"You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances [at ‘60 Minutes’] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.”
The real surprise is this is no surprise. There are certain things the base hates, and top of that list is probably giving amnesty to people who broke the law to get here. This should make it clear to the Repubs who were hoping to get amnesty passed before the term is out, but we'll see.
By the way, this opposition to amnesty is consonant with the beliefs of the majority of the nation. Probably with the Democrats along. It's not one of those issues that matters a lot to the base but goes against the rest of the nation like, say, opposition to voter ID.
"opposition to amnesty is consonant with the beliefs of the majority of the nation"
No. I think Anon #1 needs to broaden the circle of acquaintances beyond the like-minded. Vague indifference to the issue is consonant with the beliefs of a majority of the nation. A vocal opposition- that appears older, whiter and mean-spirited might eventually tip the country into support- sort of like gay marriage
Anon 1 here. Immigration polls are tricky to read since the pollsters usually run kicking and screaming from asking direct questions. One thing we know for sure is it's not an issue high up in importance. But secondly we can be quite sure when it comes down to it that people do not like illegal immigration and don't wish to reward people who came here against the law with citizenship. This is probably a majority among Democrats.
Unfortunately, most polling questions amount to "would you like to solve this problem or not? Well, would you, punk?" Or "well, obviously you'd rather deal with the whole problem by having a comprehensive solution than just having one dinky, worthless, racist solution known as enforcement." The polling in immigration is almost as big a scandal as the immigration problem itself.
Also, intensity is with the anti-illegal immigration side.
Personally, I know three solid Democrats who go nuts at all the immigration and feel it's destroying the nation. Maybe they need to learn, or maybe DC needs to learn.
I really regret thatthe Republican Party couldn't get behind its own President (Bush) who wanted to deal forthrightly with the difficult issue of unrestrained illegal immigration. The evidence of the horrendous Simpson Mazzoli bill of the 80's shows what not to do, and amnesty is clearly not a solution. But defference to economics should teach Republicans that if there is a demand for labor north of the border, and a supply of labor south of the border, nothing short of a fascist state will be able to keep those two apart. Plus, there is no reason to prevent labor supply growing to meet a demonstrable need.
So the Republican plan should always have been focused on managing an legal influx of labor, with citizenship possibly but not necessarily a reward for those who follow the rules. Had this approach been taken in the 2000's, by now Republicans would be receiving 50% or more of the hispanic vote n America.
50% of the vote? Even getting 40% of the vote is a pipe dream. But a lot of Republicans think as Denver Guy does, which is why some of them get voted out.
By the way, Bush ran into the same buzzsaw that Cantor did. He would have been voted out if he'd tried it before his reelection.
Not that the Dems are any better in their approach, which has nothing to do with principle, but is driven by a hope to import millions of voters. If Latinos voted Republican (like Cubans once did), Democrats and the New York Times would call illegal immigration the greatest threat to our nation that's ever existed.
6 Comments:
The real surprise is this is no surprise. There are certain things the base hates, and top of that list is probably giving amnesty to people who broke the law to get here. This should make it clear to the Repubs who were hoping to get amnesty passed before the term is out, but we'll see.
By the way, this opposition to amnesty is consonant with the beliefs of the majority of the nation. Probably with the Democrats along. It's not one of those issues that matters a lot to the base but goes against the rest of the nation like, say, opposition to voter ID.
Hmm. I dunno. I think I'm going to wait for Anonymous to weigh in on this one. I don't think he's going to agree.
"opposition to amnesty is consonant with the beliefs of the majority of the nation"
No. I think Anon #1 needs to broaden the circle of acquaintances beyond the like-minded. Vague indifference to the issue is consonant with the beliefs of a majority of the nation. A vocal opposition- that appears older, whiter and mean-spirited might eventually tip the country into support- sort of like gay marriage
Anon 1 here. Immigration polls are tricky to read since the pollsters usually run kicking and screaming from asking direct questions. One thing we know for sure is it's not an issue high up in importance. But secondly we can be quite sure when it comes down to it that people do not like illegal immigration and don't wish to reward people who came here against the law with citizenship. This is probably a majority among Democrats.
Unfortunately, most polling questions amount to "would you like to solve this problem or not? Well, would you, punk?" Or "well, obviously you'd rather deal with the whole problem by having a comprehensive solution than just having one dinky, worthless, racist solution known as enforcement." The polling in immigration is almost as big a scandal as the immigration problem itself.
Also, intensity is with the anti-illegal immigration side.
Personally, I know three solid Democrats who go nuts at all the immigration and feel it's destroying the nation. Maybe they need to learn, or maybe DC needs to learn.
I really regret thatthe Republican Party couldn't get behind its own President (Bush) who wanted to deal forthrightly with the difficult issue of unrestrained illegal immigration. The evidence of the horrendous Simpson Mazzoli bill of the 80's shows what not to do, and amnesty is clearly not a solution. But defference to economics should teach Republicans that if there is a demand for labor north of the border, and a supply of labor south of the border, nothing short of a fascist state will be able to keep those two apart. Plus, there is no reason to prevent labor supply growing to meet a demonstrable need.
So the Republican plan should always have been focused on managing an legal influx of labor, with citizenship possibly but not necessarily a reward for those who follow the rules. Had this approach been taken in the 2000's, by now Republicans would be receiving 50% or more of the hispanic vote n America.
50% of the vote? Even getting 40% of the vote is a pipe dream. But a lot of Republicans think as Denver Guy does, which is why some of them get voted out.
By the way, Bush ran into the same buzzsaw that Cantor did. He would have been voted out if he'd tried it before his reelection.
Not that the Dems are any better in their approach, which has nothing to do with principle, but is driven by a hope to import millions of voters. If Latinos voted Republican (like Cubans once did), Democrats and the New York Times would call illegal immigration the greatest threat to our nation that's ever existed.
Post a Comment
<< Home