Thread: IMMIGRATION HARD LINERS LOST REALLY BAD ON LAST ELECTIONS:

Immigration Reform Surprise: Hard-Liners Lost, Pragmatists Won
Bookstore

Estrellita se despide de su isla/Estrellita Says Good-bye to Her Island

Published by New American Media, 11/10/06
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/vi ... 13ceb762c5

New America Media , Opinion-Analysis, Frank Sharry, Nov 09, 2006

Editor's Note: Immigration restrictionists lost badly in the midterms, sending a message in favor of sober, pragmatic reforms that officials must heed, writes Frank Sharry, executive director of the Washington-based National Immigration Forum. IMMIGRATION MATTERS regularly features the views of the nation's leading immigrant rights advocates.

In the months leading up to Tuesday's election, the conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C., was that immigration would be a powerful wedge issue that would help the Republicans either limit their losses or even retain control of the House of Representatives.

The argument went something like this: "Immigration will prove to be the gay marriage issue of 2006. Blocking comprehensive immigration reform and approving a 700-mile fence will bring out the GOP base, draw support from conservative Democratic voters, and give Republican candidates some distance from an unpopular president on a controversial issue."

Congressman Brian Bilbray of California made just such a claim when he came to Washington, D.C., after winning a special election earlier this year to replace the disgraced and jailed Randy Cunningham. The mainstream press and the me-too political class bought it hook, line and sinker.

Not surprisingly, many candidates followed this logic, either out of opportunism or conviction. And how exactly did these candidates fare? Judge for yourself.

THE SENATE

Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) hit opponent Bob Casey for Casey's support for the Senate comprehensive bill that passed on a bipartisan basis last May. Santorum suffered the biggest defeat of any Senate incumbent in this election cycle, losing by 18 percent.

Katherine Harris repeatedly invoked Senator Bill Nelson's (D-Fla.) support for the Senate bill in her comeback attempt. She lost 60 percent to 38 percent.

Republican Tom Kean Jr. attacked Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) for his support of comprehensive reform. Menendez beat Kean 53 percent to 47 percent.

Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) were attacked for their votes in support of allowing legalized immigrant workers to claim credit for social security taxes they paid when they had been undocumented. Both won easily.

Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.) was opposed by a one-issue candidate, former INS official and noted immigration restrictionist Jan Ting. Accused of supporting "amnesty," Carper won 70 percent to 29 percent.

THE HOUSE

In Arizona-8, Republican Randy Graf lost to Democrat Gabrielle Giffords 54 percent To 42 percent. This was a closely watched race for a toss-up district along the U.S.-Mexico border in a state in which immigration is the No. 1 issue. Graf made the prophetic statement, "If this issue can't be won in this district [by hard-liners], the argument can be made that it can't be won anywhere in the country."

In Indiana-8, House Immigration Subcommittee Chair John Hostettler was one of the featured Republicans in the summer "field hearings" held by the House GOP to stir up voters on the immigration issue. He lost by a wide margin.

In Arizona-5 hardliner J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) is the author of the book "Whatever It Takes" about illegal immigration, who refused to vote for the controversial Sensenbrenner bill HR 4437 because he thought it didn't go far enough. Hayworth was upset by comprehensive reform advocate Harry Mitchell 51 percent to 46 percent. Two years earlier Hayworth won re-election by 21 points.

In Colorado-7, Republican hardliner Rick O'Donnell was trying to replace another Republican, Bob Beauprez, who vacated the seat to run for governor. In a front-page New York Times article during the campaign O'Donnell argued that immigration was the biggest issue in his district and that his views were much more popular than those of his opponent, comprehensive reform advocate Democrat Ed Perlmutter. Perlmutter won 54 percent to 42 percent.

GOVERNORS

In Arizona Len Munsil repeatedly attacked Democratic incumbent Janet Napolitano, an early proponent of comprehensive reform, for being soft on illegal immigration. Munsil proposed a half-a-billion-dollar border security initiative as his signature issue. Napolitano won 63 percent to 35 percent.

In Colorado Republican Bob Beauprez staked his campaign on attacking his Democratic opponent Bill Ritter for being soft on illegal immigration. He lost 56 percent to 41 percent.

In numerous states, Democratic incumbents and candidates came under fire from their opponents for being soft on illegal immigration and for supporting in-state tuition for undocumented students. In every case -- Kansas, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Oregon, Iowa and Maryland -- the pro-immigrant candidate won and the hard-liner lost.

In California, Arnold Schwarzenegger took a different tack from many in his party. He moved to the center on immigration -- he stopped applauding the Minutemen, stated his regret for his support of Proposition 187 in the past, dragged his feet on approving the deployment of his state's National Guard for border duty and loudly criticized the Republican Congress for not moving on comprehensive immigration reform. He was rewarded with a huge victory that included 39 percent of the state's large group of Latino voters.

So much for the conventional wisdom that supporting comprehensive reform would turn out to be a loser and that being a hard-line hawk would be a winner.

