Sometimes They Screw-Up

As another note on the immigration issue, I should note that some of the fear of this topic in progressive circles seems to me to reflect an undue Fear of Republicans. Basically, the thinking seems to be that if Republicans are all talking about how tough talk on immigration is going to be a great issue for them it must be right because, after all, the GOP is great at this stuff.

It's worth keeping in mind, however, that when the ship was being steered by hardened political strategists, the Republican Party was adhering to a firmly pro-immigrant line. It was always known that Bush's immigration policy wasn't popular with his base, but he thought it was vital to his strategy in the 2000 election, and the pro-immigration version of the Republican Party did quite well in 2002 and 2004. The turn in Republican rhetoric came because the base revolted against the political strategy that had been outlined by the party's strategists. Then, as it became clear that Republicans were facing big losses in 2006, a lot of them turned to anti-immigration rhetoric to try to preserve control, but they lost anyway. Similarly, in 2007 those of us in the DC area were inundated with anti-immigrant ads from Virginia Republicans running in local races and the Virginia GOP did terribly.

Basically, immigrant-bashing doesn't have a great track record as an electoral issue, and it doesn't seem to be the case that this is actually a cause the Republicans started espousing because of it's political utility. If anything, it's the reverse, something the political hacks didn't want to take on, but that the base has pushed them into.

Comments

I would be delighted if this were the case, but Democrats in marginal districts don't seem to think so. Or look at the success of anti-immigration initiatives in places like Arizona & California, or at the popularity of people like Lou Dobbs on this issue.

Posted by Peter H | December 19, 2007 5:28 PM

Actually, Matt, I think the Democrats are justifiable worried that the media is going be flogging this issue because the Republicans are. And that there are no good answers, because the actual policy position that everyone takes is to allow illegal immigration. As I think it was Clinton who said, illegal immigrants are a part of the economy.

None of the Republicans have a serious position on immigration. It's just the bumper sticker issue they've chosen in this cycle to further the Southern Strategy. Democrats feel a responsibility to have a policy. But there is no policy to advocate, other than enforcing the law, with a focus on fining employers for violating US labor law.

That would be bad for contributions. Any other policy position would have the effect of opening the borders (which I'm all for) in a way that would not be popular given the lousy economic performance for the bottom two quintiles in the last ten years. Immigrants would be scapegoats.

But it's about Wolf saying "raise your hand," not about any actual concern about the issue.

Posted by jayackroyd | December 20, 2007 2:33 PM

Well, it's certainly true that the Democrats *could* take a politically-effective line on immigration without going against their principles or their base. But in practice, they're just totally incompetent on this issue.

On the other hand, the Republications are *also* totally incompetent on the politics of this issue, so I guess that evens things up...

Posted by RKU | December 20, 2007 2:37 PM

If anything, it's the reverse, something the political hacks didn't want to take on, but that the base has pushed them into.

Sound familiar? The Republican establishment has been at war with its nativist/populist base for a few years, now. The Democratic establishment has more recently gone to war with its progressive/populist base, after using them like a $10 whore in the last election. Whichever party figures out how to exploit the other's problems while reconfiguring their own alliances will win. The situation is more fluid than head-to-head polls might make it appear, since exploiting the situation requires that a given party elite sacrifice some prerogatives, both in party and in policy, in a way which will realign party power in this country for a generation. It's simply a matter of which party's elite will bit the bullet first. Who dares, wins.

As for the issue at hand, Drum notes from the same poll you cited, Matt:

In fact, on a policy basis, it's not that far from the mainstream Democratic view: later in the report we learn that employer sanctions and a path to citizenship are popular, whereas deportation and fence-building aren't. (Cutting back on government benefits gets a mixed response.) Just make sure that everyone knows you "get it" first.

Taking on immigration doesn't mean soaking up Tancredoisms, whatever Obama's speechwriters may assume. Once again, the majority is there, but the conventional wisdom in the ruling class is elsewhere.

[whistles innocently]

Gee, sure would be unfortunate if someone were to destabilize an unsustainable situation and reap both partisan and national advantage, now, would it?

