CE Week #15: “Immigration Boils Over”
By Joe Klein
A few days after Thanksgiving, I asked Mike Huckabee what had surprised him about voters over the past six months of campaigning. “The intensity of the immigration issue,” he said immediately, and then added, “I honestly don’t know why it’s gotten so hot.” Huckabee gets points for candor: most of the presidential candidates I’ve spoken with in recent months feel the same way but aren’t about to say so. It is difficult to spend a day on the trail and not see the anger explode.
This is especially true in the Republican Party. John McCain, the sponsor of immigration-reform legislation, has been a target. During a recent town-hall meeting in Hopkinton, N.H., a heavily muscled young man with closely cropped hair began to shout about “open borders” as the issue “that will destroy this country … You can’t imagine the amount of anger your average European Christian American feels about the multicultural tower of babble.” He raised the possibility of “civil war.” McCain usually turns warrior when confronted with such blatant racism, but sensing the heat in the room, he held his fire this time, calmly saying “I will do everything in my power to secure our borders … But on the larger issue you raise, I believe that people who have come here [legally] from other countries … are our greatest strength.”
There are signs of festering intolerance even among Democratic audiences, noticeably in Iowa, which has seen a surge of Latino immigration in recent years. The Democratic candidates are uniformly in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for those who have entered the country illegally. But they receive sharp–pointed–applause when they say illegals should “have to speak English” before becoming citizens. When I asked Hillary Clinton about that, she said she’d noticed it too and added, “During the 1990s, I cannot remember being asked about immigration … Why? Because the economy was working … And average Americans didn’t have to go around looking for someone to blame.”
Huckabee, who is making gains among working-class conservatives, came to the same conclusion. “There’s a lot of underlying [economic] anxiety,” he told me. “People are working harder and not getting ahead. There is a disconnect between the insider establishment in the country–and in my party–and the middle class about this. There’s a greater divide between the top and bottom than ever before. And worse, people on the bottom are not sure they can get out of the bottom. That’s a recipe for real trouble. That’s the stuff out of which revolutions are born.”
Huckabee is likely to suffer for refusing to demagogue immigration. He is already in trouble for offering college scholarships to deserving children of illegal immigrants in Arkansas. “We never should grind our heel in the face of a child,” he has said. But if a nativist revolt is brewing, his fellow Republicans are handing out the pitchforks. Peripheral candidates like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter set the slime flowing in the presidential campaign. The theme was soon picked up by Mitt Romney, who seems incapable of finding an issue where integrity trumps expediency. Romney has made illegal immigration the target of recent campaign ads. He has used the issue as a cudgel against Rudy Giuliani (a passionately pro-immigrant mayor trying to sound like a tough guy now), even though Romney reportedly employed illegal workers to do his gardening and didn’t seem concerned about the issue when he was Governor of Massachusetts–until he decided to run for President.
Earlier in the year, I asked Romney if he thought illegal immigration was a net plus for the economy. He said, “I’m not sure.” To which one can only say, Ha ha ha. A recent study of Arkansas, conducted by the nonpartisan Urban Institute, estimated that immigrants there pay more in Social Security and sales taxes than they cost in social services like health care and education. That doesn’t begin to take into account the economic impact of the hard work and entrepreneurial energy that illegal immigrants bring to the society. To be sure, there is a need for greater border security in a time of terrorism. But any candidate who claims to be able to shut down the border simply isn’t telling the truth. And any candidate who would run for the presidency by cynically exploiting fears born of economic anxiety, ignorance or plain old “European American” racism doesn’t deserve to be elected.
Correction: I was wrong to write last week that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would require a court approval of individual foreign surveillance targets. The bill does not explicitly say that. Republicans believe it can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don’t. To read the disputed section of the bill, go to time.com/fisa
After reading this article, I was impressed and unimpressed from the candidate’s opinions. “Huckabee… came to the same conclusion.” Two of the five were the same. Yes, they may have the same opinion, but to me it seems as though they are both staying safe in their words. “…the economy was working.” and “There’s a lot of underlying [economic] anxiety.” Both quotes show their similarities, and they are both safe. The accusations they say are beneficial to all immigrants and citizens. Also, neither takes a stand, and they are blaming the economy for a larger problem. Neither give a solution to these topics. It makes me wonder if either candidate will be a successful President. If they can’t think of solutions that will somewhat benefit all, should they be elected? I was impressed by McCain, though. He took a definite stand. “I will do everything in my power to secure our borders … But on the larger issue you raise, I believe that people who have come here [legally] from other countries … are our greatest strength.” He will secure our borders. McCain has separated himself with a final opinion that not everyone will agree with.
