There's been a lot of debate over the role of immigration in this week's elections. The conclusion: Who knows?
This paper reported that Republicans benefited in one set of local Virginia races, while the issue also roiled some local elections in New York.
One Washington Post piece concluded voters didn't have immigration on their mind when they went to the polls, despite plenty of effort by Republicans to put the issue there. But two other Post stories, here and here, found voters were talking about the issue, though maybe not the way Republicans had hoped.
The New York Times reported that the issue did not cut the way Republicans in that state had hoped, but only because Democrats "were able to cauterize the issue" by breaking with their governor's plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
But after some high-profile anti-illegal immigration politicians tumbled in 2006 — particularly Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican — this year the high-profile fighters were re-elected, including Prince William's county board chairman and the mayor of Hazleton, Pa., who is promising to defend his ordinance against illegal immigration to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now comes a new take by the Progressive States Network: "Voters are more likely to say they believe immigration is a top issue of concern when they are prompted in a vacuum than when they are asked an open-ended question about their priorities. However, that dynamic is not insignificant. It suggests that in individual races, voters can be prompted to cast their vote on the immigration issue — if progressives allow a vacuum on other issues like jobs, the economy, health care and trade to exist."
The lesson PSN takes from this year's elections is that immigration "is a stand-in" for the basic economic debate, and for voter unrest over globalization.
If that's so — and that's still a big if — then neither party should rest easy. Democrats are increasingly wary of free trade, but blunt that message with their embrace of legal status for illegal immigrants and for increasing immigration. Republicans, meanwhile, have been schizophrenic on immigration and generally pro-free trade.
If PSN is right, then the real power would seem to lie with the Pat Buchanan coalition — conservative Democrats and still-more conservative Republicans who are combining opposition to free trade and to illegal immigration as the backbone of their political message.
— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times
Comments (11)
Illegal immigrants are criminals and don't deserve any priviledges. I don't know what Spitzer is thinking.
Posted by Frank DeGennaro | November 9, 2007 4:37 PM
If the Democrats don't wake up and listen to what us the voters are saying they will find themselves looking elsewhere for public office...which part of 'illegal' don't they understand? Illegals are no different then anyone else who break the laws, if they don't start to do something about then the people will have to have them removed from office, after all, don't these politicians work for us? Then they'd better listen to us. Is it because they don't live and see crowds at 7-11's every morning or the crimes that are being committed besides the one already committed by being here illegally? Maybe we should let them all move into the politicians neighborhoods and see how they feel about it then....
Posted by Kevin S | November 9, 2007 4:40 PM
Man, I can't believe my party is giving everything away to the republicans. They lost my vote, now where do I go?
Posted by Paul | November 9, 2007 7:01 PM
Why do we refer to illegal, lawbreaking aliens, as needed immigrants, or just undocumented workers.
Why don't we keep the born in America citizen and deport the alien mother.
Why not put illegal aliens on chain gangs and rent them to farmers and others.
Why is it wrong to expect any legal voter ! in an American election to read and write American English.
Why don't we copy Mexico's immigration laws as our own.
Why Don't we print ballots in Farsie, since we have a lot of non English speaking Arabs.
Posted by Jerry Thomason | November 9, 2007 7:55 PM
I will NOT vote for anyone who endorses Illegal Immigration or Amnesty!!!! I voted for Bush twice and am very sorry because of his blatant in-your-face Mexican endorsement. I thought he was the President of the USA and am very angry at his disregard for what Americans want. NO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AN NO NORTH AMERICAN UNION!!!
Posted by Maureen O'Leary | November 9, 2007 8:07 PM
Granting de facto citizenship and decriminalizing bad behavior is not being sanctioned by issuing a driver’s licenses to an illegal alien. However, human exploitation is being sanctioned.
Illegal aliens will continue to gather around on street corners to be picked-up for "a days work for a days pay". They are not protected as regular workers are. And, they cannot complain.
Giving them some privilege creates the illusion they are welcomed here. When in fact, they are not. Although, their labor is.
