Thread: Democrats sidestep immigration issue

Democrats sidestep immigration issue
For the most part, Democratic presidential candidates have found it expedient not to say too much about illegal immigration. But the Republicans are saying a lot.

BY DAVID LIGHTMAN
McClatchy News Service

http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/308400.html



WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidates are likely to sound similar Thursday night at their Las Vegas debate when they discuss illegal immigration -- if they talk much about it at all.

They all pretty much call for tougher border enforcement and providing a path to citizenship, but they've been downplaying the issue , even though it's one of the hottest controversies in the land.

Democratic analysts say that's a smart strategy. Republicans counter that Democrats are afraid of the issue, which could split the party's liberal wing and Hispanics from its blue-collar supporters.

Independent analysts aren't sure who's right.

''People are torn. They know they need immigrants [to make the economy hum], but many also fear the browning of America,'' said Ken Fernandez, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

The major Democratic contenders' debate -- on CNN at 8 p.m. EST -- takes place in a crucial early-voting caucus state where undocumented workers are a major concern. Yet Democratic campaigns aren't jumping at the chance to highlight immigration. They're more eager to emphasize issues that they think are higher on their voters' agendas, notably healthcare, education, the war on terrorism and the economy.

Democratic campaigns also are calculating that once the party nominations are decided, probably early next year, their party's detailed, comprehensive approaches to giving undocumented aliens a path to citizenship will look good next to Republicans' demands simply to get ultra-tough with anyone who's in the country illegally.

''Republicans should be terrified,'' said Simon Rosenberg, the president of the New Democrat Network. ``The positions most of their candidates are taking now will make it very difficult for them to win the presidency.''

Republicans disagree.

''Look at how all the Republicans, except for John McCain, are talking tough. That's because they've been on the trail and are talking to folks,'' said Alan Moore, the press secretary for Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., whose White House bid is built around his get-tough-with-immigrants proposals.

Democrats are making two political calculations on immigration.

One is that their comprehensive, arguably more tolerant approach will help woo Hispanic voters, who could make up an estimated 10 percent of next year's electorate.

They've been straying on the presidential level for the past two elections. President Bush, a former Texas governor, appealed not only to regional pride but also to Hispanics' deep desire for education restructuring, and won about 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004.

Democrats think the GOP will be fortunate to get half that next year, not only because polls show that much of the Hispanic community is disillusioned with Bush but also because the tough Republican immigration talk is often seen as anti-Hispanic, said Maria Echaveste, a senior advisor to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

''Immigration is the main reason for the reversal of the Republican gains'' among Hispanic voters, Rosenberg contended.

Not so, countered Ira Mehlman, the spokesman for Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit group that advocates a hard line against undocumented immigrants. ''Most people see immigration as affecting all of those other issues like education and the economy,'' Mehlman said, so the Republican approach has potential with Hispanics.

The Republicans could be right: When people think about immigration, most now want an iron fist. In Ohio, for instance, a Nov. 6-11 Quinnipiac University poll found that strong majorities favor building a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, creating national ID cards for all legal residents and refusing driver's licenses and free public education to illegal immigrants.

This where the phrase (pussy footin around) comes from.

Oh is that a swear word?

Let me rephrase that (XXXXX footin around.)

I think the dems are in for a big surprise.

The dems are obviously not paying attention, and if the Reps are smart, they will embrace the tough stances against illegal immigration that Americans have been LOUDLY screaming for! And, if they would do this, I think the Reps would be very surprised to see how many Americans would support them again.

Do the dems not remember how we have killed many bills, including the mass amnesty bill S. 1639?
Did they forget about stupid REID and his little brat boy crying fits he spewed when we defeated these bills?
If that wasn't a clear signal on how the pulse of Americans feel on the immigration issue, then how about HITLERY's falling poll numbers since the last debate where she took both sides of the licenses for illegals issue and fumbled the question?

That's okay though. You dem presidential candidates just keep embracing the amnest issue and keep pandering to illegals because if you do, you are only sinching the preverbial political noose tighter around your neck, and by staying on the amensty path, eventually the gallows will fall on your political career.

Duplicate Article
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-90720-lightman.html

The dems are obviously not paying attention, and if the Reps are smart, they will embrace the tough stances against illegal immigration that Americans have been LOUDLY screaming for! And, if they would do this, I think the Reps would be very surprised to see how many Americans would support them again

.

I think after the Shrillay debacle, we've finally got all of their attention. Some (like Obama) are just steadfast in terms of pandering to illegals. Shrillary wants to win by any means necessary which is why she backed down from her original straddling of the line. If she is elected she will pass comprehensive SHAMNESTY as her first order of the day.

We have to remain steadfast and figure out who we are going to throw our hats behind. It has to be a collective vote behind the candidate who based on his past voting record will not deceive us. So far, Hunter and Tancredo look like they have been straight forward on the issue of sealing the borders, mass deportation and ZERO AMNESTY. There's still time to decide but we must keep in mind that 2008 is just around the corner.