Wither Immigration?

Remember a few months ago when the conventional wisdom had it that Democrats needed to be in a state of panic about how anti-immigration sentiments were going to run them out of down. At the time, I tried to cite polls which kept showing that the audience for anti-immigrant politics was, though loud, actually pretty small. A lot of people came back at me with the notion that, well, the incredible power of the immigration issue isn't something you can see in the polls.

And maybe not, but here we have Captain Amnesty himself looking set to secure the Republican Party's nomination -- a turn of events which certainly makes it seem like the polls were right and this simply isn't an issue that very many people care all that deeply about.

Comments

Ok, I get it. "Wither" is a joke, and I chuckle accordingly. Nice use of "exemplary" a couple posts back, also.

Posted by guyx | January 30, 2008 3:04 PM

Well, I really hate to sound like an AntiObama-bot, but remember I mentioned there was a big story in the paper a few days ago that Obama has formally endorsed drivers-licenses for illegals (that's the issue that pretty much wrecked Spitzer's numbers in just a short period).

That particular policy is so gigantically easy to demagogue that it would make all the wildest anti-immigrationists vote for McCain, whom they utterly, totally hate. And it could swing some huge numbers nationally as well, even in very "blue" states (Just ask poor Spitzer!).

Posted by RKU | January 30, 2008 3:05 PM

I don't live in a border state and I'm not a conservative wingnut so perhaps I'm missing something, but I just never really felt the urgency on the immigration issue that the media kept purporting was there. To me it just seemed like an issue that sprung up almost out of nowhere for no particular reason. In my opinion, this has been a case of the media extrapolating the very vocal and constant opinions of a relative few into an issue of national importance when there really is no "there" there.

Posted by Dan | January 30, 2008 3:06 PM

The drivers license issue is going to be a problem, no matter who the nominee, given Obama's evident support, and Clinton's horrible answer during the gang bang, I mean MSNBC debate last October.

Even here in deep blue MA, where everyone is almost always re-elected easily, the Legislature won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

I agree the immigration issue itself is overblown as a political matter, but this issue in particular may be used to help set up a general narrative (out-of-touch liberal) for the fall.

Posted by Andruw | January 30, 2008 3:18 PM

... a turn of events which certainly makes it seem like the polls were right and this simply isn't an issue that very many people care all that deeply about.

Except for Hispanics, who broke decisively against Romney in Florida.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 30, 2008 3:21 PM

Poor Lou Dobbs.

Posted by magisterludi | January 30, 2008 3:23 PM

You are tone deaf if you don't understand the anti-ILLEGALimmigrant sentiment within the D party. It's the people your beloved John Edwards tries to rally with populist rhetoric. It is the suburban mom who votes D but supports voter ID and making sure that people coming into the country have the right to be and work here. It is very clearly a losing issue across party lines to support any form of amnesty. Of course, there are plenty of pro-biz R's who want amnesty for economic reasons.

So McCain was also tone-deaf when he supported it. He probably still wants it. But he's changed his whistle during the campaign.

Posted by Beer Here | January 30, 2008 3:25 PM

Poor Lou Dobbs.

Is it too late for him to run? Go, Lou, go!

Posted by Anderson | January 30, 2008 3:25 PM

Poor Lou Dobbs and poor republican party. The anti-immigrant posturing constitutes one of the many nails in the coffin of the Grand Old Party. They lose on the issue and cause the fastest growing part of our voting age population to turn its back on the party, even as they nominate one of the few solid immigrant supporters in the party.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 30, 2008 3:34 PM

The most delicious part is that looking at one of the national poll cross-tabs, I found out that McCain is the one Republicans think as the most capable of tackling the problem.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 30, 2008 3:44 PM

Beer Here, that's unfair, I think, to Edwards' actual policies.

That being said, I was pretty nervous about what kinds of choices he would make between the "American worker" and "undocumented American worker" when it came down to the wire.

Ditto free trade with developing nations who, like it or not, need our business.

Posted by anon | January 30, 2008 3:49 PM

The video of the "Buch and Scar Show" usually shows the "less jobs, more wars" cut but there was another cut along the lines of your jobs aren't coming back, the illegal immigrants aren't going home but you get to have lots more wars. Pretty good summary.

Posted by Th | January 30, 2008 4:03 PM

Actually, this raises another important point.

McCain's original campaign cratered when he became identified with the Immigration Amnesty legislation, which is pure poison to the bulk of the Republican base.

But that was months and months and months ago, and I'll bet the nearly all the ordinary Republican *voters* have already forgotten by now, which is why McCain won these primaries.

Matt already pointed out that a large fraction of McCain's voters supported him because they thought he was the *anti-war* candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if another good slice of his support came from those who thought he was a strong *anti-immigrationist* candidate.

And people wonder why I make sure a big deal out of BHO's very unfortunate name...

Posted by RKU | January 30, 2008 4:18 PM

MattY shows once again just how little he knows about this issue.

There's a huge difference between immigration as an issue, and the way that most people are allowed to see it due to the corrupt media.

For instance, I've highlighted a few articles where MSM reporters have enabled McCain to lie and mislead. The MSM has refused to ask real questions about this issue and hold the candidates responsible for their misleading statements. For instance: youtube.com/watch?v=nIbDAVQMKGM

And, the Atlantic's own Ambinder had a chance to ask McCain about this issue, but not only did not ask the question, did not mention the most salient point about that issue.

Let me bottom line this for MattY. Sooner or later, someone is going to ask one of those from the party he shills for a question that's going to help show that they aren't qualified. And, there's nothing the campaigns, the MSM, or party hacks can do about that.

