The Problematics of Public Opinion

TNR asked a bunch of political consultant types what they thought the smart play was about the immigration issue, and to me the striking thing is that there's no agreement whatsoever. Henk Sheinkopf says "you can only lose support the more you talk about it, and that's particularly hurtful in the four states where this election will be decided--Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania." But Stan Greenberg says "Immigration is too central, too much a part of the set of issues voters are angry about." Whereas Norman Adler thinks the polling (done by, among others, Greenberg) showing huge levels of public concern about this is wrong says "I've been doing polling around New York state for some of my clients, and when we ask an open-ended question about what people are concerned about, immigration comes in well behind taxes, the economy, and health care." Bob Shrum thinks it's all about character "and it's probably more important to have an image of being a consistent truth-teller than it is to line up with the majority on every single issue--particularly one like immigration, which, in the end, isn't going to be the most important thing in determining how people vote."

Which is just to say that when you're looking at consultants' role in the political system, it's always worth recalling that these guys operate with the professional standards of witchcraft or astrology they don't have methods that lead practitioners to converge in their judgments about even big, obvious questions like "do voters care a lot about immigration, or do they only care a little." Basically, a determined politician will be able to go out and find a consultant -- and not just any consultant, but a reasonably successful and experienced one -- who tells him or her whatever it is that he or she wants to hear about just about anything. Which isn't to say the consultants are unscrupulous (though some of them are) but merely that there's a great diversity of opinion out there.

Comments

A coherent immigration policy is only sensible if understood by the electorate. Hence "coherent immigration policy" is an oxymoron. The public wants everything done by immigrants to continue to be done except without all the icky brown people as part of the process. I'd like someone to explain how every damned resort hotel in the country gets cleaned and all the beds made minus immigrants to do it all. Ditto major portions of work in agriculture, construction, landscaping and restaurant services. I'm listening......

Posted by steve duncan | November 21, 2007 8:38 AM

I find it very interesting that immigration is not an issue when it's polled with open-ended questions, but is an issue when it's mentioned by the pollster.

To me it says, that immigration doesn't affect people's lives, but it is to a great extent manufactured by the media. There really is a Lou Dobbs effect here.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 21, 2007 8:47 AM

It really, really pains me to say this, but . . . I agree with Bob Shrum. Nick Kaufman nails down the reason, I think.

Democrats had a chance to get ahead of this issue, by properly pinning the responsibility for all the evils Mr. Dobbs blames on immigrants where it belongs (union-busting, poorly-crafted trade agreements, non-existent enforcement), but of course, the DLC wouldn't stand for that. So here we are.

Posted by Brautigan | November 21, 2007 9:02 AM

From Steve Duncan: "I'd like someone to explain how every damned resort hotel in the country gets cleaned and all the beds made minus immigrants to do it all."

The same way hotels are cleaned in the Midwest: by white and black people. The only difference is they get paid $12 an hour rather than $6. This isn't rocket science, pal.

Brautigan: "Democrats had a chance to get ahead of this issue, by properly pinning the responsibility for all the evils Mr. Dobbs blames on immigrants where it belongs (union-busting, poorly-crafted trade agreements, non-existent enforcement)"

Are you saying that Lou Dobbs doesn't pin the blame on union-busting, trade agreements, and non enforcement? Clearly you've never watched a Lou Dobbs show.

Posted by open faced club sand wedge | November 21, 2007 9:13 AM

It's absolutely a Lou Dobbs effect, and I have to say that it's magnified in states like Iowa and NH where, in all honesty, a non-white face not working on a farm or a meatpacker's still turns heads.

The smart play? Oh, the actual smart play would be to say up front that the substantive debate is done till 2009, and we're now in the domain of bullshit demagoguery.

Immigration politics and election politics don't mix; or, put another way, when immigration enters election politics, you get a dumb debate about immigration conducted by the ignorant, aimed at the even-more-ignorant.

