Posted on 11/15/2007 6:49:00 PM PST by neverdem
Immigration is becoming for the 2008 election what affirmative action/racial preferences was 15 years ago -- the kind of emotional wedge issue that offers Republicans a way to split rank-and-file Democrats from their leaders.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the battle over programs aimed at helping minorities was a major factor in many political campaigns. The election results often appeared to contradict what seemed to be the public's opinion on the issue.
Looking back, much of the confusion stemmed from the wording of many poll questions on the subject. They tended to show strong support for "affirmative action," which was how the programs were described by supporters and, often, the media.
But opponents used the term "racial preferences" to describe programs that often gave minorities an edge in competition for college admission and jobs. When pollsters used that language to describe the programs, they found strong public opposition.
Affirmative action is an issue similar to immigration today, one on which Democratic activists, but not necessarily the mass of party members, differ from the general electorate. Activists often infer their opponents are racially motivated -- creating strong and often hostile feelings on both sides.
How immigration plays out politically in 2008 will likely be determined by which side can convince the mass of Americans that their terminology best describes reality.
Efforts to help minorities, which began in the 1960s, became controversial in the 1980s, as whites felt they were victims of reverse discrimination. Democrats, for the most part, supported such programs. Many, but not all, Republicans began calling them "quotas" -- a politically powerful term.
In the end, the opponents got the better of the fight. Democrat Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, pledging to "mend" but not end affirmative action, which defused it as an issue, at...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
During the dem debate,...there was significant levels of praise for those hailing enforcement vs those for ‘comphresive immigration’. There is a split, but the question is...do the dems vote based on this issue or are there issues above and beyond this for them.
My hope is that there are reasonable dems out there that know voting for their choices are not viable....especially on this issue.
Hard to believe any rational folks think the nation benefited from Affirmative Action.... and even harder to believe there is a silver lining around toilet of illegal aliens in the country..
AA and EEOC are both failures.
Bill Clinton never changed affirmative action. His administration handed out racial preferences like candy. The issue is very much alive today but the Republican establishment will not support the base in opposing racial preferences. Ward Connelly and Linda Chavez have been strong voices on the absurdity of racial preferences. Ward Connelly is trying to get ballot issues to forbid racial preferences.
The sleeper issue on amnesty is racial preferences. A large amnesty will unleash a torrent of racial preferences. It is vital for each state to pass constitutional amendments against preferences before the amnesty occurs. The government and business establishment is very committed to racial preferences so the masses must speak with a loud voice.
Are there any silver linings in legal immigration?
ping
Being strong on homeland security does not square with leaving the back door wide open.
Both parties are quick to want to grant these illegal aliens full citizenship.
Rather than the Red Carpet Treatment, the following might be more acceptable to many of us.
1. Providing a path to legal guest worker status. (Register and pay a fine for violating our laws.)
2. The procedure for entering the US legally to be a guest worker should be made easier.
3. With 1 and 2 in place, deport all those that remain illegal.
4. Granting of citizenship should be a whole other issue. 5. The law that grants automatic citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parent's status, should be revised.
6. Illegals or other non-citizens should not be counted for determining Federal funding to cities or states.
7. Illegals or other non-citizens caught voting or registering to vote should be expelled from this country within 24 hours of being caught. (Nine of the 9-11 terrorists were registered to vote although none were citizens.)
It amazes me that so many erstwhile conservatives haven't noticed how its enabling creeping socialism to continue its creeping even as society becomes more affluent.
Rudy's latest response to the 'soft on illegals' charge is really too clever by half. He's taken to saying, in effect, he'd increase 'legal' immigration. I think he considers that position untouchable.
The first thought that occurs to me is 'did you consider asking the American people what they want?'
Only folks like that. IMHO, we already have two generations worth of unskilled labor.
Petersen easily unseats Davis in Senate (gun-grabbing, RINO wife of Tom Davis lost in VA)
SPITZ VOWS TO PUSH FOR GAY MARRIAGES
World’s Most Powerful Rail Gun Delivered to Navy
Climate change by Jupiter Show me the science! That's what we need to tell the neoCOMs.
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Okay. Fair enough. Then should congress pass legislation that prohibits all non-citezens to work here unless they have been vetted an approved to work through some alphabet agency and are fulfilling a certain need? IYHO, of course.
Thanks neverdem.
That's exactly what it is...creeping socialism....and it's creepy as hell!!
thanks for the ping. We can win on the immigration issue if our pols would just get out in front on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.