Immigration Watch International (2)

Friday, August 6, 2010

Democrats Divided On Politics Of Immigration Lawsuit

Democratic operatives are sharply divided on the political fallout from the intervention by Department of Justice lawsuit against the controversial Arizona immigration law, according to this week's National Journal Political Insiders Poll.

When the Political Insiders were asked, "on balance" whether they thought "the Justice Department's legal challenge to Arizona's immigration law helps or hurts your party in the midterm elections," 49 percent of the 103 Democratic Insiders who responded to the survey said it would hurt the party on Nov. 2. At the same time, 42 percent said it would help the party and another 10 percent volunteered equivocal responses, saying it would both help and hurt, wouldn't have an impact, or would be a neutral factor in the elections.

Conversely, of the 97 GOP Insiders who responded this week, an overwhelming 94 percent said that it would help their party. A tiny four percent said the issue would hurt and two percent gave equivocal responses.

The arguments that Democratic Insiders generally made in favor of the DOJ challenge is that it would it would help motivate Hispanics, an important part of the Democratic base, to go the polls in November and that Republicans were likely to alienate Hispanics by defending the Arizona statute.

Several Democrats who felt the DOJ move would likely hurt the party said that it only highlighted a wedge issue that the White House and Congressional Democrats had failed to fix and it was a distraction from more the paramount issue this year, the economy.
But some Democrats who said that issue would be a negative in the midterms also agreed that the challenge to the law would pay long-term benefits. "Short term, it hurts," said one Democratic Insider. "Long term it is another nail in the Republican's demographic coffin."

Republican Insiders said that the Justice Department action smacked of legal over-reach and would alienate independent and swing voters in districts where Democratic incumbents are already under siege. But even though they saw the issue as a plus for this November, a few GOP Insiders worried about how the immigration debate would play out down the road. As one GOP Insiders put it, "The longer Republicans stand behind a plan of "border security first," the further we move away from Hispanics."

SOURCE

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Friday, August 6, 2010

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors