I’m a pro border security/enforcement of immigration laws conservative. And, as a result a couple of days ago I received an email from Roy Beck of NumbersUSA.org. Numbers is the primary group responsible for shutting down the congressional switchboard during attempts to pass the so called amnesty immigration bill and shut down votes on the Dream Act several times. But this most recent email was in support of a Blue Dog Democratic congressperson that is planning to sponsor legislation for strict enforcement (This is a clip from the email)
I did some web searches to get some background of the House leadership position and how many other democrats support strict immigration enforcement. Below are the links I selected to support this debate.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-bri..._in_the_ho.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...gration_policy/
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2006/11/cong...mmigration.html
From pro immigration legislation introduced/supported in the House and Senate I was quite surprised that there is a significant number of Democrats supporting strict enforcement and border security.

I have several Democratic Party relatives that often send me emails reflecting my view of strong border and employment enforcement first prior to considering resolving the existing millions of illegal aliens now living in America.

Many Americans think immigration is one of the top issues according to CSPAN daily shows where citizens call in so I began to wonder what if’s. What if NumbersUSA or other outspoken group brings this subject to the forefront of presidential debate? If they demand Democratic leadership address the Blue Dog concerns will leadership have to choose the worse of two evils?

Questions for Debate:
If Democratic leadership refuses to support the conservative Blue Dog Democrats could these seats go to Republicans in 08?

Can a Democratic candidate be elected if they move to the left and divorce their conservative Blue Dogs to failure in 08?

Could weak on immigration or pro amnesty position sway enough Independent voters to give the Whitehouse and Congress back to the Republican Party in 08?

This is a poison pill for the Dems on the left and they know it. They are in favor of wide open borders and un limited illegal immigration and they would love for the issue to just go away. As Nancy has said :



Depends on how good they are at double talk like Hillary has displayed and if they, as she did, get caught at it.



Possible but not likely. The Dems strategy imo is to just do nothing – and this may not hurt them.

Questions for Debate:
If Democratic leadership refuses to support the conservative Blue Dog Democrats could these seats go to Republicans in 08?

Can a Democratic candidate be elected if they move to the left and divorce their conservative Blue Dogs to failure in 08?

Could weak on immigration or pro amnesty position sway enough Independent voters to give the Whitehouse and Congress back to the Republican Party in 08?

Zack you've given us yet a second thread that is nothing more than a sceenario whereby Republicans beat the odds, in other words, another pipedream. This is "Mother Goose" fantasy stuff.

It is interesting to note that your sources are several months old. In fact, your last two links are from 2006 and I can't find a date on the WP link.

The bottom line is this. Democrats will give lip service to comprehensive immigration reform, perhaps simuilar to what Bush proposed. That, however, is as far as it goes. There will be no immigration legislation before the election. So, this issue will be a neutral, except for Hispanic voters, who supported Bush by 40% in 2004, but seem to be returning to the Democratic fold.

Well, I mentioned Numbersusa in my first post, and if you check their site on the subject you will find this. http://www.numbersusa.com/index Check the date of this article. Also please check out this link... http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-88561.html The question seems to be will the Republicans help the Blue Dogs in their desire to keep their seats?

Guess you forgot your ABC toolbar?

Another afterthought,
1. But Hillary has supposedly stepped out on a limb, and said she supports the illegal immigration going on hog wild.
2. This is her attempt to *BUY VOTES*!
3. Problem is they ain't registered yet.
4. Big OPPS!
5. She was booed for what she said in Iowa, which makes her look bad.
6. I'm all for whatever makes her look bad!
7. Read it thusly:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...n-booed-a.html
Could this be an issue that takes down the "let them eat cake" thinking?

I use Microsoft Word. I had two versions of the same file open and posted the uncorrected one. It happens.

Microsoft Word considers "pipedream" one word, although some online dictionaries make it two.

Edited to add:



Your link does not work.

If Democratic leadership refuses to support the conservative Blue Dog Democrats could these seats go to Republicans in 08?

I highly doubt that- I don't think the issue will make or break any politician that has a contested federal seat- in fact, the biggest liability at all this year seems to be simply having an ® behind your name. I am personally hoping for a total slaughter of the republican party, so that the currect leadership gets the proper butt-whupping they deserve, and will go back to truly conserative ideals. I just don't see this as being a watershed issue that will affect any election based on this issue alone.

Can a Democratic candidate be elected if they move to the left and divorce their conservative Blue Dogs to failure in 08?

