Month: December 2007

IS MCCAIN THE GOP’S VOICE OF REASON?

In an interesting opinion piece on azcentral.com, the author writes:  “McCain’s persistence against the grain is drawing attention to yet another trap into which the GOP is flinging itself. He is warning his fellow Republican presidential candidates that their vitriol against illegal immigrants is getting wildly out of hand.”

In hindsight, McCain has been right on several issues.  I believe that he is also right  with his position on immigration, but apparently being right doesn’t get you elected.  Not taking a position or holding a moderate view on the issue will be the key to succeeding in the general election.

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES HOLD THEIR TONGUES ON IMMIGRATION IN DEBATE

According to an AP article on ihp.com: “The Republican presidential candidates sought to embrace Hispanics in a Spanish language debate Sunday, striving to mark common ground with a growing voter bloc while softening the anti-illegal immigration rhetoric that has marked past encounters.”

The article continued: “Said Romney: ‘Those who have come illegally, in my view, should be given the opportunity to get in line with everybody else, but there should be no special pathway for those that have come here illegally to jump ahead of the line or to be come permanent residents or citizens.'” (Emphasis added). This is an interesting because the anti-immigrationists will immediately label giving the undocumented “an opportunity to get in line with everybody else” amnesty. Moreover, what specifically does Romney mean by this statement? Would the undocumented need to leave the US and return? If so, would they be subject to the 3 and 10 year bars to reentry that exist under current law?

Immigration is a losing political issue because if observers keep track of what is being said in one context, it will come back to haunt the chameleon politician in another.

DO THE CANDIDATES UNDERSTAND IMMIGRATION LAW?

I wonder if some of those seeking their party’s nomination have an immigration lawyer explain to them how the process works. One cannot help but feel as though they do not fully grasp the issue.

For instance, according to an article on the New York Times Political Blog: “In his proposal today, Mr. Huckabee did not address whether he supports giving such benefits to people currently in the country illegally. He said such immigrants who do not register within 120 days with Citizenship and Immigration Services and leave the country will be barred from re-entry for 10 years if they do try to apply for legal citizenship.”

It is clear that Mr. Huckabee is hedging his bets and trying to walk a political tightrope. However, his statement that those who do not do what he suggests “will be barred from reentry for 10 years if they apply for legal citizenship” does not demonstrate an understanding of how the current laws work.  The first step for someone who is outside of the US to enter the country is to either apply for a non-immigrant visa or permanent residence (a green card), not “legal citizenship”.

Only after someone has been a permanent resident for at least 3 (in the case of marriage to a USC) or 5 years, may (s)he apply to become a citizen. Moreover, as it stands, the current law bars most individuals who have been out of status in the US for more than 365 days and who have left the country from returning for 10 years.

Although I applaud Huckabee for leaving the window open for CIR, this statement is illustrative of the fact that he, and many of the other candidates, are not clear on how the immigration process works. The immigration debate is being driven by emotion and rhetoric rather than logic and an understanding of the current immigration laws and practical solutions to solve our broken system.  There also seems to be very little discussion about making improvements to help legal immigrants.  Politics as usual.

THE IMMIGRATION TRAP

According to an article on the Wall Street Journal Online:  “For months, the candidates have largely been trying to outdo each other on who would take a harder line cracking down on illegals. This weekend, they’ll be asked to elaborate in a debate hosted by Spanish-language network Univision at the University of Miami.”

Immigration is truly like the cheese that lures the mouse to the mousetrap.  Hopefully the questions posed to the contenders will give specific examples that cannot be brushed off with the usual “I support immigration but not illegal immigration.”  I would ask the candidates questions such as:

Would you support eliminating citizenship for children of undocumented aliens who are born in the US?

Would you support temporarily eliminating legal immigration to the US?

Would you support deporting all undocumented children who brought to the US at a very young age, attended high school, speak only English and know no other culture?

Would you support jailing all knowing employers of undocumented?

Would you support a hospital being prohibited from treating an undocumented alien who is suffering from a heart attack who shows up at the ER?

Would you support the prohibition of any candidate who has ever knowingly hired an undocumented worker from holding any political office at the Federal level?

These are just off the top of my head and far more outrageous the questions could be posed.  It simply pays to lock the candidates into their stated positions so that they don’t take a 180 degree turn with their rhetoric when seeking the Hispanic vote in the general election.