LISTINGS |  EDITOR'S PICKS |  NEWS |  MUSIC |  MOVIES |  DINING |  LIFE |  ARTS |  REC ROOM |  CLASSIFIEDS | VIDEO
        


Tuesday, January 15, 2008


Illegal immigration (still) politics for losers


[Clarification: since at least one conservative has taken the headline on this post a bit personally, let me state that "loser" is meant here in the strategic sense of winning or losing elections.]

....

The recent arrest of Mynor Montufar has triggered a string of letters to the editor in the ProJo and posts on Anchor with a similar focus, particularly the generally ill-advised idea of having a string of children as teenagers. Today, Bill Felkner of the Ocean State Policy Research Institute released a related statement, questioning Steve Brown's description of Montufar as "a hard-working immigrant."

All this goes to the seeming point that immigration remains a hot button in Rhode Island and elsewhere around the US. We recall how the topic dominated the first half-hour of one of the nationally televised GOP presidential debates.

Yet there's a big disconnect here. I've written before (here and here) about how focusing on illegal immigration has been an unsuccessful strategy for candidates in other states (for the record, N4N believes the US should have secure borders). And Dan Kennedy today has more information to support the view that illegal immigration is not a big issue with voters:

A New York Times/CBS News national poll of Democrats and Republicans shows that the constant drumbeat over illegal immigration simply isn't registering.

According to the underlying data (PDF), just 5 percent believe that immigration is the most important problem facing the country — well behind war and Iraq (a cumulative 22 percent) and the economy (20 percent), and slightly behind health care (7 percent).

When asked what kind of change they most want to see the next president bring about, reducing illegal immigration (4 percent of respondents) was again well down on the list, behind improving the economy (20 percent), dealing with the war in Iraq (14 percent), improving health care (6 percent) and helping the middle class (5 percent).

Just to reinforce the point, John McCain — perceived as taking the least draconian stand on illegal immigration of any Republican presidential candidate — now gets the highest favorability ratings.

As Globe columnist Joan Vennochi points out, even though Gov. Deval Patrick is taking a political risk with his not-quite-proposal to extend in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants, Patrick is well aware that immigrant-bashing has proved to be a loser of an issue.




Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:53:40 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
it's nice to know N4N blieves in a secure border(no sarcasm here),but the concept of "border"as a strip of land adjoining mexico or canada hasn't been accurate or realistic since the 1960's-the border is a continuum leading from the national boundary up through the US to centers of employment opportunity and pre-existing ethnic communities-when i was assigned to INS in chicago i saw this first hand-at that time in the 1970's chicago was the center of the largest and most diverse industrial zone in the world,extending to a radius of almost 100 miles,consisting largely of fabrication type industries,most of which required large numbers of unskilled or semi skilled workers-chicago also had a number of longstanding communities of latin american(mostly mexican)and east european ethnicities which were safe havens for arriving aliens,providing almost any service in their native language-and new ethnic communities(for example east indian) sprang up,not only in chicago,but in outlying communities to support the aforementioned industies-the point being that the "border"had moved north and was actually a phenomenon of population redistribution instead of a geographical entity-therefore immigration enforcement that focuses only on a frontier region and ignores the realities of the interior of the country is ineffective and will not solve the main issue-that once a person makes it past the international boundary,they are "home free"-the last amnesty in 1987 was badly flawed for reasons too involved to discuss here,an another one will probably be even more poorly thought out and executed-mccain got burned once on this issue,but he may still be able to come back with a better alternative-if i had a simple answer,i wouldn't keep it secret,but i don't-the best immediate action would be (and always has been)to prioritize criminals and gang members and those with terrorist connections with no wiggle room,limit litigation on their behalf and remove them expeditiously
joe
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:01:44 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
Sounds reasonable to me, Joe
Ian
Comments are closed.
INFO

RSS 2.0
Atom 1.0
Send mail to the author(s)

Ian Donnis's take on Rhode Island Politics & Media

RECENT
ADVERTISEMENT

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES










TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
   
Copyright © 2006 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group