Once again- you assume that the dem party is the ones in trouble here, and I don't think you have that too accurately. I think this is a very easy issue for Rs and Ds to jump on- employers SHOULD be penalized for this practise, I just wish it were mandatory minimums of a couple decades behind bars, with no possibility for early parole.

Could weak on immigration or pro amnesty position sway enough Independent voters to give the Whitehouse and Congress back to the Republican Party in 08

Absolutely not- why would anyone think so? The big issue is the Iraq war, fuel prices, and all that, and the american public has pretty much gone on to blame the republican party- rightly so, they have been in pwer, and have screwed the pooch here.

The only poeple that this would be an over-riding issue with will be the hispanics, and they are going to vote 90% Dem or more in this next election, I am betting on it.

I am voting for Ron Paul in the presidential- and then against every incumbant we have here with an R behind thier name, no matter who is running against them.

Like I have said- you either have to be a closeted gay or hopelessly corrupt to be a republican these days- and I always say "hey, you arent' rich enough to be hopelessly corrupt, so, where do you cruise for members of the same sex?"

Oh, and Zack? Linky no worky!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...on-booed-a.html

First thing I have to ask is, What is a Blue Dog Democrat?

If you only comprehend one thing all year Zack, comprehend this; Immigration was not an issue until the popularity for the Iraq War sank to 20%. All the animosity drummed up by FOX News and the Conservative blow-hards was created to get the citizens of the United States of Wal-Mart focused on something other than dead and wounded soldiers returning from Iraq. The object was to direct the hatred from one set of brown people onto another set of brown people in the hopes that would win them elections. It didn't work in '06, and it won't work in '08.

This plan worked against Conserva-sheep because they are easily fooled. Hey!! Look!! Dead Babies, Mexicans, and Gun Controlling Tree Huggers!! Meanwhile, you are being taxed at 33% to fight a war you can't win so that gas prices can increase 150% in 4 years time. Foreclosures are up, housing market is in the toilet, jobs are flowing out of Ameri-Mart and into China and India so fast you don't have time to say, "Where's my pension?" Yet, you are still worried about Julio down by the schoolyard. Make a New Year's resolution to get a clue.

Heh, someone's mixing metaphors. It's yellow-dog Democrat and blue-blood liberal.

Anyway, once again the Republicans are trying to take ownership of an issue with which everyone's on board. Illegal immigration is wrong and the immigration laws need to be enforced. Here's the difference between Republicans and Democrats:

Republicans cast the issue into a big threat from Mexico and want to do punitive things to illegal immigrants. They like the idea of building a wall with razor wire on top, except a few hundred miles too short. And besides, those Mexicans seem to have mastered the art of tunneling for miles and miles.

Democrats want to squelch the demand for illegal immigrants in the workplace. We're okay with deportation too. We do have a history of wanting to address the problems of illegal immigrants, but that was up until we figured out that if nobody hires illegals, then legal citizens of Mexico will have no reason to come here illegally.

So on one side it's get rid of the supply and on the other side it's get rid of the demand. Looks like controlling demand works better than controlling supply, being as we do have the ability to control demand. Just say no to illegal immigrant workers.

So odd to find you posting non-sense. Now that KKKarl Rove is gone it's up to FOX News to be the great rally master for Satan?

In any event it's an easy tie in and easier since people from Long Island, NY to Grand Rapids, MI to San Diego, CA can SEE illegal immigration. And if they're getting in the THEY can get in. Sort of a slam dunk issue, and such a great name - illegal immigration. Every time you argue against it someone says illegal immigration and you lose.

And here's the best part, the argument isn't We Hate Brown People, it's we love them, let them come here legally.

But you go ahead and keep up your pseudo 60s meets 2000 Election Rage Speak - you and yours will be very relevant.

***
Anything can happen in an election and it's often very difficult to pinpoint anything specific for the reason.

Ok seriously what the Hell is a Blue Dog? It sounds like a play involving a fake handoff to the full back and quick out to the tight end. The Dems are in a weird spot. Hilliary is falling apart and Obama still seems like a long shot. There's no one leading them and it's clear. The anti war left actually isn't enough to get anyone elected and the pro-illegal immigration factions definitely isn't. This is an issue for 08, but not THE issue.

The Dems better do something interesting and quantifiable soon or they might very well lose everything they gained. They need to stop serving two masters and pick one and run with it. Kind of like the tight end following the guard or the half back in the Blue Dog.

It is clear that no one bothered to read the links. There is a link that explains how the Yellow Dogs turned into the Blue Dog Democrats. I even posted pictures of current membership. I also provided a link that clearly states Democrats are sponsoring strict immigration legislation.

