Is immigration being positioned as a wedge issue in 06? Starting to hear about it more now on the national level.
From a recent Talent email:
Talent Sponsors Comprehensive Border Security Bill
I share the concerns of many Missourians that the United States requires an effective border management system that protects us from terrorist attacks, illegal immigration, illegal drugs and other contraband. A lot of people view border security as an immigration issue. It’s not. It’s a national security issue. This bill represents a comprehensive approach to secure America’s borders and our people with additional manpower, new barriers and high-tech surveillance equipment. This bill is long over due and proposes real solutions for America’s border security.
But what will the GOP call this great new policy:
The Nativist Act?
No Chicano Deft to Climb?
SHIFTY-SCREW?
Anglo-Nation Enduring Fiefdom?
Posted by Brian on Mon., Nov 28, 2005 at 9:21 AMThis isn't just a nativist movement, despite the embarrassing Minuteman movement.
Two Democrats, Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Gov, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, declared states of emergency in their states demanding more Border Patrol agents.
In the Southwest this is a major issue especially to moderate to conservative voters. It's not a simple issue either. Illegal immigrants make up an enormous part of the labor force in the agricultural industry.
There has been a reduction in the number of immigrants applying for work this season due to intense efforts by the Border Partol, under pressure due to the rather public Minutemen. Yet the farms are not raising their wages to attract legal workers in the U.S. as many of the anti-immigration folks assert will happen. Instead they are willing to accept a smaller harvest.
National security is an issue, but the terrorism angle is a red herring. Most of the terrorists who have been caught entering the U.S. or were known to have slipped past security did so going through customs. An organization willing to plan for years and invest enormous sums of money will be more willing to spring for top-notch forged documents rather than take a chance in the wilds of the border crossings. Many of those "jumping the fence" are actually caught by the Border Patrol, but the B.P. can't counter the sheer numbers involved.
Posted by Matthew Murphy on Mon., Nov 28, 2005 at 11:25 AMAs a wedge issue, it stands to benefit Democrats more than Republicans. Recent relative Republican gains among hispanic voters are attributable in part to Bush's willingness to accommodate illegal immigration, a stand that puts the president on the side of most Democrats and against most in his own party. If the GOP repudiates Bush and goes for tougher immigration standards, it will cost many of those new latino votes.
I think national security is relevant, in the same sense that most of our own personal attempts to thwart burglary are relevant: Deter the lazy or lousy burglar/terrorist, but not effective against a knowledgeable pro intent on getting in.
Talent's stand is right (a no-brainer really) for Missouri; it's a harder call in areas with higher latino populations.
Posted by St Louis Oracle on Mon., Nov 28, 2005 at 8:01 PMGood point, Mr. Oracle. Bush's tentative toe-dipping in the areas of amnesty and guest worker programs have infuriated parts of the base, despite the practical reality of more lenient policies.
Did I mention that Gov. Richardson is wading into the Presidential race?
A tough but practical border policy will be a good issue for democrats or moderate republicans. The anti-imigration right will never see a policy they like short of a 2-thousand mile fence. An open door policy is not practical either.
Given that Mexico's receives more money from money sent home by immigrants in the U.S. than it does from any export, it would make sense to try and regulate the flow and perhaps obtain a portion at the same time.
Posted by Matthew Murphy on Tue., Nov 29, 2005 at 10:18 AMGood point, Mr. Oracle. Bush's tentative toe-dipping in the areas of amnesty and guest worker programs have infuriated parts of the base, despite the practical reality of more lenient policies.
Did I mention that Gov. Richardson is wading into the Presidential race?
A tough but practical border policy will be a good issue for democrats or moderate republicans. The anti-imigration right will never see a policy they like short of a 2-thousand mile fence. An open door policy is not practical either.
Given that Mexico's receives more money from money sent home by immigrants in the U.S. than it does from any export, it would make sense to try and regulate the flow and perhaps obtain a portion at the same time.
Posted by Matthew Murphy on Tue., Nov 29, 2005 at 10:19 AMThe mexican mafia is in direct competition against the American pharmaceutical industry, the former selling to addicts without a prescription and the latter selling to the addicts with a prescription. The American pharmaceutical industry actually profits handsomely from the mexican mafia purchasing their product (cold and/or allergy medicine) to make crystal meth - a scourge of our time. Mexico is the land of lawlessness. When will the importation of the Mexican culture end? When will the systematic colonization of the U.S. by all foreign lands end?
Posted by Utahn on Tue., Mar 28, 2006 at 4:58 PMdo you really think that illegal workers will work for the same wage once they are legal. The fact is the employers will raise the cost of products anyway because they must know pay taxes on these workers. There is only one solution and that is to deport all illegal and then start a guest worker program for farming only.
Posted by Eric Koczur on Sun., Apr 30, 2006 at 3:35 PMRight a Wrong. Submit any tips or story ideas by using our anonymous email form. Confidentiality is guaranteed.