Nossir. Can't have that.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 20, 2007 2:42 PM

look at the success of anti-immigration initiatives in places like Arizona & California

Yes, just look at how the California Republican party parlayed Proposition 187 into a veritable generation-long Republican dominance of the state which continues to this day!

I knew Republicans were headed for electoral problems when the decided to repeat the California Republicans' mistakes on immigration. Look, I don't know how to square the circle of immigration reform and enforcement of immigration laws without giving any power or any voice to the virulently racist, anti-immigrant segment of the electorate. But I DO know that the Republican party's methods on immigration reform are causing just this problem, which the majority of the electorate shys away from.

Posted by Tyro | December 20, 2007 2:53 PM

Likewise, it drives me batty when liberals say, "Republicans attack Hillary because they know it will make Democrats support her, and they want us to support her in the primaries because they know they can beat her in the general." The whole psyche-out thing just assumes way too much power and prescience on the part of Republicans.

Posted by bobbo | December 20, 2007 2:55 PM

Ooohhh! hot button issue alert! I think we all agree that the current state of illegal immigration is intolerable -- illegal entry = what criminal is living in our midst, displacement of legal workers, exploitation of fringe workers, failure to pay taxes on income (but paid on sales taxes?), increased social burden on hospitals and schools, etc.

National Republicans and Democrats alike have been intellectually absent here.

As a libertarian, I like open borders but I also like knowing who is coming into the country and would like the opportunity to reject those I don't care to have (criminals and foreign armies for example). The laws need to change to accommodate a rational but controlled open-border policy. We need to streamline the immigration process to reduce unnecessary delay and fraud. Existing illegals need a process to get to legal residency (mainly by demonstrating not an unwanted person, e.g. criminal) without a barrier that discourages compliance. We can fund it by dismantling the war on drugs (among others).

Posted by mike c | December 20, 2007 2:57 PM

Immigration isn't a good issue for anyone (at least not at a statewide level or higher), because it cuts against the grain of the coalitions as they are presently arrayed, without any predictable promise of a gain in votes. By stepping out front on the immigration issue, from either side, you get basically the same number of votes but with a lot more volatility in the distribution of outcomes.

Posted by kth | December 20, 2007 3:02 PM

I agree with Grand Moff. It doesn't seem terribly difficult to strategically exploit a situation where everyone knows one side is blowing hot air.

Interestingly, Obama may be well-suited to talk past this nonsense in a general-election debate, since he is trying to find the "new kind of politics".

But really, anyone could do it. It's pretty transparent. And I think the evangelicals are starting to sense they're being used, with this Huckabee nonsense going on. It is high time for the Democrats to just point out the strategy and refuse to play the game. I tell you what, the democratic voters will go to bat for you if you point out and then dismiss the Southern strategy.

Posted by mk | December 20, 2007 3:07 PM

I'm sorry, but at this point in time I know I need an intern: there's just too much idiocy on display.

Here's more on the "pro-immigrant line": youtube.com/watch?v=9GQM-4q099A

There are probably only a few hundred people who saw that appearance by MargaretSpellings in which she described how Bush's original scheme was basically a massive H1BProgram for *all types* of jobs. The fact that the Dems didn't strike back at that tells you all you need to know about that party.

And, of course, there's SansAClue's insistence on not calling things by their true names ("immigrant-bashing"). Does anyone think that's accurate? Should anyone take SansAClue/MattY seriously?

Posted by TLB | December 20, 2007 3:14 PM

I would suggest to some of you that there is a difference between not liking racist pandering, and actually being in favor of illegal immigration.

that difference is what these Democratic politicians are afraid of. As long as this is about how much the Republicans hate brown people, it's a winner for the Democratic party. However, once it becomes about openly advocating illegal immigration, which many Democrats do seem to be doing when they talk about how important they are to the economy and all, it's going to bite them hard.

Posted by Soullite | December 20, 2007 3:17 PM

I always think of Republican strategists as being like those old-time college football coaches who would schedule The Citadel and Temple, win games like that 73-0, and then lose their bowl game in the face of actual opposition; with Bob Shrum being Temple.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | December 20, 2007 3:18 PM

Immigration isn't a good issue for anyone (at least not at a statewide level or higher), because it cuts against the grain of the coalitions as they are presently arrayed, without any predictable promise of a gain in votes.