Hillary: youtube.com/watch?v=Q_l4Lawj14A

Obama: youtube.com/watch?v=EiullH5jU1A

And, we're working on one for McCain.

Posted by TLB | January 30, 2008 4:31 PM

Where did the "Nice work if you can get it" (Wasserstein/finance industry) piece go?

Posted by dan k | January 30, 2008 4:34 PM

"which is why McCain won these primaries."

Getting a bit ahead of ourselves, are we? McCain is only marginally ahead in delegates, with almost all of the delegates remaining to be determined, and has yet to get more than 37% of the vote in any state, even with Democrats crossing over to vote for him in states where the Democratic primary was moot for lack of delegates. And his finances are in poor shape, with less cash on hand than Paul, and a third of what Romney's got on hand to spend.

I'd say winning Florida was barely enough to keep him competitive. We'll see how he comes out of Super Tuesday, when he doesn't have the cash on hand to make more than nominal media buys in all those states.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | January 30, 2008 7:00 PM

"this simply isn't an issue that very many people care all that deeply about."

That would depend upon where one lives, 4 border states, populations = pissed.

Posted by uppity kitty | January 30, 2008 7:40 PM

Yes, polls in upstate NY and NH have proven that the American people are not concerned with immigration. Even if people consistently rate immigration low on their list of concerns, it doesn't mean they think nothing should be done about it or that it's not a problem. I feel there should be a stop sign down on the corner of my street, however I'm not going to rank that as one of the most pressing concerns facing the country. I still want something done about it, though.

Does anyone believe that foreigners should be allowed to walk right into the country whenever they please? How come nobody will make the case FOR illegal immigration, yet everyone wants to ridicule the concern?

Posted by Just Karl | January 30, 2008 9:43 PM

Poor Matt Yglesias - always trying to prove Kevin MacDonald right.

Posted by Glaivester | January 30, 2008 10:04 PM

RKU, Andruw, Beer Here, and, of course, the ubiquitous TLB, I don't think you were paying attention. Restrictionists have the bullying down pat--witness the pressure exerted on Spitzer. But you've ignored Matt's point: restrictionists don't have the votes. They can run a mean slime machine, even in a blue state like NY. That's what 20 years of carefully building an issue operation will get you. But most people just don't care enough to pick a candidate based on that issue. Except Latinos, of course, many of whom see the thinly veiled racial animus behind the strident nationalism of immigration restrictionism.

I'm looking forward to watching McCain--the candidate restrictionists hate the most--retracting his recent flirtations with nativism in order to avoid wholesale destruction at the hands of Latino voters in the general election. But please, nativists, keep predicting the second coming of Operation Wetback, precipitated by angry voters rising up to take back America from the invading brown hordes. It's sure to happen with President Obama, Clinton, or McCain at the helm.

Posted by yave begnet | January 31, 2008 12:04 AM

"McCain's original campaign cratered when he became identified with the Immigration Amnesty legislation, which is pure poison to the bulk of the Republican base.

But that was months and months and months ago, and I'll bet the nearly all the ordinary Republican *voters* have already forgotten by now, which is why McCain won these primaries.

RKU's right: McCain's plurality was due to the ignorance and short memories of some voters. If Romney's smart, he will fill the airwaves in NY, CA, NJ, etc. with ads reminding voters of McCain's pro-amnesty stance between now and 2/5.

"Poor Matt Yglesias - always trying to prove Kevin MacDonald right."

Glaivester,

Since I'm sure most of Yglesias's readership has no idea who Kevin MacDonald is, you might want to flesh out your comment. For those who can't wait for Glaivester to do that, here's the gist: K-Mac is a psychology professor at a Cal State school who believes that Jews have evolved a capacity to act in concert to promote their ethnic group interests within 'host' societies. Glaivester's implication is that Yglesias, as an influential Jew, supports third world immigration to the U.S. because it benefits Jews and weakens their host society.

How weakening America would be in the interests of American Jews, I'm not sure, as this has been a pretty swell country for Jews to live in since the first Jews landed at New Amsterdam after getting kicked out of Recife by the Portuguese. Nevertheless, this is K-Mac's thesis as I understand it. If I have this wrong, please feel free to correct me, Glaivester.

Posted by Fred | January 31, 2008 12:07 AM

Yave,

If McCain is the GOP nominee, Dems will have dodged a bullet. All the economic insecurity/populism/class warfare riling up they have been doing during the primary campaign will have blue collar whites -- who already view illegal immigration as a proxy for economic insecurity -- perfectly primed to vote against a pro-amnesty candidate (if given a choice of one).

If McCain is the nominee, then in a generation will have such a large mestizo underclass that it will demand a Chavez- or Morales-style socialist strongman to redress the persistent inequality caused by its low average IQ.

Posted by Harry | January 31, 2008 12:19 AM

Glaivester's implication is that Yglesias, as an influential Jew, supports third world immigration to the U.S. because it benefits Jews and weakens their host society.

Wow, Glaivester, if Fred's interpretation is accurate, that's a pretty fucked up thing to say.

Posted by yave begnet | January 31, 2008 12:28 AM

Immigration posts draw racist trolls like flies to shit. It's no wonder people are reluctant to touch the issue.

Posted by yave begnet | January 31, 2008 12:32 AM

Re: If McCain is the nominee, then in a generation will have such a large mestizo underclass that it will demand a Chavez- or Morales-style socialist strongman to redress the persistent inequality caused by its low average IQ.

Ignoring the racist claptrap about IQ, the US has had lots and lots of poor and working poor for time immemorial. That includes people more or less permanently stuck in that trap for generations. But we have not had much demand for dictators and strongmen in this country, so I don't think we need to worry overmuch about that.

Posted by JonF | January 31, 2008 6:17 AM