Thread: Immigration Moves Front and Center in Presidential Campaign

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/pol...?intcmp=us_hcu

Immigration moves front and center in presidential campaign

Published May 07, 2015Fox News Latino

• 
  Jeb Bush speaks at a town hall meeting April 28, 2015. Hillary Rodham Clinton's challenge to the GOP on immigration is an early counter to Jeb Bush and other Republican White House contenders seeking Hispanic voters. Among them are GOP lawmakers who once opposed an immigration overhaul in Congress but now say they may be willing to allow millions living in the country illegally to stay. (AP Photo/Ricardo Arduengo)

Associated Press – "Path to citizenship," "legal status," "amnesty": These terms surround the discussion of immigration in the United States and the fate of the 11 million or so undocumented migrants in the country, and now they have taken center stage in the early stages of the 2016 presidential election.

The elevated focus on immigration shines new light on the growing willingness of Republican presidential contenders — including past opponents of an immigration overhaul in Congress — to let such immigrants stay in the U.S. Such a position is regarded as "amnesty" by the GOP's tea party wing, yet it is quietly becoming the majority view in a 2016 Republican presidential class eager to attract Hispanic voters.

For one, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who has not yet officially declared that he's running for the Republican nomination, has made allowing people in the country illegally who have no other criminal record to gain legal status a centerpiece of his immigration position.

As he does in most public appearances, Bush cited "11 million people that should come out from the shadows and receive earned legal status" at last week's speech to the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. Such immigrants, he said, should be required to pay taxes, work and not receive government benefits.

Hillary Rodham Clinton injected new fire into the immigration debate this week with her call to allow people in the country illegally to gain citizenship and suggesting that when politicians like Bush talk about allowing people in the country illegally to remain here, "That is code for second-class status."

"This will be a defining issue in the election," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told CNBC on Wednesday.

It's unclear how much the distinction between citizenship and legal status matters to Hispanic voters, a growing slice of the electorate nationally and an important factor in presidential swing states such as Florida, Colorado and Nevada. For many, the priority is simply to avoid deportation.

A new Associated Press-GfK poll – conducted before Clinton's comments were made – found that Republican voters in the U.S. overwhelmingly favor a candidate who would reverse President Barack Obama's unilateral action to postpone deportations. But most could see themselves voting for someone who would keep that policy in place.

The poll found that most Americans don't see much difference between providing people who are in the country illegally legal status and letting them gain citizenship.

"This country has always had open doors," said Dean Talmadge, a Republican from suburban Seattle. "I don't just have a problem with immigration, as long as they are here, working and following the rules."

According to the poll, Americans favor a path to citizenship by 53 to 44 percent. It did not make a significant difference if respondents were asked instead whether they supported a path to legal status short of citizenship: 50 percent said they favored it and 48 percent opposed.

The rhetoric of the GOP candidates reflects that broad support for allowing such immigrants to stay, but only Bush has made that point a focus of his message to voters.

Bush's aides view Clinton's comments as a direct criticism and a sign that Democrats are worried about losing Hispanic votes to him. Bush is fluent in Spanish and uses it in his campaign. His wife is from Mexico, and he has lived in Venezuela and Puerto Rico.

Bush wrote in his 2013 book "Immigration Wars" that withholding citizenship would be a suitable penalty for people who have entered the U.S. illegally. But Clint Bolick, his co-author and an adviser, said Bush would sign legislation that confers citizenship as long as he found other parts of the bill acceptable.

On that point, "he's open to compromise," Bolick told The Associated Press recently. Bush aides said Bolick's comments accurately reflect Bush's position.

Meanwhile Bush's GOP rival Marco Rubio has emphasized his own Cuban-American heritage and his family's humble roots. After failing to win support for his own legislation, which would have offered citizenship to immigrants in the country illegally if they met certain conditions, the Florida senator still supports giving them the opportunity to apply for permanent residency as long as they have not broken other laws.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul voted against Rubio's bill but says the millions of people in the country illegally cannot all be sent home.

Even Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a conservative favorite who has been relatively consistent in opposing what he calls "amnesty," does not close the door on a pathway to legal status. He told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce last week he did not want to discuss what would happen on that front until the border is secured.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who had endorsed citizenship but changed his mind in March, privately told Republicans in early voting states that he still supports a process to allow legal status. On Wednesday, Walker tweeted that Clinton's "full embrace of amnesty is unfair to hardworking Americans and immigrants who followed the law to achieve these rights."

All of the Republicans are eager to avoid the fate of 2012 presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, who earned just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote after endorsing "self-deportation" as a viable policy.

Even a modest improvement for the GOP with Hispanics could present a danger for the Democratic nominee. Bush's brother, George W. Bush, won his 2004 re-election with 40 percent of the Hispanic vote.

Yet Clinton's focus on immigration also creates risks for a Republican Party whose vocal minority sometimes says "terrible things" that alienate Hispanics, according to Alfonso Aguilar, a Republican who worked in the last Bush administration. He now leads the American Principles Project's Latino Partnership.

