there conquered from someone else), please stop acting so damn self-righteous and stop bothering me.

Are you sure Linda Chavez doesn't qualify? She is of Sephardic Jewish ancestry (on her father's side), married a Jew, and raised her children as Jews.

I think it's hysterical, then, that she's been getting diversity points for years.

I think we can coin a new internet law: Any mention of a Jewish person which is not explicitly laudatory will be deemed by some people to be "anti-semitic".

Call it Reductio ad Tamarium.

By the way, what does it say that this devoted iSteve "anti-Semite" supported Jason Chaffetz and wants Mickey Kaus and Steve Poizner to win their respective races?

I'm only an "anti-Semite" so long as the Semite in question supports policies I feel will destroy this country. If that means I happen to disagree with Semites more often than other whites, well, so be it.

David Davenport said...

... Yes, the anti-illegal position is popular; but the support is not deep (show me a politician who had been elected dogcatcher running on immigration.)

"Who had been?" We're not talking in the past tense about the past.

Compare to:

Arizona Law Reveals Split Within G.O.P.

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: May 21, 2010


LOS ANGELES — Republican lawmakers and candidates are increasingly divided over illegal immigration ...

[ in same article ]

... For months, Ms. Whitman, the former chief executive of eBay, enjoyed a substantial lead over her principal rival for the Republican nomination for governor of California, Steve Poizner. But in recent weeks, she has seen her advantage slip significantly, in no small part because Mr. Poizner has hammered her on her opposition to the Arizona law.

Finding herself increasingly on the defensive on the issue, Ms. Whitman even proclaims in a new advertisement: “I’m 100 percent against amnesty for illegal immigrants. Period.”

Nonetheless, a poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California showed her advantage falling 23 percentage points since March, down to 38 percent versus 29 for Mr. Poizner.

In states with hotly contested elections, several Republican candidates are finding their positions mobile, reflecting the delicacy of the issue and a growing body of polls that suggest many voters support the Arizona law. ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/us/politics/22immig.html?hpw

David Davenport said...

I should have included the next paragraph:

In Florida, for instance, Attorney General Bill McCollum, who is running for governor, now says he approves of the law, though he called it “far out” two weeks ago; Marco Rubio, the state’s Republican Senate nominee, has also shifted his stance. ...

Anonymous said ... :

I am not saying that the GOP shouldn't take this position. I just don't have much hope that they'll play it right.

Please explain to us the right way for Republicans to play the Hispanic invasion issue.

Anonymous said...

"Anti-semitism" here is to shift the Overton Window. How does one react to it?


We aren't "Liberals" after all.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Even McCain is endorsing a fence. To the ridicule of the guys at Ace of Spades (who rightly don't believe him)."

Gee, it's too bad then that they all regarded him as the second coming of Eisenhower and voted for him, while villifying Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo.

Toadal said...

Republicans who are not facing primary challenges are far more likely to take a more moderate view of immigration, and many, particularly in border states, are aware that business groups that depend on illegal immigrants for labor support a comprehensive immigration overhaul....

Don't these 'business groups' know illegal immigrants cost us more in the long run than more capable legal immigrants? For example, school districts in California have recently filed a lawsuit to "... compel elected officials to scrap the current education funding system"

If it wins and supporting legislation is passed, local funding of schools districts would disappear as the state treasury and Sacramento become the arbiter of who receives tax dollars. Money would flow to Sacramento from wealthy districts into the education bureaucracy and teachers unions

"The lawsuit alleges the current school finance system is unsound, unstable and insufficient, leads to unequal learning opportunities and doesn't provide the resources needed for students to meet the state's academic standards, which are among the most rigorous in the country."

The reason California academic achievements are so low is because of our large illegal Hispanic population. For example over 2/3s of Hispanics score 'Below Basic' on the NAEP 8th Grade Science exam.

Frankly, I don't know who has a shorter mental time horizon, my golden retriever, or the average US Chamber of Commerce member. I would loathe joining such an organization knowing the destruction it has caused in California.

Otis the Sweaty said...

"Also, the positions are quite consistent. You get a 60-40 divide in most polls."

but 10% of the "against" vote is blacks who will vote Dem no matter what. So while the issue is a winner, it isn't a huge winner.

Dennis Dale said...

How come Tamar Jacoby isn't quoted in this article? Did she forget to recharge her cellphone?

Hey, it's a seller's market for "immigration expert" talking heads. But come to think of it, I don't recall hearing from Ms. Jacoby yet on "Arizona." Perhaps she's fallen victim to some internal political struggle.

ben tillman said...