In the context of increasing socioeconomic stratification, it's not just the lack of a guarantee of more votes that would keep both parties' elites from adapting to changing circumstances. Why should they walk away from a cozy arrangement in which they can continue to trade political favors for themselves and their friends while telling the mere Americans below them that all their problems are the other guy's fault?

Fragmentation in elite consensus offers an opportunity for one elite faction or another to coopt a previously inferior faction as leverage against their elite peers and so form a new order. How far things fall apart before someone is adroit enough to do this determines how far down the social totem-pole actual power will slide. One might think that that would be an advantage for the Democrats, and one would be wrong. The Republican will to power is greater than the Democrats' connection to their populist traditions.

Controlling the consensus narrative on the whys and consequences of increasing economic dislocation will determine the shape of said fragmentation and, with media consolidation, again the Republicans have an advantage in that theater.

So, either the Democrats are fools to just sit there while the opportunity evaporates, or else they are content to remain the professional losers that they have been for a generation. Habit and privilege are notorious de-motivators.

What any meaningful reform must address is that American capital likes immigration just the way it is. Any attempt to legalize immigrant labor will undermine the thing that makes it profitable: it's utter disposability and vulnerability. As things come to suck for more and more Americans, they have (rightly or wrongly) turned to immigration as a threat, to the tune of about 1/3 of the population.

So, whom do you screw? The people whose Money makes your Speech possible? Who's going to take that chance, and why?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 20, 2007 3:26 PM

Basically, immigrant-bashing doesn't have a great track record as an electoral issue, and it doesn't seem to be the case that this is actually a cause the Republicans started espousing because of it's political utility.

The only reason "immigrant-bashing" is not broader(clever of the usual pro-illegal immigration Jews in the media to conflate legal and illegal immigrants) - is that blacks who are the primary victims of illegals undercutting jobs - remain slavishly loyal to their Democrat masters. However much blacks have been eradicated from the workforce in private industry after industry in California, Chicago, NY Metro, DC Metro, and the Southwest - they cling to the idea that Democrats will ensure blacks always have good government jobs from patronage from black majorities in cities. That is also changing as Hispanics gain majority rule and set about to eradicate disproportionate black, and especially black female representation in city and state jobs. This is already happening in Cali and Arizona.

And blacks don't understand that both Parties would prefer to have the Hispanic vote at the expense of the black vote. Black voter loyalty to Dems will be shed as a encumbrance if they see an opening to lock up Hispanics.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 20, 2007 3:39 PM

I would suggest to some of you that there is a difference between not liking racist pandering, and actually being in favor of illegal immigration.

And yet the GOP has gotten mileage out of combining racist pandering with their support for illegal immigration. Why shouldn't they? Cheap labor for American capital, scary brown people to drive the trailer park into the voting booth.

Responding to Tancredo-style agitation with accusations of racism may be factually accurate, but it reinforces an opposition that is not advantageous to Democrats. Instead, they should have the sense [WARNING - PROCESS TALK] to undermine the whole stupid Kabuki.

How? By pointing out that when the GOP controlled the entire government, they punted on immigration (in 2006) because they like to just use the issue and leave things as they are (just like the GOP deliberately fails to do away with abortion in order to retain it as an issue).

Pivot.

Enforce the laws on the books, blah blah, push the popular remedies of employer sanctions and a path to citizenship, blah blah, tell poor whites you're protecting our jobs and borders, tell Mexican-Americans that you're protecting immigrants from being exploited in slave labor conditions, in short: incorporate this into a law-and-order/anti-corruption rhetoric and you've got a national movement.

It's almost too easy.

Problem is, the Democratic elite are almost socioeconomically indistinguishable from the GOP elite, so failing to confront the GOP may actually seem like a good idea to them. That is to say, the Democrats probably like things this way too.

Capital wants it this way. Money is speech. Therefore, solutions will not come from the elite.
We're just gonna sit here until one party's populist base realizes they're being fucked and humiliated by an elite that despises them.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 20, 2007 3:41 PM

(clever of the usual pro-illegal immigration Jews in the media to conflate legal and illegal immigrants)

WTF?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 20, 2007 3:52 PM

Wow, Chris Ford. Blacks remain slavishly loyal to their Democratic masters? With rhetoric like that, it's astonishing Black people don't vote Republican, huh?

Posted by John | December 20, 2007 3:56 PM

That is to say, the Democrats probably like things this way too.

It certainly seems like the low risk strategy, at least until they gain the White House back. You see, the Democrats have one HUGE advantage in the immigration debate: the demographics are on their side. All they have to do is capture the White House, and maybe, if need be, wait an election cycle or two, and then, with the deeper blue majorities that are coming their way because of a huge spike in Latino votes, pass comprehensive reform that gives illegals a path to citizenship. Within a few years after that, the numbers really begin to cut their way. Which means the GOP will hopefully be swimming upstream for the next three or four decades -- ideally relegated to the semi-permanent minority status their nativist asses so richly deserve.

Posted by Jasper | December 20, 2007 3:56 PM

If Jasper is right, then perhaps the best long-term strategy on immigration for the Democrats is NOT one that addresses the issue or attempts to put in place a workable policy at present, but instead one that exacerbates nativist sentiments and encourages racist rhetoric from the right in order to corner the GOP.

Solving the problem now would take the pressure off of the Republicans.

OK, I need a bath. I hate thinking like a politician.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 20, 2007 4:03 PM

Enforce the laws on the books, blah blah, push the popular remedies of employer sanctions and a path to citizenship, blah blah, tell poor whites you're protecting our jobs and borders, tell Mexican-Americans that you're protecting immigrants from being exploited in slave labor conditions, in short: incorporate this into a law-and-order/anti-corruption rhetoric and you've got a national movement.

It's almost too easy.

Not exactly. Telling our heroic white working class in no uncertain BNP terms that we are defending their jobs and borders from the brown invasion may send the appropriate messages, but hispanic americans, the increasing lobbies of who'm (and they aren't going away) are instrumental in keeping immigration options open aren't going to buy that "we're keeping the Mexicans out for their own good and safety" line. Hispanic-Americans, particular those in the border states have enough contact and experience with present immigrants and future aspiring migrants to know why they come over to work and know what kind of conditions they're working in. Also, there's, you know, the chance that they may be listening during the speeches to the heroic white working class promising to protect them from job stealing Mexicans and they may become a little bit suspicious and untrustworthy. Just a hunch.

Posted by DRR | December 20, 2007 4:08 PM

As long as this is about how much the Republicans hate brown people, it's a winner for the Democratic party.
Posted by Soullite

Nice try, Soullite. The Marxian appeal to motive and demonizing the opposition is less and less effective a political tool. For violent crime: "Why, oh why do you hate black people!", for illegal immigration; "Oh! So you hate brown people!" neocons "Critics just hate Jewish people. Criticising neocons and our victory in Iraq is sly employment of Anti-Semitism!!"

It's all a pile of shit. From the Left, from the warhawks loyal to Israel.

I venture that there are some Republicans that do hate "brown people". I venture those are less in number than racist blacks, latinos and self-loathing whites that see whites as the evil oppressor race that deserves everything bad that befalls them.

Now, I further venture that rank and file Republicans, Independents, Democrats of all ethnicities are plenty sick of "poor brown people" of the illegal variety coming in unchecked and demanding free services for their spawn. And sick of illegal whites. And sick of smuggled-in Asians or those who don't leave when their student or tourist visa lapses.

And add in the people sick of illegals getting 1st in line are the legal immigrants that do offer high-value skills that waited 10-15 years to get in. People furious it is more expensive & diffficult to get a similarly well-educated, high skilled friend or relative in than be a criminal jumping the Border, or an unskilled "political refugee" from a land the people thoroughly screwed up as a precondition for whole villages to be allowed to get into America.
Ask a skilled Indian about illegals and refugees from self-created shitholes having head of line priviliges.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 20, 2007 4:12 PM

Nah, the best long-term strategy for Democrats is to be openly pro-immigrant, defend the rights of undocumented as well as legal immigrants, and address the real problems of low-wage workers through policies that actually do that, like a higher minimum wage, stronger protections for unions, affordable healthcare and high-quality public schools. In other words, what most elected Democrats are already trying too do.