(I'm sure that Whackjob Kelly will be along any moment now to prove my point.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 21, 2007 9:20 AM

The last person I'd take advice from is Bob Shrum. As I recall, he's 0-8 in presidential races. I think Democrats are underestimating the uneasy current that illegal immigration is causing. And simply saying we need "comprehensive reform" -- which many see as just another way of saying "amnesty" -- isn't a sufficient response. Admittedly this is a complex issue with no simple solution(s), but failing to recognize the depth of uneasiness out there could well mean another disastrous November.

Posted by Traven | November 21, 2007 9:20 AM

The same way hotels are cleaned in the Midwest: by white and black people. The only difference is they get paid $12 an hour rather than $6. This isn't rocket science, pal.

Posted by open faced club sand wedge | November 21, 2007 9:13 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't know what hotels you frequent in the Midwest. I've been to a great many, including Chicago, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Detroit, Minneapolis, Dayton, Louisville and Lexington. Every one had a staff seemingly well populated by persons of evident Hispanic lineage. From maids to janitorial, maintenance and restaurant workers there sure were a lot of brown people speaking a great deal of Spanish in all the units I've stayed in. If you think immigration (legal and illegal) hasn't reached the Midwest you're mistaken. And if you're staying in hotels where good ol' white boys and girls are the only staff they're anomalies.

Posted by steve duncan | November 21, 2007 9:28 AM

I’m not arguing that immigration hasn’t made it to the Midwest. If you get out of the main population centers and into smaller cities around the Midwest (I’m mostly familiar with Indiana, Muncie, Anderson, South Bend, or even suburban Indianapolis) you will not find significant Mexican representation in any of the service sectors. Gas stations, convenience stores, hotels, etc. How do those places stay in business? Your theory seems to be that the entire country will grind to a halt minus illegal Mexicans. You are wrong. Raise wages and you will find willing workers. I thought liberals cared about raising wages for the working class?

Posted by open faced club sand wedge | November 21, 2007 9:48 AM

open faced club sand wedge, Americans care about paying the least amount of money they can for whatever they buy. The same person advocating a fair wage for legal U.S. citizens as a way to curtail illegal immigration thinks nothing of buying shirts or shoes stitched together in a sweatshop in Haiti. Nor do they blink about shopping at Wal-Mart despite that firm's notorious denial of various employee benefits through a part-time work scam approach to scheduling. And I can hear the wails of protest if the labor costs involved in picking fruits and vegetables doubled or tripled with the attendent rise in grocery prices. How many vacations would get cancelled if almost everything you do in a resort city rose 15-20-30% or more because every worker was as carefully screened and paid the same or more as that domestic worker in the Muncie Motel-6? I'm sorry, but if immigrants were barred from crop work in much of the country it would all lie and rot before a rush of legal workers flooded the bosses office with applications. Poor, unskilled or otherwise difficult to employ white and black Americans aren't going to stoop over in the hot sun picking cabbage and lettuce 12 hours a day regardless of the pay.

Posted by steve duncan | November 21, 2007 10:09 AM

Why don't we just point out what a scam this is for our lovely business overlords? They hire cheap, undocumented labor who won't complain about conditions for fear of being deported and who are forced perhaps to live in dodgy conditions and engage on the margins in risky social and criminal behavior because they're living in the shadows with nobody to rely on but themselves. You can fault the reform legislation of last year all you want, but at least the concept was to bring these people into the light, give them permits and make them a part of civil society where they could both be protected and held accountable at the same time. As far as the consultant angle goes, it's such a joke as MY points out. Here's a thought - when you speak out and act based on your real convictions, people tend to respond to that because your goddam heart is actually in it and they can tell! I know, too utopian for our masters in the DLC and the Village.....

Posted by scott | November 21, 2007 10:20 AM

Also, "problematic" is not a noun, just a clunky and kinda pretentious adjective. The only reason I'd ever support English as the official language is if it would save smart guys like MY from using made-up jargon crap words. Just saying. Rock on!