"If the next Republican nominee can't articulate a message that goes beyond border control, Latino voters will support Hillary by default," Aguilar said. "If the nominee is somebody like Marco or Jeb Bush, I think there's cause for concern for Democrats."

A new Associated Press-GfK poll – conducted before Clinton's comments were made – found that Republican voters in the U.S. overwhelmingly favor a candidate who would reverse President Barack Obama's unilateral action to postpone deportations. But most could see themselves voting for someone who would keep that policy in place.

Republicans, this will not do. Do not be cagey or duplicitous when taking these polls. The only proper response when they ask these twisted questions is not only no, but hell no.

So much for republicans believing in majority rule, pandering to a small minority. Not really, it is what the party has believed in since openly displayed in 1986.

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

So much for republicans believing in majority rule, pandering to a small minority. Not really, it is what the party has believed in since openly displayed in 1986.

Yeah, it's very disappointing to see any Republican support any unneeded unwanted immigration. I can tell you it's not the original base behind this, but the religious right who apparently believes they're Jesus "welcoming the stranger" that of course lines their pockets dumping drug money into their plates every Sunday and so they can turn around and bid on lucrative government contracts to house the illegal aliens.

Sick and twisted is what it is. Hopefully the real base of the Republican Party who believe in controlling immigration, protected trade and despises the income tax for all the right reasons will soon prevail in regaining control of what was once the best political party ever.

It's also possible the poll isn't accurate, which is what I'm thinking. This was AP poll, AP tends to side with illegal aliens and Democrats, so it was probably a set up and all the "Republicans" who were interviewed in the poll are imposters. It's really the only explanation that makes any sense.

Judy. Dennis Michael Lynch announced as republican late last summer. He is fantastic on this issue but he gets absolutely no press. Did he get bought off by the party faithful. As adamant as he was, I cannot see him being paid off. Do you know anything about the update to his story?

UPDATE: May 7, 2015 3;08PM I did find where he participated in an event in NH. Cost him 10,000 to get a walk across stage and speak a few words. At that rate what is the cost to participate in a debate? Altogether 19 participated that night. Being a previously non-political parson, he did not get any further notice. I have to ask: IS THE PARTY PUROPSELY TRYING TO PRICE OUT MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE? I would say that it seems to be what is going to happen and not surprising from the republican party, either.

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

Judy. Dennis Michael Lynch announced as republican late last summer. He is fantastic on this issue but he gets absolutely no press. Did he get bought off by the party faithful. As adamant as he was, I cannot see him being paid off. Do you know anything about the update to his story?

UPDATE: May 7, 2015 3;08PM I did find where he participated in an event in NH. Cost him 10,000 to get a walk across stage and speak a few words. At that rate what is the cost to participate in a debate? Altogether 19 participated that night. Being a previously non-political parson, he did not get any further notice. I have to ask: IS THE PARTY PUROPSELY TRYING TO PRICE OUT MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE? I would say that it seems to be what is going to happen and not surprising from the republican party, either.

I found this on Wiki:

Politics
On October 24, 2014, Lynch announced on The Kelly File that he was exploring the possibilities of running for president in 2016.^[12] On May 5, 2015, Lynch announced he was no longer seeking the Whitehouse."Unfortunately, I can no longer try to move the mountain. No book or quick video can overcome the cement wall blocking the road. Between the Facebook advertising issues, the lack of enthusiasm from the media, the toll on my health and family life, and the lack of funding required to effectively run for national office, I’ve come to terms with the fact that we’ve gone as far as we can go. My determination and your support is tremendous, but it’s just not enough at this point in history." -Dennis Michael Lynch 5/5/2015

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Michael_Lynch

That's what he says, that he couldn't raise enough money to be a contender, at least for now. What a shame, he's really cute!

What about Scott Brown, I really liked him.

I found this "on the issues" for Scott Brown, I thought he was our guy on immigration, and it sounds like it.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Internati...mmigration.htm

Scott Brown on Immigration Republican Jr Senator

The border is secure when people don't come across it

Sparks flew [at the Senate debate] on the topic of immigration and border security. "The border is secure when people don't come across it," Brown said to the applause of supporters after Todd asked him to define a secure border. Shaheen attacked Brown's record on abortion rights; Brown, while senator for Massachusetts, supported the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed any employer with moral objections to opt out of requiring to cover birth control in 2012.
Source: NECN-sponsored 2014 New Hampshire Senate debate , Oct 21, 2014
It's wrong that illegals can just walk across the border

Scott Brown knocks Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) for supporting "pro-amnesty policies" in his newest ad. In it, Brown speaks direct-to-camera about the fact that, while most Americans go through security for various activities, "folks who come here illegally, they just walk across the border. That's wrong."He goes on to say that the "pro-amnesty policies of President Obama and Sen. Shaheen" have caused the crisis at the border: "We respond with compassion, but it is time for us to secure the border once and for all, and tell people who try to come here illegally that we intend to enforce the law," Brown concludes.
It's Brown's most policy-focused ad yet--most of his previous ads have focused on an element of his personal narrative as well, as he works to introduce himself to N.H. voters. And it touches on an issue that looks to be a winner for him both in the primary and the general election campaign: immigration reform and the ongoing crisis at the border.
Source: The Hill AdWatch on 2014 New Hampshire Senate race , Jul 28, 2014
DREAM Act provides "back door amnesty"