Latinos are everywhere in this country and increasing in number, nativists are concentrated in a few areas and diminishing. This one is a winner for us.

In other news, it's "sometimes they screw up." Not "screw-up." You only need the hyphen if you're using it as a noun or an adjective.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 20, 2007 4:12 PM

Telling our heroic white working class in no uncertain BNP terms that we are defending their jobs and borders from the brown invasion may send the appropriate messages,

Uh, no. Wouldn't have to go all skinhead on them. If people are worried about borders and jobs (they are), it's OK to tell them that the borders and jobs are safe (they should be), just like when I tell my daughter that birds can't eat her, I am not engaging in any jackbooted anti-avian sentiments.

but hispanic americans, the increasing lobbies of who'm (and they aren't going away) are instrumental in keeping immigration options open aren't going to buy that "we're keeping the Mexicans out for their own good and safety" line.

Not keep them "out" for their own safety when, as I said, there's a path to citizenship. Instead, tell them that the pobrecitos won't be dying in the mountain passes any more.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 20, 2007 4:17 PM

Latinos are everywhere in this country and increasing in number, nativists are concentrated in a few areas and diminishing. This one is a winner for us.

Word. And, on pocket-book issues, Mexican-Americans and poor rural whites are pretty much on the same page, in my experience. So DRR's concern about being caught talking out both sides of our mouth is unwarranted.

Oh, and glad someone said something about the hyphen.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 20, 2007 4:21 PM

It's Big Media Matt
The haterz scream OHH NOO!

Posted by Greg Balzac | December 20, 2007 4:24 PM

Wow, Chris Ford. Blacks remain slavishly loyal to their Democratic masters? With rhetoric like that, it's astonishing Black people don't vote Republican, huh?
Posted by John

Blacks are having a pretty robust debate about being taken for granted and screwed by Democrats on a range of issues while voter blocks of less dog-like (like that better than slavish?) loyalty are sought after, bargained with, and get sweet deals. (Think trade unions, Israel Lobby, Wall Street, Arabs in Michigan, Japanese-Americans.

Blacks say it openly - they are on the Plantation when it comes to politics. Republicans say it openly - why bother to deal with you folks and accomodate your desires when 95% of you vote to stay on the Plantation system? Liberal Democrats deny the Plantation system of the Dem Party exists. Both Parties now, though, would prefer to have Hispanics gravitate to them.

Even though illegal Hispanic immigration is killing African-American prospects, for right now, Dems have their cake and eat it too. They woo Hispanics with prospects of open borders, beaucoup benefits, sactuary cities, divers licenses and complete destruction of black jobs and wages --and in response, angry blacks trudge out and vote, effectively, as pro-illegal immigration.

Rocket scientists, I say! Rocket scientists!

Posted by Chris Ford | December 20, 2007 4:31 PM

"It's worth keeping in mind, however, that when the ship was being steered by hardened political strategists, the Republican Party was adhering to a firmly pro-immigrant line.... "

"Hardened political strategists" is Mattspeak for BushCo/Wall Street corporate whores.

Posted by kafka | December 20, 2007 4:39 PM

Rocket scientists, I say! Rocket scientists!

Are you sure they're not Jewish rocket scientists?

Maybe you should check ...
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | December 20, 2007 4:52 PM

"Problem is, the Democratic elite are almost socioeconomically indistinguishable from the GOP elite, so failing to confront the GOP may actually seem like a good idea to them. That is to say, the Democrats probably like things this way too.

Capital wants it this way. Money is speech. Therefore, solutions will not come from the elite.
We're just gonna sit here until one party's populist base realizes they're being fucked and humiliated by an elite that despises them."

Folks, you will not find a more concise summary of our political system. Anywhere.