Frankly, I don't know who has a shorter mental time horizon, my golden retriever, or the average US Chamber of Commerce member. I would loathe joining such an organization knowing the destruction it has caused in California.

It's a race to the bottom. They're all competing in an environment in which there is no morality, in which the U.S. is a giant commons to be split up in a zero-sum game.

Jack Aubrey said...

Frankly, I don't know who has a shorter mental time horizon, my golden retriever, or the average US Chamber of Commerce member. I would loathe joining such an organization knowing the destruction it has caused in California.

Possibility #1 (What the Left Believes): Mass immigrantion will move the country to the left - pro-welfare, pro-environment, pro-feminist, anti-religion.

Possibility #2 (What the Business Class Believes): Mass immigration moves the country to the left, but since you can only tax capital so much before deterring investment and job growth, you end up with China or India - lots of really poor, but the rich stay very rich.

Possibility #3 (The Conspiratorial Fear): The left really wants what the business class wants. Why else would so many rich people support the Democrats?

Just look at Europe, and look at the news. Even the MSM is now grudgingly admitting that big government isn't affordable, but they still haven't backed down from supporting mass immigration.

They're all competing in an environment in which there is no morality, in which the U.S. is a giant commons to be split up in a zero-sum game.

The US isn't global commons. It's private property. That which is "owned" by the government is owned by all citizens. Who would spend money on or die for something that wasn't theirs? Bring in tens of millions of more people and you reduce the value of everyone's share. And not necessarily even proportionally, in the same way that one annoying roommate or family member can make life hell for everyone, even in a very large house.

Anonymous said...

Al Hunt has a 'Letter from Washington' saying pretty much the same thing. How thoughtful of the NYTimes to be so concerned about the Republican's political fortunes.

Anonymous said...

If it were only lefty Jews agitating for open borders, we wouldn't have them. We have open borders because it's in the interests of the Democratic party to have more NAM voters and it's in the interests of Republican cheap labor lobby (e.g., the Bo Pilgrim mentioned above).



There's certainly some truth to that. But it's the lefty Jews who run the media who shut down any serious public debate on the issue and make out anti immigration restrictionists to seem like nut-job racists.

government worker said...

"quotes the Bush hacks it claims elsewhere spent the last 8 years destroying the country. Everywhere else they screwed up royally. Everywhere else their motives were pure evil. But suddenly on immigration they're right! Suddenly on immigration they're on the side of the angels!"

The Bush administration totally went with the program on illegal immigration...open borders, even after 9/11 (very suspicious to a thinking person.) They never opposed it in any effective way.
As people who really understand politics know, there is no real difference between Dems and Repubs. Just a different style and somewhat easier funding for different inside-the-beltway government jobs.

Anonymous said...

I'll repeat again, no one was elected dogcatcher on limiting immigration. Every election cycle we hear that this time it is different, but it alway fall through. Maybe it will happen in 2010 but the odds are against it.

You see, immigration is one of those issues, like cutting goverment spending, or bombing foreign countries, or reforming health care, which are wildly popular until someone actually tries to implement them. Then the majority turns agains him. Do you know why? Because following up on these policies means committing the greatest, the most unforgivable sin in American politics -- not beng nice to someone.

Anonymous said...

And to explain my earlier point as why the liberal media loves this debate so much. The Democrats are in the lockstep on the immigration issue, and therefore all these immigration battles is really civil war within the GOP. The liberal media is only happy to pour oil, since it weakens their enemies. They do the same with the abortion issue.

Think about it. What would it mean to have the GOP adopt your position on immigration? It would mean expelling the pro-business faction. This is one of the core constituencies. If you run them off the party will be split and no Republicans will have enogh support to be elected to anything. You may think it's fine but the people charged with electing Republicans think it's a problem. And the liberal media, of course, is only too happy to report on that.

Concern Trolls of B'nai B'rith said...

Sailer: if you ever again conjecture that a Jew forgot to charge her cell phone, we will boycott you. It's a antisemitic remark, and the pain that it caused is something you are probably not conscious of.

As for immigration, Republicans should watch their step. For one thing, they should cease using the hateful term "immigration." They should use non-divisive language instead. A positive term would be "equal opportunity." They should use that term because the American people (on whom I am an expert) feel it is friendlier and less threatening. Inch by inch the Republicans should proceed, never, ever naming any issue clearly. The only hope of Republicans and HBD'ers is to TRICK American voters into supporting policies that may tend to slow the rate of increase of immigration.

That is a winning strategy. It has won many times in the past.

The last thing the Republicans need to do is to increase their already high risk of not winning elections this November.

Signed,
Your Friends