As for the Democrats being strong on immigration enforcement please explain why they would support illegal aliens being funded under SCHIP.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20071102-2.html

Perhaps they want the illegal Mexicans to vote Democratic, could that be it? Wonder why Nancy and Harry are so rigid on assuring funding illegal Mexicans children under SCHIP? Could they be wanting all citizens to fund illegal Mexican votes in a quid pro quo?

Now I don't have a mean bone in my body towards Mexican people, I admire them for their work habits as a rule more than many Americans but they are not Americans! I would even support a separate SCHIP bill that supports children of illegal residents in near poverty situations, but I simply would say it out loud instead of hiding it as if it weren't there.

Well maybe it is me that is confused? The information is available here http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=232252

So you and your European bloodline want the North American born Mexican to come here legally like your ancestors did?

What's really sad is you don't even know how foolish you look; claiming that Mexicans are illegal immigrants in a city named San Diego. What is going to get your blood boiling next? Indians trespassing in Cheyenne, Wyoming? Your perspective is quite skewed, or should I say white skewed?

AuthorMusician,
Everyone is not "on board" with this issue. Only Brown-hating Republicans who can't fall back on the war anymore.

One thing I've learned about politics in los Estados Unidos is that most politicians are the exact opposite of how they are portrayed. Republicans are supposed to be nationalists, but they hate everything that is American. They don't like dissent. They don't like Freedom. The O'Reilly's of the world are infuriated by free speech and free expression. They don't believe in the 2nd Amendment...well...they don't believe in it if you're black. They certainly don't want America to be a Melting Pot and we aren't a tolerant progressive country. We are not a capitalist democracy. We're a socialist kleptocracy with wealth redistribution from the bottom to the top. Ted's head just exploded.

So what you are saying is that America is an unlawful government and people. America should be defeated by a just and lawful nation such as Mexico or the American Indians? If you believe America is an unjust nation then don't come here without weapons and a just Army at your back. America is a sovereign nation and the borders north and south were established by brave American soldiers. General Lee and Grant stood in the center of Mexico City that was defended by teenagers that soon departed also. There were over 10,000 US casualties in that war that established the southern border, that would be equivalent to around a half million soldier fatalities in comparison to today's population. If you think "Imagine" song has a base you are wrong. If you sneak into America you are a criminal and you have peed on the graves of the 10,000 US soldiers that created that border and should be shot as you cross the border illegally!

Don't use an illegal nations dollars, courts, medical services, demand the land be given back to the Mexicans and American Indians or just shut up.

You don't even know what America is Zack. America is supposed to be about FREEDOM. America is supposed to be a land of OPPORTUNITY. It is supposed to be a nation of TOLERANT people. America is an idea, not a walled-in isolated group of intolerant flag-waving racists.

Your ancestors and my ancestors came here looking for a better place to live. And thankfully, they found it. All people, not just Europeans, should be allowed to provide for themselves and their family. If Mexicans cross the border and get a job, and contribute 33% of their earned wages to our socialist government then they should have access to the services of this socialist government. Welfare, Unemployment, Medicaid, etc.

I just have to address your tough talk Zack. In your alter-world, you have fantasies about the second coming of Santa Anna crossing the Rio Grande to take over the White House and the only thing standing in the way of them is Gen. Zack and his army of Minute Men. Outnumbered and outgunned, you lead a forward assault with the Star-Spangled Banner playing loudly in the background, while women and children stand on the hillside and revere you for your bravery and heroism. Unfortunately, that's just not going to happen. You see right now, you are the Internet toggling between America's Debate and a Foot Fetish site and the closest you'll ever come to a battlefield is your Japanese-made Play Station.

Zack, maybe it just seems to me that everyone's on board. This has become a non-issue in Colorado, Spanish for red. Once was Spanish territory.

Trying to cast illegal immigration into a race debate leads to failure. But casting it into an exploitation debate works. People who come here illegally have no legal protection from exploitation in the workplace. This tends to bring Democrats on board.

Colorado (Spanish for red, not Ute or Arapaho) has enforced the law on this in cooperation with the federal government. There were protests, but really what's there to protest? Coming across borders without following the law is illegal everywhere in the world. Wanting to enforce immigration law has nothing to do with race.

It just so happens that most illegal immigrants come from Mexico. Now there might be racism in those who hire illegals and exploit them illegally (breaking labor laws), and that's illegal too under the Civil Rights Act (race discrimination). There's a whole lot of illegality going on with this issue.