Posted by kafka | December 20, 2007 4:53 PM

Chris Ford writes: "People furious it is more expensive & diffficult to get a similarly well-educated, high skilled friend or relative in than be a criminal jumping the Border, or an unskilled "political refugee" from a land the people thoroughly screwed up as a precondition for whole villages to be allowed to get into America."

I really think Chris Ford should either learn English or give up his citizenship.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 20, 2007 5:05 PM

Even though illegal Hispanic immigration is killing African-American prospects, for right now, Dems have their cake and eat it too.

Don't be stupid, Chris Ford. Immigration puts at best modest downward pressure on wages -- and even that's debatable. So, blacks can support the party that opposes affirmative action, national healthcare, Social Security, tax code progressivity, urban infrastructure, a clean environment and ending capital punishment in exchange for, what? A thirty cent raise? What a deal. And anyway, your florid rhetoric about the "killing of African-American prospects" is likewise wildly exaggerated and over the top. Black America has plenty of problems, to be sure. But it's made big gains as well: this country has seen a huge increase in the growth of the black middle class over the last few decades, and it may well get its first president.

Posted by Jasper | December 20, 2007 5:07 PM

"Immigration puts at best modest downward pressure on wages -- and even that's debatable."

Cutting and pasting from the Wall Street Journal again?

Posted by kafka | December 20, 2007 5:32 PM

kafka and Chris Floyd are clearly haters.

Posted by Greg Balzac | December 20, 2007 5:37 PM

If unlimited immigration was good for the economy, El Paso Texas would be a boom town and Burlington,VT would be losing population.

The Democratic Party supports open borders and unlimited immigration because Hispanic voters are almost as automatic voters for Democrats as blacks are. However, as the personal choices of white liberal elites who run the Democratic Party demonstrate, elite whites will do almost anything to avoid large numbers of blacks or Hispanics.

Why should anyone have anymore illegal immigrants in their school than the children of Sen. Obama have at their school?

And anyone who claims that the Democratic party supports high quality schools, good law enforcement, and a high quality of life needs to visit Baltimore, Philly, DC, Cleveland, Detroit, etc. I have yet to see a deep blue urban area produce a high quality school system.

.

Posted by superdestroyer | December 20, 2007 5:56 PM

superklansman writes: "The Democratic Party supports open borders and unlimited immigration because Hispanic voters are almost as automatic voters for Democrats as blacks are. However, as the personal choices of white liberal elites who run the Democratic Party demonstrate, elite whites will do almost anything to avoid large numbers of blacks or Hispanics."

The Repiglican party had complete control of the federal government for six years under Dumbya Bush. They did nothing about illegal immigration - they didn't even make a credible attempt to do anything.

Idiots like superklansman don't seem to realize that the scumbags they vote for are elites themselves, and that in this area they've had a lot more to answer for than "liberal elites."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 20, 2007 6:07 PM

Jasper requests: "Don't be stupid, Chris Ford."

That's like asking Shaquille O'Neal not to be tall.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 20, 2007 6:09 PM

lemuel pitkin writes: Nah, the best long-term strategy for Democrats is to be openly pro-immigrant, defend the rights of undocumented as well as legal immigrants, and address the real problems of low-wage workers through policies that actually do that, like a higher minimum wage, stronger protections for unions, affordable healthcare and high-quality public schools.

Damn straight! And, if it takes being useful idiots for (youtube.com/watch?v=EiullH5jU1A) or even collaborating with foreign governments to get there, then by golly, the Democratic Party and their friends will be there!

Posted by TLB | December 20, 2007 6:26 PM

MoeLarryAndJesus,

The Bush Administration had a proposal on immigration: open borders and unlimited immigration. The base of the Republicans rejected it wholesale. Yet, the white elites embrace it because it benefits their long term plans while imposing no cost on their families or themselves.

It seems like the Democratic party wants to do for the country what it has done for Los Angeles County: Make it unlivable for the middle class.

Posted by superdestroyer | December 20, 2007 6:27 PM

"kafka and..are clearly haters."

Oh, it's much worse than that. See, I've secretly purchased a large fleet of railroad boxcars and some locomotives so as to transport the illegals to the death camps I've constructed in secret locations around the country.

So, if you go outside one day and you catch the scent of burning flesh, that's just your old buddy kafka sending you his regards.