They will continue to be cheaply used and cheaply treated -- guaranteed by the additional enticement of a license.
More will come.
Posted by KC | November 9, 2007 9:02 PM
Before The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 (Thank you Senator Kennedy)and the 1986 Amnesty Act (thank you Senator Kennedy) most Americans wanted population control in the US. Now we allow in around 2,000,000 legal immigrants a year plus their extended families,(Mother,Father,Sister ,Brother and their children.)That adds millions more. Then you have the 12-20 million illegal aliens that Congress wants to give Amnesty to. If that's granted, then you have their extended families, which will add millions more. Then you have the 500,000 that still cross our southern border illegally each year.The US current population is 301,000,000,not to long ago we exported our surplus food, now we import half, In the near future 36 states will have a water shortage, Some studies show the US population at 450,000,000 by the year 2050.Has anyone ask their Congressman and Senators what quality of life our Children and Grand Children will have? Social Security,in 1996 the Social Security Administration signed an agreement with Mexico that will give Social Security payments to some of the 12-20 million illegal aliens once they are granted amnesty, total cost over 50 billion dollars a year. This type information is at both the FAIR and the Heritage Foundation Web sites. Add the 45 billion dollars each year that the American tax payer donates for illegal aliens free medical care,food stamps,rent assistance,translators at schools and we have a ticking time bomb.Amnesty for 12-20 million illegal aliens and endless immigration is not the answer. I encourage everyone to write their Congressmen and Senators and ask them what the total cost to the American tax payer will be if they grant amnesty to those 12-20 million illegal aliens, after all you and I and our children will foot the bill for their decision.
Posted by Dave Avery | November 9, 2007 10:12 PM
While there has been lots of news coverage about Billary Clinton's debate double speak about driver's licenses for illegals, who come to this country, no one has focused on her response to questions about reforming social security. In adittion to appointing a commission, she said she has a plan to save social security; however, she will not tell the American public what her plan is until after she is elected President. The last time some one running for president had a secret plan, (to end the Vietnam war)it was Richard Nixon. So now we have Billary Clinton copying tactics espoused by the only President forced to resign instead of being impeached. Does she really think the public is so stupid that it will fall for her secret plan? It is time for the liberal media to be objective about her statements and stop giving her a pass on her statements. Smart democrats should dump her because their party will lose the White house in 08, if she is the Democrat candidate. They should realize that Billary Clinton has the highest number of people who will never vote for her. Her negative polling is 45 to 50 percent, which is a historical record for any Presidential candidate. Also her husband was elected 2 times with less than 50 percent of the vote.
Wake up and smell the coffee Democrats or you will spend another 4 years in the political wilderness. Do you really want to spend another 4 years debating the meaning of the word is? The Republicans will have a field day with her past scandals. The only reason her and her husband, of convenience, are not convicted felons is that they consistently used the phrase "I can't recall" more times than anyone can count, whenever asked tough questions during those scandal investigations. Pretty amazing that they couldn't remember anything, especially when they credit themselves with being the smartest couple in the world. They will only get away with being the smartest couple in the world if everyone else can't recall all of their scandals like renting out the Lincoln bedroom for 50k per nite. The office of President deserves some one who is honest, not some one who will look the American public straight in the eyes and lie. Bill Clinton was not impeached for sex, as their political machine would have you think, he was impeached for lying under oath, which is a felony. Americans should just say no to Billary!
Posted by Charles Ellis | November 9, 2007 11:20 PM
I think everyone is rather scared of immigrants and willing to sacrifice moral values to make the fear go away.
Posted by uk | November 11, 2007 10:01 AM
And I (we) pay tax for what ? Oh yea so that a ILLEGAL can vote. How messed up can it get, Oh wate give them Amnesty!!!! Dont know about you but I'm MAD AS HELL, and talk about out of touch, lets just give everything away. Then maybe our politicians will be happy!
Posted by Brandon Parker | November 11, 2007 10:45 AM
UK
Immigrants are one thing, ILLEGALS are another.
Posted by Anonymous | November 12, 2007 12:16 PM