And might I point out that the Spanish have Cortez in their history? Turning the clock back by centuries to justify illegal immigration doesn't work. All the conquering European nations were out to exterminate the Native American problems. Seems everyone was on board with that back then, but it was back then. This is now. Baiting blue-blood liberal guilt no longer works. So I suppose that's where the mixed metaphor of blue-dog liberal comes from. Eh, unremarkable and unoriginal and pretty much wrong.

Tom Tancredo has found out that this issue doesn't work. Can't drive a wedge with it, there's no bite. Everyone wants legal immigration and the Democrats want to get rid of exploitation in the workplace. If the Republicans wanted to get a hatred campaign going, it fell flat.

barnaby2341

As an American citizen and grandson of a LEGAL immigrant who has lived around illegals for the better portion of my life (Pick one: Los Angeles, San Diego and Arizona) allow me to make a few comments on your observations.

First of all, it takes a very large brush to paint illegal immigration objectors as "intolerant flag-waving racists". That's not even a good soundbyte anymore. You can be against illegal immigration without disliking a specific nationality. In fact, I think you'll find the most guarding of the border are the people who went through the process themselves.

This land of "opportunity", and "tolerant people" you speak of also includes a healthy amount of (in YOUR words) "brown people" who have gone through the process of LEGALLY entering this country, and they don't want their opportunities taken by other (again, in YOUR words) "brown people" who have NOT entered this country legally.

You are right. And my ancestors (Grandparents) who came over had to wait 8 years for the process, get a medical exam, learn the language, pass a nationality test and pay for their own way. As well as get legal papers, and prove that they could work to get a job. You bet I'm angry that people think they can just disregard the laws and not only expect, but demand "rights" that are guaranteed to citizens. That's not even limited to walking over the border, but overstaying your visa as well.

See, we have a system for that in place, (you know, LEGAL immigration) and as a result, many proud people call America their new home. For those people, I have nothing but respect. They're leaving their family, home country, and probably a good portion of their history.

Thanks ahead of time for making my case that LEGAL immigration is a great idea!

Really? What social security number do they use to contribute those said taxes? I can't WAIT to hear if you make the "paid under the table" argument, the "fake SS#" argument, the "false and stolen identity SS#" argument, or the "well... they pay sales tax" argument.

But since you like percentages, let's take a look at some.

FAIR estimates in 2004 that the taxpayers of Arizona spent $748.3 million per year on illegal aliens and their children in public schools. Never mind welfare, hospitals, food aid, police enforcement, and drug enforcement.

In 2001, thanks to a decision by the Supreme Court, the INS was forced to release into our society over 3,000 criminal aliens (who collectively had been convicted of 125 homicides, 387 sex offenses, and 772 assault charges). There's a reason we just don't let people "who want a better life" to come through. You need to screen out the convicts, the rapists, the losers.

26 percent of the federal prison population is illegals, though they are only 3 percent of the total population. Clicky for article.

Hey, I noticed you used "If Mexicans cross the border..." I was speaking of illegal immigrants from any country.

And this fun gem:

What's even more foolish is that you missed that San Diego is a city in America, not Mexico. Here's a map. Anything south of this map is Mexico, a different, and foreign, and separate country.

Finally, your reverse racism isn't working.

I'm sorry, but MY observation is that somebody is separating people of nationality and color. And it's not the people you claim are "racist".

It is you.

Let's get a few things straight .

1) a cities name has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the people there at least not in the US

examples,
Rome, Georgia < Italian
Moscow, Idaho < Russian
Paris, Texas < French
Toledo, Ohio < Spanish

please stop with such silliness.

as far as blue dog democrats,

that was a name they gave themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats

AZWHITEWOLF,

Finally, your reverse racism isn't working.

racisim is racism

The Democratic Party is scared to death of the illegal immigration topic right now. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is holding up the five year Farm Bill because Republicans want to put Democrats on record of votes on illegal immigration issues they want to raise on the bill. Yesterday Senator Spector almost called Senator Reid out for a duel on the senate floor when Spector questioned Reid's ability to do his job.

Now take a look at this article.


read the rest..
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-12-06.html

You make a very good point.

Another to be made is that no other nation allows immigration with ease, frankly most don't even allow you to work without extensive documentation.

Heck- doing business even in Canada or Mexico takes an act of God.

How does America compare to our friends to the North? WE'RE A CAKE WALK!!!
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.asp
This is a link to Canada's immigration policy.