Posted by scott | November 21, 2007 10:26 AM

Look, the price of something is determined by how much they can get you to pay. No Hotel is going to say, “well, our labor costs are way down this month because of all the illegal workers, so let’s give our customers a 20% discount!” That doesn’t happen. As for the other liberal boilerplate you regurgitate about crops rotting the field, well that’s just silly. It’s been refuted repeatedly by the Krikorians and Borjas’ of the world and I don’t feel like googling it. Your position actually serves to increase the profits of major corporations, you aren’t lowering costs for consumers.

Also, I think Wal-Mart is a disgraceful company, and I don’t think it has much to do with what we are talking about, but since you bring it up, let me ask you this: You contend that Wal-Mart is using unethical practices to both increase profits and lower prices for consumers. How is this different than what Marriott is doing? They are employing illegal immigrants to increase profits and, according to you, lower costs for consumers. Kind of a double standard, eh? If I were in the tank for Wal-Mart couldn’t I just use your line of reasoning on hotels to make the case for Wal-Mart? How are consumers going to pay higher prices for all those cheaply made Chinese products if Wal-Mart starts paying more benefits, Steve? How many vacations will be cancelled? Oh, the horror!

The Muncie Motel 6 is pretty freaking cheap, by the way, how do you explain that?

Posted by open faced club sand wedge | November 21, 2007 10:33 AM

As for Scott’s post, it’s unclear to me why I should care about the problems a citizen of Mexico has encountered in the course of breaking my country’s laws. It’s kind of like these stories you read from England where a burglar twists his ankle breaking into a business and then successfully sues the store owner for his injuries.

Posted by open faced club sand wedge | November 21, 2007 10:38 AM

"I've been doing polling around New York state for some of my clients, and when we ask an open-ended question about what people are concerned about, immigration comes in well behind taxes, the economy, and health care."

In the lower 48 states, what is the farthest point from the Mexican border? Maine somewhere? And so how close, to the farthest point in the US from Mexico, was this polling place in NY? Why don't you go up to Alaska and ask them where they rank Mexican immigration among their concerns. Sheesh. Beware the Northeastern Elitist Liberal Bubble effect. Shrum never misses a chance to get on board that train.

failing to recognize the depth of uneasiness out there could well mean another disastrous November.

Smartest thing said so far.

We must have a coherent policy going into next year. So far, we're getting a hodge podge of non answers anytime the question is asked of our candidates. From DL to the border fence we've got to come up with answers to this thing. I submit:

-No border fence. I will not wall this country in.
-I pledge to punish American businesses that hire illegals with heavy fines and the loss of their business license. If we stop providing undocumented workers with jobs, they will go home on their own. And there won't be a fence to keep them in.
-Business leaders need to justify any increase in the number of work visas granted, but I expect to drastically increase the number issued. Thousands of foreigners work in this country every day. We already have a system for ensuring they are not criminals and we allow them to get Drivers Licenses and pay taxes.
-With the crackdown on business and the increase in visa issuance, we will need to expand the INS, starting with thousands of new border patrol agents. Expanding the INS will greatly improve homeland security.

The answer to this political puzzle is for the Democrats to crack down on "American business". We already take the hit for being anti-business, at least now we can deflect the accusation and look tough on homeland security.

Posted by Just Karl | November 21, 2007 10:53 AM

it’s unclear to me why I should care about the problems a citizen of Mexico has encountered in the course of breaking my country’s laws.

Unless you grow your own crops and raise and slaughter your own meat, you've been indirectly paying that citizen. Well, you've mostly been indirectly paying his bosses.

steve duncan hit the nail on the head. The curious aspect of the US immigrant economy is that it has retarded (at least to some degree) greater efficiency, given that coolie labour is cheaper than automation. The people who watch Dobbs in order to be jabbed into outrage with sharp sticks ought to understand that sub-min-wage illegal workers wouldn't be replaced with min-wage citizen workers: they'd be replaced, wherever possible, with machines. (And oh, the irony if those machines were made in China.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 21, 2007 10:54 AM

The Muncie Motel 6 is pretty freaking cheap, by the way, how do you explain that?