Beside from my impressions of the candidates, I fully understood how hard “immigration-reform legislation” would be. From reading Chapter 12, I truly know how difficult it is to change legislation. Not only the fact that there needs to be majorities, but that once they House approves it, it needs to go to the Senate. There, it practically starts anew with achieving majority and then final approval. With this contradictory issue, and the candidates not taking definite side to the issue, I doubt that this issue will ever get resolved.
ssemb
Just when we thought that immigration fell off the congressional agenda, figuratively filed away in some pigeon box by a subcommittee, the people speak out and suddenly the candidates must provide reassurance. Huckabee, granted the media boost, faces tough scrutiny as the election draws nearer. Already fighting an uphill battle to garner support from working-class conservatives, his fiscally extensive proposal for immigrant educational opportunities not only poses a budget threat to other issues republicans want pushed, but also appears like a step toward amnesty and far too lenient. At least he offers some middle ground on the issue so rooted in geographical divisions and characterized by extreme opinions. As more and more states are affected by the competition that migrant workers pose, the demand seems to increasingly be for strict action and deportation-no exceptions or compassion. That McCain publicly recognized the economic benefit of this phenomenon, despite its illegality in many cases, demonstrates his determination to stick to his beliefs and not waver in the face of opposition. If he were to assume the role as president, he may be respected for this quality and could have great success getting his own agenda on the top of the priorities of Congress. Unless he could accept compromises, though, no legislation would come out of his presidency because he would veto it whenever it came before him slightly different from how he hoped. Such changes are inevitable and without Conference Committees, the houses would probably never be able to draft an identical bill ready for the executive’s approval.
I thought the topic immigration had disappeared from the candidate’s political agenda. And perhaps it hasn’t disappeared as much as it hasn’t changed much. It is still a tense topic that is sure to cause some fire. Some of the candidates, however, one in particular handled that fire well. John McCain in this article stated his position calmly and coolly even when being threatened with racist accusations. This article seems to focus on the Republicans stance on Immigration. Candidates like Huckabee, McCain, Romney, and Guliani all from the Republican side compared to the one Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. From all these candidates it seems as if nothing is really being resolved. The heat builds but nothing comes from it. The candidates stay evasive and blame the difference of our old immigration problems to our new immigration problems on the change of economy. Stated by Huckabee, “There’s a lot of underlying [economic] anxiety.” Or from the Democratic candidate Hillary, “During the 1990s, I cannot remember being asked about immigration … Why? Because the economy was working … And average Americans didn’t have to go around looking for someone to blame.” I don’t agree with either of those statements. They solely blame the difference in economy and don’t come to a conclusion (or an effective one). As for the bill trying to be passed in the House, we know from our current readings and class work that passing a bill is damn near impossible, especially the disagreement between the Republicans and Democrats causing some more policy gridlock within Congress.
-Caitlin Barschig
Ah, immigration. It has been such a huge issue during this election. It is one of the biggest topics that candidates are continually asked about. You know, in all honesty, I don’t blame immigrants for wanting to come to the United States. It’s like Mr. Kautzman said in class: it would be like if Canada’s dollars were worth eleven of ours, and Canada offered better salaries and opportunities. (Paraphrased, because I can’t remember what he said exactly…but it was something along those lines.) If this were the case, I bet that there would be a mass migration to Canada. So, in that light, it is very understandable that people living in Central and South America would want to move to the “land of opportunity” no matter the cost or legality of it. And I agree with these girls when they talk about how basically none of the candidates will take a definitive stand on the whole immigration topic. It is a little bit frustrating. It is true what Stephanie asks, “If they can’t think of solutions that will somewhat benefit all, should they be elected?” I wish that the candidates would just take a stance whether for or against immigration, and come up with a plan to control it…or somehow try to make people happy. But who’s kidding themselves, we’re dealing with politics here!
- Mags