Jun 29 2006

The Utah-3 Primary And Immigration

Published by at 8:49 am under All General Discussions,Illegal Immigration

The results of the Utah-3 primary cannot be dismissed by the hard line immigration folks on the far right. The Utah-3 district is a highly conservative district which reflects the best the ‘punish the immigrant worker’ side could hope for. If the Tancredo diatribes were so popular in conservative circles, and if the issue was of such driving importance, the results would have shown it. The claim the far right has made that this issue is hot and trumps all else fizzled in the reality of the turnout and results. If the issue was of such burning importance, no amount of mistakes by Jacob or incumbency by Cannon would have held back such a wave. And if people were up in arms about the Bush comprehensive proposal – which includes border protection, cracking down on employers and a guest worker program to entice people out from underground and into the light of a documented (and background checked) jobs – President Bush’s support for Cannon would have been a negative.

But no such wave exists. The right is clearly not burning with a desire to deport or push people here out to make a living. They are not dying to see a series of Elian Gonzales stories every night for a decade while the US wastes time finding simple people raising a family and dumping them across our borders. And more importantly, the people know the problem is less about wage pressure and all about the fact illegal immigration is the perfect avenue and hide-out for terrorists trying to reach our shores to kill us en masse.

When the far right left us unprotected to terrorist infiltration to make what can only be seen as a petulant political statement they destroyed their cause and case. Terrorism energized interest in doing something drastic about illegal immigrants. The hard liners squandered this force behind the new interest and basically dismissed it – leaving them worse off than when it all started.

Last night on The O’Reilly Factor White House Spokesman Tony Snow identified all the efforts and results President Bush’s administration have accomplished in this area. If someone can find the transcript I would appreciate it. But the list was impressive. (1) The administration has spent more on border issues than the House proposed in their DOA felony-immigrant Bill. (2) The number of illegal immigrants crossing has been dropping steadily since 2001 (and there is clear evidence in this from reports I have seen that seasonal workers are not returning for work in California). (3) The number of cross border incursions are down. (4) The crime rate in the immigrant communities is now lower than the national average (probably because people know an arrest can lead to deportation). And my guess is the number of employers being charged is way up.

What this means is simple: the House has accomplished nothing and Bush has accomplished a lot. All talk and no results equals irrelevancy. Leaving us un-protected to show off how stubborn the far right is means we cannot trust these people to take our security seriously since they are obviously willing to play political games with human safety. This is why the far right has irreperably hurt their cause.

Results are everything. And now they are in. Bush has a plan that has broad acceptance – including inside the vast immigrant community which is key to a successful path without diverting law enforcement away from watching out for terrorist attacks. He has tamped down the flow of immigrants and enforced the laws. And the House has nothing. Not even an easy win in an election tailored made to show off how much burning support Tancredo’s Taunters have. We have open boarders left that way by a political group obsessed with fear about the possibility today’s immigrants may become US citizens in 10-15 years. Terrorists today are the issue, not who may become a US citizen in 2016 and beyond.

34 responses so far

34 Responses to “The Utah-3 Primary And Immigration”

  1. Terrye says:

    BTW, before people discount this race they should remember that in the California race the district was about 60% Republican and the Democrat was not too bright. I would not have voted for her.

  2. az redneck says:

    Indeed as they say, ‘all politics is local’, particularly in mid-cycle elections. IMHO, absent the occasional troll, those posting here appear to have the common goal of maintaining Republican control of both Houses. To that end, we need to constantly ‘doing the math’ on all available sources–not focusing on the conclusions of just one analyst.
    I call your attention to two recent Rasmussen polls, since I consider them to be the most consistant.
    Posted today: Over-all presidential approval=43%
    On immigration policy (19 states)=18-32%
    (AZ,KS,TX=32%; VT,NV=18;MA=19;CA=25)

    From May 10 (33 states): Favor comprehensive 51%(IA)-69%(OK
    Enforcement first 58%(MA)-77%(AR)

    Every state favors a comprehensive approach, BUT EVEN IN TEDDY’S HOME STATE, IT’S ENFORCEMENT FIRST when people are given a choice! (AZ=67%,TX&VA=65%, CA=60%)

    To me, we need to pull back from fearmongering, name calling and entrenched positions, and push for compromises in both parties.
    Besides, when could a good Republican EVER completely trust a bill that Kennedy crafted? McCain I have to live with. Occasionally, he can come to his senses!
    Now I HAVE made my final attempt to convince you, AJ!

  3. For Enforcement says:

    CROSSPATCH,

    Do you realize that you took up 5 paragraphs in your comment above when you could have said it it two words:

    AJ Amen.

    Do you ever have an original thought? All I ever read from you sounds like an echo from AJ,

    You don’t live in the Beltway do you?

  4. AJStrata says:

    FE,

    There are lists of categories on the top right hand side of the page. There is one for illegal immigration. The polls are there. I also, in this post, did the math for you to show how a 44-54 race in a Republican primary translates (using Bush election percentages in 2005) to 23% for Jacobs out of the general population – which clearly identifies the number of people so obsessed with the Tancredo line they would even vote for a buffoon like Jacobs. You can pretend it is not true, but there are only 20% in this country who are saying no to a guest worker program – and that is the losing 20%.

  5. crosspatch says:

    FE,

    I did point out that his crime stats might be artificially low because illegals are often reluctant to report crimes.

    Snarking at the delivery boy doesn’t change the pizza. The tactic of shooting the messenger when one has a problem with the message seems to be yet another tactic both the far left and the far right share.

  6. For Enforcement says:

    AJ;
    looked at several of the columns there under illegal immigration, the most recent, guess I didn’t go back far enough, I will go and look at more.
    I did see a lot of your references to 80-20 but no one else.