Posted by open faced club sand wedge | November 21, 2007 10:33 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I imagine the Muncie Motel-6 is cheap because no rational human being on the planet wants to stay in Muncie. Even citizens of Muncie want to leave Muncie. Business people having to visit Muncie drive south to Indianapolis if at all possible once their day in Muncie has ended. The manager of the Motel-6 in Muncie will blow you for merely patronizing the soda machine in the lobby. Illegal immigrants think "Muncie" is a foot fungus or intestinal virus.

Posted by steve duncan | November 21, 2007 10:56 AM

Yeah, fuck Muncie. Idiots. I hate Muncie and all who live in it. Jerks. How dare they live in Muncie? Me and you, Steve, we are so much better than all those assholes. Muncie! The nerve!

Posted by open faced club sand wedge | November 21, 2007 11:03 AM

Which is just to say that when you're looking at consultants' role in the political system, it's always worth recalling that these guys operate with the professional standards of witchcraft or astrology they don't have methods that lead practitioners to converge in their judgments about even big, obvious questions like "do voters care a lot about immigration, or do they only care a little."

There are plenty of people operating in politics in government who you could apply the same description to, and a lot more working as professional bloviators. (And yet more working as bloggers..)

Posted by Nemo Ignotus | November 21, 2007 11:17 AM

they'd be replaced, wherever possible, with machines

But Americans have competitive advantage when it comes to invention. We make great machines. And many of these machines that would replace the workers would need to be invented by companies like Caterpillar. You have mechanization leading to the creation of more highly skilled jobs in American corporations. Sure, the physical manufacture of the machines may eventually be done somewhere like China, but at least the Chinese wouldn't need to be coming here.

Posted by Just Karl | November 21, 2007 11:21 AM

This would be so easy to deal with on the campaign trail. Say this and nothing else:
"Republican business owners keep giving illegal aliens jobs, so they don't have to give you a job, a raise, overtime, or vacations. Until we make them stop nothing is going to solve the problem. Next question."

Posted by flounder | November 21, 2007 11:34 AM

"TNR asked a bunch of political consultant types what they thought the smart play was about the immigration issue, and to me the striking thing is that there's no agreement whatsoever."

The reason for this is because of the liberals' inability to accept reality when it conflicts with their worldview. Because liberals don't want to take any actions against illegal aliens and want to make it easier for them to gain access to the benefits of the welfare state, any opposition to this policy is viewed by liberals as fake opposition whipped up by the GOP or the media and is based solely on the inherent racism of the American people. The 9:20 am post by pseudonymous in nc provides a perfect example of what I'm saying:

"Immigration politics and election politics don't mix; or, put another way, when immigration enters election politics, you get a dumb debate about immigration conducted by the ignorant, aimed at the even-more-ignorant."

So according to him or her, the discussion of immigration issues in an election year is "dumb debate" because the electorate, the "even-more-ignorant" will have some impact on what policy will be pursued by their elected officials. Wow, such condescension for your fellow citizens. And you guys wonder why more Americans refused to see the wisdom that is so self evident to you liberals.

Because PC runs so deeply through Democratic party politics, any suggestions put forth by "political consultant types" that Dem candidate oppose things like not giving illegals drivers licenses and other things that are favored by the overwhelming majority of voters would most certainly to be denounced as racists by liberal Hispanic groups and others. So instead of getting their true advice about what is the "smart play on the immigration issue" and dealing with the fallout, you get these meaningless platitudes from them that is meant for public consumption.