The two split on immigration. Brown said he supports an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, but opposes the so-called DREAM Act, which would provide a path to legal status for many young illegal immigrants. He called the proposal "back door amnesty." Warren said she strongly supports the Dream Act.
Source: Fox News on 2012 Mass. Senate debate , Oct 2, 2012
Tighten our borders; no blanket amnesty

On the AmericansElect immigration question, Sen. Brown chose 'C' from the list below:

• Which of the following solutions come closest to your opinion?
• A. All illegal immigrants should be able to stay in the US legally
• B. Most illegal immigrants should be able to stay in the US, with some exceptions
• C. Most illegal immigrants should be deported, with some exceptions
• D. All illegal immigrants should be deported

Staff comment: Senator Brown supports measures to tighten our borders to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the U.S. in the first place. Senator Brown is in favor of improving out legal immigration process so that law abiding citizens of other countries can apply for U.S. citizenship through proper mechanisms. Senator Brown supports Secure Communities, which allows law enforcement to share finger print data with immigration officials. He opposes blanket amnesty for illegal aliens and providing illegal aliens with access to free, government subsidized education. Source: AmericansElect email questionnaire with Scott Brown's staff , Nov 22, 2011
Opposed two-way bilingual programs; supported English-only

Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform indicates voting YES in Part II: Education:Excellence, Equality & Community. [State Sen. Brown, a Republican, voted NO].

Gov. Romney vetoed budget section 210, which says. "Section 4 of MGL chapter 71A is hereby further amended to add:--"Foreign language classes for children who already know English, 2-way bilingual programs... shall be unaffected." [MGL chapter 71A requires English-only classroom teaching. Section 210 would exempt "2-way classes" in which some students are native English speakers and some are non-native English speakers. A vote to override the Governor's veto would continue to allow that type of bilingual education although foreign-language classes without native English-speaking students woul still be disallowed.]


The relevant part of the MassDems Platform is "We reaffirm our support for classroom programs, including Special and Bilingual Education"


Source citation: Excellence, Equality and Community; Bill Section 209 ; vote number 266
Source: Massachusetts House Journals via MassScorecard.org , Jul 14, 2003
Endorsed by the ALI, indicating a strongly anti-amnesty stance.

Brown is endorsed by by ALIPAC, Americans for Legal Immigration

ALIPAC supporters have a diverse range of opinions, yet we are united in the belief that more should be done to reduce illegal immigration. ALIPAC supports those that legally immigrate, but we DO NOT support any amnesty, visa expansion, or "Guest Worker" program designed to reward illegal aliens or legalize their presence in the US. We support a peaceful, non racist, rule of law approach to resolving illegal immigration. America is a land of generous and caring people, but our hospitality and values are being strained and abused by those who are willing to break the law and take our jobs and our tax dollars. America's illegal alien population will begin to shrink instead of grow if we support candidates that will reflect the will of the vast majority of American citizens.

1. FOUR POINT PLATFORM: "Simply enforce our existing immigration laws!"
2. Secure Our Borders
3. Crack down on employers that intentionally hire illegals
4. Remove incentives and rewards to illegals such as licenses, welfare, and other taxpayer benefits
5. Enforce our existing laws and deport illegal aliens when convicted of crimes or detected during routine law enforcement activities.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Internati...mmigration.htm

IMO people in both major parties would be more likely to support an American point of view, if the issue were couched in terms of jobs. Jobs needed to pay bills, jobs needed to support families, jobs needed to fund education. Things like that.

Again IMO, questions which just ask about illegals who are present in the United States prevent people from having the time to construct a context. So candidates who can present the subject of illegals in the context of a zero sum game will have a better chance of this issue resonating with the American people.
********************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Brown's words today do not match his performance as governor, and previous speeches. He is a non-starter for me, but credit him with forcing some conversation about this issue. But, trust him on it, nope, one lie is more than adequate.

I, for one do not like making a 10 dollar job more important than American's lives. Is that how depraved we have become?

Originally Posted by vistalad

IMO people in both major parties would be more likely to support an American point of view, if the issue were couched in terms of jobs. Jobs needed to pay bills, jobs needed to support families, jobs needed to fund education. Things like that.

Again IMO, questions which just ask about illegals who are present in the United States prevent people from having the time to construct a context. So candidates who can present the subject of illegals in the context of a zero sum game will have a better chance of this issue resonating with the American people.
********************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

We'll find out soon enough if any of these Congress people will hold true to their positions when the going gets tough. Many caved on the DHS funding, but I'm hoping they did so to retreat and fight another day this fall on that new DHS budget. We have a lot of members of Congress who support US, but we need at least 6 more in the Senate and 1 in the White House. Even then, it's a crapshoot.