    I just cant believe 80% of the people in this country want unsecured borders and unconditional amnesty, but I’ll keep looking.

    CROSSPATCH “Snarking at the delivery boy doesn’t change the pizza. The tactic of shooting the messenger when one has a problem with the message seems to be yet another tactic both the far left and the far right share.”

    That is good. I agree.

  7. AJStrata says:

    FE,

    The problem with you is your silly mindset. To disagree with you doesn’t mean we want open boarders and amnesty! What a fantasy you got going there! See why no one can take you seriously? You sound like Walter Mitty fighting the forces of evil incarnate.

  8. crosspatch says:

    FE, I don’t believe anyone wants “unconditional amnesty” or “uncontrolled borders” and in fact, I have never seen either proposed. The proposal for giving people here a legal residential status WAS conditional on several things. They had to pay at least some of back taxes (as opposed to us collecting exactly nothing if they are just shipped back while we incurr the expense of doing the shipping), they had to not be criminals (felons would be deported), they had to have not been previously ordered out of the country, and even qualifying for the legal status and how they would apply would depend on how long they had been here. We would accept applications in the US only for people that had already been here for over 5 years and had kept their nose clean.

    Also, once you were accepted, you had to remain out of jail, an arrest would get you sent back, you had to maintain a job, and you could get one extention of the legal status. If you apply for and are accepted for a path to citizenship, you would have to wait 10 years during which time you have to stay out of jail and learn english as well as pay fees.

    This is not “unconditional”.

    Also the Senate bill had considerable spending for increases in enforcement to include hundres of miles of additional fence.

    The argument of “unconditional amnesty” and “uncontrolled borders” is a fabricated strawman argument because nobody had ever proposed either of those.

  9. The Macker says:

    AJ Amen,
    The crime of being “illegal” is technical and arbitrary and is not to be confused with villainous behavior.

    America needs a guest worker program. And I believe Bush is putting the country first in demanding one. The immigrant bashers have an emotional investment in this subject that clowds their judgment .

    The “secure the border first” people don’t understand that border security can only be achieved if other strategies are in place besides guards and a fence. Hence the word “comprehensive.”

  10. For Enforcement says:

    CROSSPATCH
    funny how you ignore what you can’t honestly dispute, I know I pointed this out to you before, but you chose to ignore it, so I’ll say it again.

    “Also the Senate bill had considerable spending for increases in enforcement to include hundres of miles of additional fence.”

    The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Senate can not appropriate any spending for any thing. Every budget item has to originate in the House of Representatives. with that in mind, go find in the Senate Bill where they approved”Senate bill had considerable spending” and copy and paste it for me. It ain’t there.

    and let me quote you again: “I don’t believe anyone wants “unconditional amnesty” or “uncontrolled borders” and in fact, I have never seen either proposed. The proposal for giving people here a legal residential status WAS conditional on several things. They had to pay at least some of back taxes (as opposed to us collecting exactly nothing if they are just shipped back while we incurr the expense of doing the shipping), they had to not be criminals (felons would be deported), they had to have not been previously ordered out of the country, and even qualifying for the legal status and how they would apply would depend on how long they had been here. We would accept applications in the US only for people that had already been here for over 5 years and had kept their nose”

    As I said, the Senate bill is a comprehensive “unconditional amnesty” bill, those things you listed are just the methods used to justify it. None of those, and let me repeat, NONE of those are required.

    You said:
    The argument of “unconditional amnesty” and “uncontrolled borders” is a fabricated strawman argument because nobody had ever proposed either of those.”
    You obviously have not read the Senate bill.

    You make a much more cohesive argument when you just say
    “AJ Amen” so I recommend you go back to that.

  11. For Enforcement says:

    AJ
    you said:
    The problem with you is your silly mindset. To disagree with you doesn’t mean we want open boarders and amnesty! What a fantasy you got going there! See why no one can take you seriously

    “To disagree with you doesn’t mean we want open boarders and amnesty!”

    No, you’re right, you want open borders and amnesty whether you disagree with me or not.

    As I said before shouting louder and insisting you’re right and I’m wrong is only an opinion. It belittles you, but that is your choice.

  12. For Enforcement says:

    CROSSPATCH

    I know what the thought that came to me was.
    You remind me of a one-legged man in a ass kicking contest.

  13. OLDPUPPYMAX says:

    AJ continues to claim that the current crop of illegals will enjoy none of the benefits of citizenship for 10-15 years. This is not only utter nonsense, it is dangerous, utter nonsense. A great many of these people–currently here quite illegally– are enjoying the benefits of citizenship right now. Nuff said. It is gullibility matched only by that of the elder Bush to believe that dems will allow this valuable voting block to lie fallow for 10-15 years once the Bush/senate amnesty bill becomes law. Should it somehow pass this year, millions of these people will be voting in the 2008 election. Never underestimate the guile of the left. Bush Sr. did and it gave us 8 years of the most corrupt individual to ever occupy the White House. For Gods sake, dems have had the dead voting for them for years. Fraud gave them the State of Wisconsin in 2004 and the Governors mansion in Washington State. Does anyone actually believe the members of this corrupt party will adhere to any deal they make to get this fatal law enacted? For example, that the newly minted proto-citizens won’t be eligible to vote until 2015. Or collect welfare, or have free medical care–which they are doing right now, as bankrupted hospital emergency rooms attest. Nonsense. The left is interested in the advancement of its agenda, not in adherence to the law, or a deal or to what is right and just. These are the people who tried to prevent the counting of military ballots in the 2000 Florida recount. Does anyone over the age of 6 truly believe they won’t do whatever is necessary, regardless of legality, to activate this huge voting block ASAP? I enjoy AJs work and have great respect for it. But on this point, he is simply wrong.