Guess what? They don't let any ol' Tom, Dick, or Harry in. SURPRISE FREAKIN' SURPRISE.

Has anyone tried to even do business in Mexico? It's like the old Soviet Union. Impossible.
We have a partner in Mexico City that literally abuses us, because they have a corner on our market. We almost have to use them unless we want to go through extensive paperwork to do business in Mexico, which actually is a fruitful market. (our business has a travel element... and MILLIONS of Americans obviously go to Mexico)

What I'm getting at is that immigration in the United States is and should be different. Immigrating legally for most people isn't impossible or dreadfully expensive, but there IS a process.

For us to allow illegal immigrants to drain the resources of border towns, parts of the southwest, etc with wanton abandonment is irresponsible.

I believe that most people in the US feel this way behind closed doors, but what happens on the political scene is that org's like LULAC (or whoever) make these feelings out to be "bad" or "heartless" and what happens in Washington and on debates is a watered down sentiment.

Go to the local mall. Set up a booth, and give out something free for people to fill out an anonymous survey. I'd bet that a vast majority believe that there should be some sort of stronger immigration policy. The issue is that in public, there are groups that force us to believe that those feelings are heartless and cruel.

They're not... we are all immigrants, be it 1 or 12 generations removed. Most of our famlies did it the right way. That's all people expect really.

Guardian Angel:

Racism IS racism.

Are you implying that anything I said was reverse OR forward racism?

I was keeping the argument at illegal immigrants, which encompasses over 100 nationalities, religions and cultures. Interestingly enough, including mine.

I thought we were all people first. My point was that if some have to break into subgroups (with terms like "brown people") to make a point, then yes, you're bringing race into an argument that has to do with public policy of letting people in this country who will be a) loyal Americans, and b ) move America forward.

I realize that some people are anti-illegal because they ARE racist; but what a blanket statement to generalize such a suggestion when the fact remains that breaking into the country is not only illegal, but a terrible idea. I am "anti-illegal" for several reasons, which we can discuss, that have nothing to do with racism.

Let's cut the straw-man arguments tying racism to illegal immigration in an attempt to justify it - that was my general point. Racism's wrongs don't make illegal immigrant's wrongs right.

I don't care if you're purple and have syphilis. If you've been screened and accepted by our government, welcome to my country, citizen.

If you have not, then thanks for applying non-citizen, please try again.

Zach (I just caught this)
You should be shot as you come across the border illegally?

By who?

I think this is where some of the hatred and anger "victim" attitudes pro-illegals bring to the table. "Shooting people" is NOT the answer.

If you're an alien, I think you have the right to a fair trial because that's OUR legal process. But you should NOT expect the rights of citizens.

Finally, there was a story in the news about an illegal who saved the life of a 9 year old boy. I'm for expediting a legal immigration case for this fellow. He's a hero. These are the kinds of people that are good for America and have something to contribute. He can live next to me.

I don't think the spirit of "Bring me your poor, tired and weary" equates to flooding a country with poor people. Or people who expect the government to meet their personal day-to-day needs. And when you cross the border illegally, or remain on a visa, you bypass the ability for America to make that necessary judgment of your merits. You eventually have to break another law to get a job, and another law to get a SS#.

That's choosing your self interest over the law. It's selfish, and by definition, is criminal.

Of course I was on a rant and would not elect to shoot someone entering the US illegally. In the case of the border I would like to see pop up grenades with permanent red or blue ink as used to disable money stolen from banks.

The practical way to solve immigration is to require a worker's identification for all workers in the USA. Many of the illegal workers come into the US by aircraft on a legal visa and then just stay but it would be very difficult if a workers ID existed and was demanded for all compensation. These ID's could be issued in High School by having parents to produce a birth certificate for the child as they register for the draft or work ID. Foreign nationals with Federal Authority to work would go to the federal office to obtain "temporary workers ID's." Problem solved.

Wow. I'm quoting myself here:

Those two sentences were two different thoughts.

The "that's" in "That's choosing your self interests" was actually aimed more at illegals crossing. I separated that thought with three paragraphs.
Zach

I figured that. However, words mean things, and if you're on the other side of the argument, they're probably not going to catch your sarcasm.
Zach

That's a great idea. I do think if you take the motivation away, it might be worthwhile.

Another common sense idea would be to regulate money that you can wire transfer to different countries. I'd propose a proof of citizenship. Right now, there is an annual estimated transfer of $4 billion to $6 billion dollars. And according to the New York Times, there are at least 10 million people who depend partially on money sent from the United States.