Meanwhile, polls released before and after the election (see sidebar) found the following:

--among all voters, a strong majority soundly reject a hard-line, enforcement-only approach in favor of a pragmatic, comprehensive approach to immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for those working and living in the U.S. illegally;

--Latino voters see immigration as a defining issue of extreme importance; comprehensive reform with a path to citizenship has broad and intense support; and they punished the political party currently associated with a harsh tone and a hard line.

What does this mean for immigration reform in the next Congress? It means we may well have an opportunity to move beyond the stalemate in the current Congress on broad reform and towards a workable solution. But enacting a major reform on such a controversial subject is easier to thwart than to win and thus calls for a new approach to governing.

First, it will require our nation's leaders to follow through on their stated commitment to bipartisan problem-solving. Simply put, when it comes to immigration, without bipartisanship, there will be no solution.

Second, it will require a commitment to not only getting a bill enacted, but to enacting a bill that will actually work once implemented. Simply put, if it won't work, don't pass it.

If our leaders incorporate these lessons, we have a chance to make history. If our leaders revert to partisan bickering and finger- pointing, then those responsible for inaction may well face a frustrated electorate once again in 2008.

THE PUBLIC DEMANDS SOLUTIONS

Two polls, one on the eve of the election, the other through the media's exit polling, confirmed earlier independent polls that the public wants a solution and wants that solution to be comprehensive.

In a Tarrance Group poll commissioned by the National Immigration Forum and the Manhattan Institute and released on Election Day, likely voters across the nation and in key districts and states were surveyed on immigration. Here are the key findings:

* Immigration is an important public policy issue to voters, but not a key issue driving voting in the mid-terms for the majority of voters.

* Voters support a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. More see what happened in 2006 (fence and enforcement resources) as a first step rather than as a solution (48% - 28%); want comprehensive reform next year rather than waiting to see how the fence and enforcement increase works out (50% - 37%); reject the idea that enforcement will drive immigrants out of the country (65%-32%); and agree that Congress should enact comprehensive reform next year (75% - 20%).

* Voters prefer a candidate who supports comprehensive reform over a candidate that supports enforcement-only (57% - 37%). Perhaps even more importantly, comprehensive reform supporters have more intensity than the enforcement-only supporters (40% - 27%).

* Voters are still ambivalent about a vaguely defined path to citizenship for those in the country illegally -- with half viewing it as "amnesty" (48% - 46%) -- but do not believe that a path to citizenship that involves paying a fine, working, paying taxes, living crime free and learning English constitutes amnesty (68% - 27%).

In exit polls conducted on behalf of the media on November 7, researchers came up with similar findings. According to press reports on the exit polls:

* Fewer than one in three cited immigration as extremely important in influencing their vote decision.

* Republicans had only a narrow lead with voters who said immigration was extremely important,.

* Roughly 6 of 10 voters said they believe that undocumented immigrants living and working in the U.S. should be offered a chance to apply for legal status.

* Democrats won support from 61% of those who support such a path to citizenship.

THE DOG THAT DID HUNT

Latino voters were not supposed to be much of a factor in this election. But look again. In an election eve poll commissioned by NCLR and conducted by the Lake Group, here is what they found:

* Latinos are energized about voting in this election.

* The issues on the top of the Latino agenda continue to be education and jobs/the economy, with the war in Iraq coming in third and immigration fourth.

* However, immigration was a great motivator in this election. The poll found the issue would have a profound influence on how this electorate votes.

* The treatment of the immigration issue and developments over the last year, is driving Latinos away from the Republican Party.

According to 2004 exit polls, President Bush won 44% of the Latino vote. Based on exit polls yesterday, House Republicans won only 27% of the Latino vote.

In addition, exit polls showed that 37% of Latino voters ranked illegal immigration as an extremely important issue, far more than was the case for all voters. Also, 78% of Latino voters said that those here illegally should be given a chance to apply for legal status, some 20 point higher than other voters.

WHAT NOW?

The public has spoken. The results are in. The demand is clear. Fix our broken immigration system with a tough, fair and practical solution. -Frank Sharry

AND DO NOT DELETE OR "EDIT" MY MESAGES AS HE/ SHE HAS DONE LATELY.... THANK YOU...

I call BS, Americans (real Americans) and the Majority of us want the Illegals to go HOME! And if they wish to come here do it LEGALLY.

Who is the joker anyway?

I don't think the numbers and what was seen on last election can be called a joke; Actually the joke was on the hard liners. Thanks for repplying to my post anyway. New Pilgrim

GuessWho, this is very selected info that conveniently leaves out many importants facts. It looks like you are deliberately trying to skew reality.

You left out the fact that the vast majority of House Immigration Reform Caucus members retained their seats, the fact that the immigration propositions in CO and AZ were approved by significant margins, that Hispanic voters in AZ were very supportive of the resolutions, and that those opposing Hayworth and Graff did their utmost to sound tough on immigration. The election result was not a commentary on the public's view of the immigration issue, but did reflect their ire over the Iraq wa.

If you're going to toss out polls by groups promoting open borders, please at least provide the link.

For those that don't know, Randy Graf was a co founder for the Minutemen!!!