Posted by Chicounsel | November 21, 2007 11:34 AM

TNR has a lot of nerve consulting these bums, especially Bob Shrum, but they do have some very good readers. The best on this issue, in my view, is stalwart poster teplukhin:

"Messers. Greeberg et al--some free advice from a loyal Dem who's probably the last person my friends/colleagues/neighbors would expect to be agitated by this issue:

1. The issue is not "immigration", or even "illegal immigration". It's our broken relationship with MEXICO, pure and simple. So start reframing the issue accordingly each time it comes up.

2. The broken relationship with Mexico is an ECONOMIC one. Again the issue is not a legal one, or border security--as if we could ever police that border. It's about finally delivering on the bill of goods that was used to sell NAFTA over a decade ago: creating jobs in Mexico, so that desperately poor, hopeless Mexicans would not come here and swamp the low-end US labor market and social services in blue-collar neighborhoods.

3. Consistent with #2, concentrate on fixing NAFTA and helping working families on both sides of the border. All the border enforcement in the world won't help if we continue to dump $1 billion worth of subsidized US corn into Mexico each year, thereby destroying over a million rural Mexican livelihoods. Close the loopholes that were left open for Cargill and ADM.

4. Bottom line, this issue is 100% about economics. It's one of standing up for workers' rights, of helping working US and Mexican families, and putting Mexico on a track to follow Ireland's successful transition from a third world backwater and exporter of desperate people to a wealthy, dynamic, educated, first world tiger.

If our party can't do better than 35% or so with working-class white families across the nation, we should abandon the fiction that we are the working man's party. No issue more clearly illustrates the confusion and bankruptcy of the Democratic Party than its bizarre and infuriating inability to stand up, cry BS, and put an end to this insane importation of an underclass from Mexico when we haven't even begun to address the problems of our already existing underclass. Messers Greenberg et al, do you realize how central this issue is to our party and our nation? Do you understand that you and your clients can't just kick the can down the road again?"

Posted by Robert Powell | November 21, 2007 11:38 AM

"Republican business owners keep giving illegal aliens jobs, so they don't have to give you a job, a raise, overtime, or vacations. Until we make them stop nothing is going to solve the problem. Next question."

Brilliant!

Posted by Just Karl | November 21, 2007 11:46 AM

Today's winner is steve duncan, though I've never been to Muncie.

Posted by El Cid | November 21, 2007 11:50 AM

For what it's worth, my own judgment on the pure politics - not my strongest suit - is that immigration is going to be an absolutely huge issue in the general election, and maybe even the hugest. I don't know whether it's all Lou Dobbs doing or not, but it's there. So many class, cultural, electoral and inter-regional struggles and debates come into play that it might very well come to be a determining factor in an electoral realignment over the next decade. Democrats are getting a bit of a pass on this in the primary, but once a primary winner emerges they had better be prepared to hit the ground running on this issue, because they are going to get blasted on it by the Republicans and must be prepared to blast back.

The Democrats have a solid base from which to establish the reasonable consensus middle ground position on the issue. They can both divide and attack the Republicans by calling out the corporate class as the enablers and exploiters of illegal immigration, and the betrayers of the American working class. And they can isolate the loud minority of nativist zealots who seem to want to turn all the Mexicans into Soylent Green. Let these two radically diverse Republican camps fight it out among themselves.

My impression is that some of the hostility to amnesty, naturalization etc. is due to the fact that a lot of people are in no mood to address the issue of illegals who are already here until they have some confidence that the government is doing something to stop the bleeding. They don't want to hand out benefits, drivers licenses, etc. because they worry that making it easier to be an illegal immigrant in America only increases the flow and makes the situation worse. Once they have some sense that immigration is once again subject to the rule of law, and that the border situation is not completely anarchic, they will be more reasonable about what to do with the people who are already here.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 21, 2007 12:32 PM

Today's winner is steve duncan

If by 'winner' you mean he gets a gold medal for demonstrating his contempt for all the regular American rubes who live in flyover country, sure. Gold medal for duncan and his elitism.

Posted by bbartlog | November 21, 2007 12:33 PM

Completely clueless post linking to what is most likely a clueless article full of clueless quotes.