Not only is the earned money not going to American citizens to be used in the American economy, the dollars are then being funneled into other countries.

That's not good for our economy. It'd be one thing if it was legal citizens helping their families overseas or over the border. But people are specifically coming to America to milk our dollars to boost their economy "back home", and then return back home. What kind of loyalty does that display? What kind of sovereignty do we as a nation expect to keep at this pace by continuing to allow it?

The people that say, "what's the harm" or "they're doing jobs others won't do" aren't looking at the big picture. I admire their compassion, but then those with that level of compassion should at least open themselves personally to the detriment effects instead of bringing the entire nation along for the ride.

If government wanted to fix immigration it would be so easy using workers ID's and an enforcement team to check employers. If younger people would like an employment ID they could apply for one and get a temp card until they were 18. The work ID then would be exchanged for a Worker ID/Voter Registration Card. This card would have, for example 08, 10, 12 and 14 with blocks that could be punched out when a person votes. That would assure that a person votes only one time in one election. Lost or replacement cards would be notified to the polling authorities to assure double voting did not happen. Simply return to the local high school each four years with your expired photo work ID and exchange it for a new one in order to vote in upcoming elections. For purposes of the fluid movement of people from state use electronic pictures embeded into plastic so a gaining state could acquire data on the citizen and update both states voting registrars.

According to this source illegal alien immigration will be a very hot topic leading up to the election season. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7375.html

Please take time to read the entire two page article so you may understand how big of an issue this will be by November.

Could weak on immigration or pro amnesty position sway enough Independent voters to give the Whitehouse and Congress back to the Republican Party in 08?

Not as long as the Republicans themselves insist on maintaining a pro-amnesty position. In regard to the question in your thread's title, the massive butt-whipping given to the much-taunted "bipartisan" amnesty plan answers it pretty plainly. And it's at best an open question whether the new pro-enforcement lip service that we're now hearing from Romnuckabecainiani will come across as sincere to most independent voters.

If Democratic leadership refuses to support the conservative Blue Dog Democrats could these seats go to Republicans in 08?
Anything is possible.

Can a Democratic candidate be elected if they move to the left and divorce their conservative Blue Dogs to failure in 08?
Anything is possible.

Could weak on immigration or pro amnesty position sway enough Independent voters to give the Whitehouse and Congress back to the Republican Party in 08?
As long as there are more conservative independents than liberal independents.

Now to answer question in the title of this debate, which I think is the question that matters: Do a majority of Americans demand strict immigration policy? I think immigration is the latest and greatest Republican wedge issue.

Gallup 2006: In many respects, the original House legislation is in step with Americans' thinking on immigration. When asked where government should focus its energies on immigration, Americans are more concerned that steps be taken to halt the flow of immigrants slipping in at the border than they are that the government develop a plan for dealing with the illegal immigrants already living here. Americans also favor many of the more severe remedies for thwarting illegal immigration included in the House bill.

If by strict you mean kicking every illegal immigrant and every child of an illegal immigrant born on U.S. soil out of the country I'm going to say no.

This is a great wedge issue. An electorate grabber. Like other wedge issues the public is concerned but split on addressing the problem. The GOP won't risk losing votes in the Midwest by addressing the economic pressure on our southern border and slash agricultural subsidies. If they gain seats because of immigration it'll be thanks to identity politics. Congress can continue spending millions on the virtual border and DHS can continue as a hack repository complete with "smuggling, bribery, sexual misconduct, assault and theft of government property by its own employees" while "officials charged with protecting the border who have subsequently be charged with aiding illegal immigrants". Republicans can rely on illegal immigration to come to and stay in power. Power trumps everything else.

On this issue, it would be pretty safe to classify most Americans in the "conservative" column, even (or perhaps even especially) those who generally side with the Democrats on most issues relating to labor, environmental protection, and and health care, among other things. How often does it happen that an initiative supported strongly by the leadership of both parties and big money all around goes down in flames, even when there's no comparable big spending and household names among the opposition?

There's no question that being pro-amnesty is bad politics. The only remaining question is whether an insincere pro-enforcement position would be all that much better for a candidate.


If that was the case, then the Republicans would not have been siding with the Democrats to pass an amnesty bill. The four pretend-conservatives who are currently ahead in the Republican polls aren't using it as a wedge issue. They're just trying to survive it by going into full damage-control mode. I'm sure they just wish it would go away, the way both parties (edited to add: and their media allies) were sucessful at keeping it out of the spotlight in the 2004 election.