Thread: NJ:Christie's Dover Talk Won't Win Over GOP

I think Christie will be singing a swan song politically after his pandering for illegal aliens!


Christie's Dover talk won't win over GOP



Chris Christie sought to bring logic to the debate over illegal immigration and ended up getting kicked in the face for it -- figuratively.


Christie, the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, spoke Sunday at a Dover church and said that simply being in the United States without documentation is not a crime. This is not a new interpretation.

It is a crime to "sneak in," or "fraudulently" enter the country, but the law can not assume that a person without documentation entered in that fashion. He could have lost that documentation; it could have been stolen. Some may see this principle as contradictory, but it really isn't. One can not presume a criminal act; there has to be evidence that it occurred.

Curiously, Christie's comments caused quite a commotion among the anti-illegal immigration crowd. I say curiously because there was nothing new in what Christie said. He said very much the same thing -- including calling Morristown Mayor Donald Cresitello a grandstander -- during an interview last summer with Daily Record editors. And he echoed those comments at a meeting in Mountain Lakes last fall with school officials. The grandstanding charge specifically comes from the mayor's calling some opponents of last summer's anti-illegal immigration rally in Morristown "communists."

Cresitello, who has earned a reputation as a tough opponent of illegal immigration, did not let the U.S. Attorney's latest speech slip by. He said Christie should quit. Here's a portion of what the mayor said in a statement:

"Of course, it is also totally inappropriate for a non-partisan, apolitical federal office holder like a U.S. Attorney to make political speeches. If Mr. Christie is intent on stepping into the political arena he should resign his current post."

Now, that's a great way to convince people you are not grandstanding, isn't it?

Christie, of course, soon will resign. At the latest, he figures to vacate his office when President George W. Bush vacates his office next January.

Giving speeches like the one he gave in Dover on Sunday is nothing new for Christie. He has addressed a myriad of organizations during his tenure. But grandstanding or not, Cresitello does raise a legitimate point.

With Christie's job about to end, it's hardly a secret that he may be a gubernatorial candidate next year. The approaching election and the possibility of Christie running puts a political edge to the public appearances the U.S. Attorney makes. Christie can solve that problem very easily. He could declare himself a candidate for governor and quit his job, or he can say he has no interest in running for governor.

Clearly, he's not ready to make that decision yet. That means, he will have to put up with the criticism and the charge that he is "pandering" for votes. If Christie is trying to win the votes of illegals, he's going to have a very hard time doing that. Illegal residents do not vote. How about Latinos in general? Yes, they are a large voting bloc, but, in truth, not many Latinos are registered Republicans. And it is Republicans who Christie first needs to convince if he runs in next June's gubernatorial primary. The pandering angle does not go very far.


Fred Snowflack is editorial page editor of the Daily Record. Contact him at fsnowfla@gannett.com., or at (973) 428-6617. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday.




http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 8804300345

Reality-check and clarification needed...

Re:

Illegal residents do not vote.

Well, actually, more technically correct would be to say "Illegal residents are not supposed to be able to vote" - that does not mean, that they don't actually do so. (This has been well documented in the past, in some high-profile Federal elections).

Most states simply rely upon a self-declaration of citizenship in order to register and later process the ballot.
Few states have rigorous mechanisms in place to verify such claims up front at the front-end of the process. OR is a little different in that DLs and SSNs are verified at the time of registration (keep in mind, we're a mail-in vote state). So, the 'paper-trail' aspect of the system is the key and because it's all done 'on paper', well, there's a possibility to audit by default.