If the MSM told the whole truth about this issue, those political consultants would have only one choice: enforce the current laws. The only reason they can come up with grand plans is because most people aren't aware of everything involved in this issue and imm.'s involvement in many other issues.

What's going to happen is that eventually people are going to start going to campaign appearances, asking real toughie questions about this issue (and the candidates' records), and then publicizing the responses (to Youtube for instance).

When that happens, things are going to become a lot clearer to the MattY's of this world.

Posted by TLB | November 21, 2007 12:34 PM

It's "elitism" to say that people aren't exactly lining up to visit Muncie? Hotels are cheap in towns no one wants to stay in. Immigration doesn't have a thing to do with it.

Posted by too many steves | November 21, 2007 12:46 PM

Since Steve Duncan's point seems to have gone over your heads let me take a crack at it.

The reason the Motel 6 in Muncie pays citizens $12 and hour to clean rooms (assuming they even do) and the Westin in Chicago doesn't is simple. There are so few jobs in Muncie that qualified citizens are willing to work for $12 an hour. In Chicago there are lots of jobs available that pay better so there aren't any citizens willing to clean rooms for $12 and hour.

Posted by Eric K | November 21, 2007 1:48 PM

The people who watch Dobbs in order to be jabbed into outrage with sharp sticks ought to understand that sub-min-wage illegal workers wouldn't be replaced with min-wage citizen workers: they'd be replaced, wherever possible, with machines. (And oh, the irony if those machines were made in China.)

The sort of jobs that are susceptible to automation are those which are already moving overseas at an alarming clip; in the context of the great 'Muncie Motel-6 Debate,' and in general, your argument is meaningless.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | November 21, 2007 2:15 PM

Jeez. Enough about the Muncie Motel 6. Just to recap, steve duncan put forth the argument that things would suck without illegal immigrants, hotels would be pricier, crops would rot in the fields, and groceries would be outrageously expensive. The point of bringing Muncie up, or anyplace that's relatively not inundated with illegal immigrants, is to prove that things still get done and at just as cheap or cheaper as before. Using duncan's logic, that motel 6 in Muncie shouldn’t even exist. They pay too much and nobody wants to stay there anyway! In fact, using duncan’s logic, Muncie would cease to exist and everybody would live in Chicago, Manhattan, or LA.

If you decrease corporations access to cheap labor they will have to compete for labor. That’s good for low income people. Yes, some company’s will automate. That can be good or bad economically for those low income folks, but at least a machine won’t create hidden costs that we haven’t even brought up yet. Health care, schooling, etc.

Posted by open faced club sand wedge | November 21, 2007 2:46 PM

My impression is that some of the hostility to amnesty, naturalization etc

I'll admit that I don't know how it works. What exactly is the "path to citizenship"? Are green cards a step along the way? A work visa does not have to mean naturalization. What's the problem with simply documenting the undocumented? We can allow them to get green cards with no path to citizenship after passing a Federal background check. We would encourage them to apply early by guaranteeing only a set number of visas. At a date certain, we start prosecuting the businesses who employ undocumented workers and we document only the workers who come through the proper channels to get here.

I don't think there is much public support for punishing the undocumented, though it's part of many of the plans. Why make them pay a fine? Does that small act on the part of the undocumented worker make the plan "not amnesty" and therefore tolerable?

Posted by Just Karl | November 21, 2007 3:04 PM

Just Karl says: I'll admit that I don't know how it works.

Neither does MattY, so let me help you leave that club.

What exactly is the "path to citizenship"? Are green cards a step along the way? A work visa does not have to mean naturalization. What's the problem with simply documenting the undocumented?

The "path" involves some form of work auth then, after performing other steps like promising to sign up for English classes, becoming a citizen. The problems with just documenting illegal aliens is that, for instance, they'd have U.S. citizen children. That would make it very difficult to deport them when their term is up. It's also akin to fine countries like SaudiArabia, and perhaps we don't want to go down that path. Never fear however: those documented workers would be a constant temptation to the Dems, who would use the MSM to push to put them on the "path".