Happy now, anus brain?

Posted by kafka | December 20, 2007 6:44 PM

Happy now, anus brain?

Why, this is just a lovely little colloquy we're having here.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 20, 2007 6:54 PM

superklansman writes: "The Bush Administration had a proposal on immigration: open borders and unlimited immigration. The base of the Republicans rejected it wholesale. Yet, the white elites embrace it because it benefits their long term plans while imposing no cost on their families or themselves.

It seems like the Democratic party wants to do for the country what it has done for Los Angeles County: Make it unlivable for the middle class. "

Last time I checked, not a single member of the Bushpig Administration was a member of the Democratic Party.

And yes, some of the Repiglicans who survived the Great Voter Awakening of 2006 claimed to be against Dumbya's proposal - some of them even may mean it. But mostly they're just looking to string along their ignorant yahoo base by pretending that they really, really want to do something about the terrible, terrible problem they totally ignored when they might actually have been able to do something about it.

Meanwhile Mitt Romney had illegal immigrants mowing his estate lawns, Rudy G had illegal immigrants giving him daily prostate massages, and Mike Huckabee is an illegal alien from Uranus.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 20, 2007 6:58 PM

re: Actually, Matt, I think the Democrats are justifiable worried that the media is going be flogging this issue because the Republicans are.

I don't think so. I haven't seen any evidence of this, in fact much of what I've seen in the media has been a fairly negative attitude toward anti-immigrant extremism. Which makes sense. The media after all is not pro-Republican: the media is pro-Establishment. Immigration is generally favored by corporations and other elites, and the media follows suit. Just as the media generally portrays the Religious Right and other populist passions in a negative light, I expect they will take the same tack with anti-immigrant demagogues.

Posted by JonF | December 20, 2007 8:18 PM

Illegal immigration is just one of those issues, like term limits, where the interests of the political class are so distinct from those of the general population, that democratic representation fails, resulting in a sustained disconnect between BOTH parties' policies and public opinion. Outside of unusual localities, effective controls on illegal immigration can only be achieved by direct, not representative, democracy. While those local instances get shut down by higher, less representative levels of government.

Why do things like Proposal 187 not work to the Republican party's advantage, despite passing handily? Because, while these popular proposals raise the political saliency of this issue, the Republican party conspicuously does NOT embrace them. So, all they do is draw attention to the fact that the GOP is on the wrong side of this issue, something people already knew, and were taking into account about, the Democratic party.

You can't ride an issue to victory if you're not willing to actually mount it, and dig in the spurs, and everybody sees you're not.

If we still had relatively free elections, this might result in a strong third party challenge, forcing one of the major parties to either change it's tune or be replaced. But, thanks to a generation of 'campaign reform', that way of circumventing the established parties is effectively closed, and the disconnect can be sustained indefinitely.

Or, at any rate, long enough for the political class to "elect a new public", more to their liking, which is what this is really about. This will continue until we have a political culture more to the political elite's liking, one where corruption is more readily tolerated.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | December 20, 2007 8:34 PM

"It's worth keeping in mind, however, that when the ship was being steered by hardened political strategists, the Republican Party was adhering to a firmly pro-immigrant line."

Bush and Co. were as clueless about the electoral implications of the immigration issue as they were about everything else. When Karl Rove's favorite election analyst, Michael Barone, predicted that Hispanics would cast 8% or 9% of the vote in 2004, I publicly offered to bet him $1000 the actual figure from the Census Bureau survey would be closer to 6.1%.

It turned out to be 6.0%. In 2006, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, the Hispanic vote declined to 5.8%. It's just nowhere near as important a bloc as the conventional wisdom claims.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 20, 2007 9:12 PM

From the National Journal Hotline Blog:

In reviewing the Republicans’ midterm losses, many commentators have criticized GOP’s hawkish, border-enforcement first stand. Some have argued that it cost them seats in Congress. And President Bush has hinted that, with the new Congress, one of his priorities is comprehensive immigration reform involving a guest-worker program.

But looking race-by-race, it’s not clear that talking tough on immigration put Republicans at a disadvantage.