We can allow them to get green cards with no path to citizenship after passing a Federal background check.

The guy who was in charge of the agency that would do that first said the plan was unworkable given the time constraints, then magically changed his mind. Since we'd be dealing with millions of people, the checks would be extremely shallow and things would be taken at face value and corners would be cut. At least one terrorist was almost made a citizen under a previous, smaller scheme. That would be worse due to the numbers and due to the tens of thousands of SpecialInterestAliens who've come over the borders in recent years.

And, any chance of enforcement would be thrown out the window. This would be a huge victory for those forces that oppose enforcement now, and it would give them even more political power. They'd use that to prevent future enforcement.

For an example of the type of people who'd be empowered by "reform", search for "Gestapo" here: faithct.org. I'd imagine even MattY isn't that far gone.

Scroll through my full-text archives if you want to find out what's really going on with this issue.

Posted by TLB | November 21, 2007 3:32 PM

The guy who was in charge of the agency that would do that first said the plan was unworkable given the time constraints

If the only problem is the time constraints, then the plan is workable on another time scale.

As for their US children, they are welcome back when they turn 18.

I don't really understand your references to the Gestapo and Saudi Arabia. Are you talking about the establishment of 2nd class de facto citizens? We employ such foreign nationals now, don't we?

Posted by Just Karl | November 21, 2007 4:04 PM

So according to him or her, the discussion of immigration issues in an election year is "dumb debate" because the electorate, the "even-more-ignorant" will have some impact on what policy will be pursued by their elected officials. Wow, such condescension for your fellow citizens.

Ah, poor Chickie protests way too much.

No Republican ever lost a vote for playing the anti-immigration card, especially in districts where the demographics are milky-white.

And it's not condescension to identify the following truisms:

* non-citizens can't vote;
* most citizens have no interaction with the US immigration system;
* most citizens have no understanding of the US immigration system;
* the areas where the anti-immigrant drum is being beaten most furiously are ones where the demographics are milky-white.

Take, for instance, the district of Steve King, the Tancredo clone in sunny corny Iowa: 95.5% white; 0.7% black; 3.6% hispanic. (Remarkably, it's Tom Harkin's district when he was in the House.)

Heath Shuler is the paradigmatic 'tough on immigration' Dem, in that he lives in a district where, outside its biggest city, a non-white face turns heads.

It's also not condescending to note that the Dobbsification of this debate extends way beyond illegal immigration, regardless of how much the big giant bloviating head protests. The US is not particularly comfortable place for permanent residents these days: if you look funny or talk funny, the assumption is that you're in the country illegally.

There were 3.5m N-400s filed in the two months before the fees went up. An underfunded USCIS may not get them processed in time for the 2008 election. But those who do make it through the process will be voting. Rahm needs to think about that.

[And I'd like to know if Whackjob Kelly asks every brown-skinned person he interacts with in Los friggin' Angeles to prove his/her citizenship. But that would assume he peeks out from under his bed.]

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 21, 2007 6:24 PM

If the only problem is the time constraints, then the plan is workable on another time scale.

1000 agents * 10 checks per day * 20 days/month = 200,000 checks per month. That's not counting the current backlog, and plenty of terrorists would sneak in given those sloppily performed checks. And, that's not counting the additional backlog that would build up from those legal residents who applied while the applications from former illegal aliens were being processed.

If you don't understand the second reference, do what I said: visit faithct.org and see the screed in the upper left column. I was hoping someone would say, "but he's just an extremist", at which time I'd point to this article showing him rubbing elbows with a national group (that has an indirect link to the MexicanGovernment):

hartfordimc.org/blog/2007/11/20/stop-the-raids-hartford-meeting/

Posted by TLB | November 22, 2007 1:42 AM