The most-common races cited are the Scottsdale-based district held by Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ 05) and the open seat race to replace Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ 08). In both those races, the Republicans focused their entire campaigns on immigration -- and it clearly backfired. But running a single-issue campaign is usually a risky proposition, regardless of the issue.

Each Republican also had other disadvantages. Graf was pictured on David Duke’s website and had a bare-bones campaign staff. Not long after winning the primary, the NRCC abandoned his campaign.

And Hayworth’s district was changing demographically, with more affluent newcomers arriving with a more culturally moderate perspective.

But candidates who used immigration as one of the many issues in their campaign repertoire performed quite well. Take Rep.-elect Peter Roskam in IL 06. Advocating lower taxes, talking tough on immigration and advocating a muscular foreign policy were the centerpieces of his successful campaign against Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth (D). Another open-seat winner in the Midwest, Michele Bachmann, used the same strategy.

Likewise, Rep. Steve Chabot’s (R-OH 01) focus on immigration proved successful. Against the odds, he defeated John Cranley in a tough statewide environment for Republicans. Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-PA 06) aired an ad distancing himself from President Bush’s guest worker program. He was the only Philadelphia-area Republican to win.

And successful Democratic candidates often co-opted the border security issue from Republicans. Reps.-elect Heath Shuler, Baron Hill, and Brad Ellsworth all supported the House Republicans’ immigration bills.

Taking a hard-line on immigration wasn’t necessarily a winner in every district. But it was an important tool for Republicans facing tough races in many parts of the country, particularly in the suburbs. By only looking at Hayworth and Graf – both anomalous situations -- commentators and politicians could be drawing the wrong conclusions about the political ramifications of immigration.

Posted by Peter H | December 20, 2007 10:49 PM

Amos'n'DrMartinLutherKingJr wrote:

And yes, some of the Repiglicans who survived the Great Voter Awakening of 2006 claimed to be against Dumbya's proposal - some of them even may mean it. But mostly they're just looking to string along their ignorant yahoo base by pretending that they really, really want to do something about the terrible, terrible problem they totally ignored when they might actually have been able to do something about it.

You're missing the point, Amos. No one is saying that the Republican politicians rejected Bush's immigration proposal wholesale. We are saying that the base - the rank and file Republicans - rejected it wholesale. I do not think that most of the GOP base trust the GOP establishment to enact ou interests when it comes to immigration - if anything, the recent defeat of Bush's amnesty bill (specifically the means by which it was defeated) proved that we have to fight the politicians of both parties every inch of the way to get anything other than open borders.

But I think the movement against open borders is picking up some steam.

Sorry, Amos, lemuel, and Jasper. You may not get your dream of ethnically cleansing the U.S. of the stain of white people after all.

Posted by Glaivester | December 21, 2007 1:03 AM

Glaivester, the Grand Wizard, replies: "No one is saying that the Republican politicians rejected Bush's immigration proposal wholesale. We are saying that the base - the rank and file Republicans - rejected it wholesale. I do not think that most of the GOP base trust the GOP establishment to enact ou interests when it comes to immigration - if anything, the recent defeat of Bush's amnesty bill (specifically the means by which it was defeated) proved that we have to fight the politicians of both parties every inch of the way to get anything other than open borders."

Read my reply again, hammerhead - I said it was the Repiglicans who avoided the 2006 voter purge who rejected the proposal. Since there was never a vote in the populace, we really don't know what the "base" would have done. The "base" of the Repiglican party generally either does what it's told to do or accepts bribes and votes accordingly.

You are, of course, a full-fledged racist, and so you clasp this issue to your white-robed bosom. Most Americans can see a middle ground on this issue and know that you goobers are basically insane.

Just win, baby.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 21, 2007 2:39 AM

Re: They did nothing about illegal immigration

Not only did they do nothing, they actually slacked off on the (admittedly lax) enforcement of existing laws. Late in the 90s the Clinton adminsitration implemented a pilot program of inspecting workplaces that commonly hire illegals. When these industries howled about it Bush canceled the program. Also scaled way back: social security number checks and verification.

Posted by JonF | December 22, 2007 8:24 AM