Jun 29 2006
The Utah-3 Primary And Immigration
The results of the Utah-3 primary cannot be dismissed by the hard line immigration folks on the far right. The Utah-3 district is a highly conservative district which reflects the best the ‘punish the immigrant worker’ side could hope for. If the Tancredo diatribes were so popular in conservative circles, and if the issue was of such driving importance, the results would have shown it. The claim the far right has made that this issue is hot and trumps all else fizzled in the reality of the turnout and results. If the issue was of such burning importance, no amount of mistakes by Jacob or incumbency by Cannon would have held back such a wave. And if people were up in arms about the Bush comprehensive proposal – which includes border protection, cracking down on employers and a guest worker program to entice people out from underground and into the light of a documented (and background checked) jobs – President Bush’s support for Cannon would have been a negative.
But no such wave exists. The right is clearly not burning with a desire to deport or push people here out to make a living. They are not dying to see a series of Elian Gonzales stories every night for a decade while the US wastes time finding simple people raising a family and dumping them across our borders. And more importantly, the people know the problem is less about wage pressure and all about the fact illegal immigration is the perfect avenue and hide-out for terrorists trying to reach our shores to kill us en masse.
When the far right left us unprotected to terrorist infiltration to make what can only be seen as a petulant political statement they destroyed their cause and case. Terrorism energized interest in doing something drastic about illegal immigrants. The hard liners squandered this force behind the new interest and basically dismissed it – leaving them worse off than when it all started.
Last night on The O’Reilly Factor White House Spokesman Tony Snow identified all the efforts and results President Bush’s administration have accomplished in this area. If someone can find the transcript I would appreciate it. But the list was impressive. (1) The administration has spent more on border issues than the House proposed in their DOA felony-immigrant Bill. (2) The number of illegal immigrants crossing has been dropping steadily since 2001 (and there is clear evidence in this from reports I have seen that seasonal workers are not returning for work in California). (3) The number of cross border incursions are down. (4) The crime rate in the immigrant communities is now lower than the national average (probably because people know an arrest can lead to deportation). And my guess is the number of employers being charged is way up.
What this means is simple: the House has accomplished nothing and Bush has accomplished a lot. All talk and no results equals irrelevancy. Leaving us un-protected to show off how stubborn the far right is means we cannot trust these people to take our security seriously since they are obviously willing to play political games with human safety. This is why the far right has irreperably hurt their cause.
Results are everything. And now they are in. Bush has a plan that has broad acceptance – including inside the vast immigrant community which is key to a successful path without diverting law enforcement away from watching out for terrorist attacks. He has tamped down the flow of immigrants and enforced the laws. And the House has nothing. Not even an easy win in an election tailored made to show off how much burning support Tancredo’s Taunters have. We have open boarders left that way by a political group obsessed with fear about the possibility today’s immigrants may become US citizens in 10-15 years. Terrorists today are the issue, not who may become a US citizen in 2016 and beyond.
AJ,
Please stop casting us poor folks who are against your view as “the punish the migrant worker” group. Also, I doubt I am “far Right”, and have no clue what that even means. Does that mean I worship and believe in God? Because I tell you, some of the Lefty sights call me far Right because of my belief in Religion, Low Taxes, Abortion issues, etc.
If that makes me “far Right”, then I guess I am.
This does nothing to support your arguement, and immediately puts those who are against “Amnesty First” on the defensive.
If it is debate you want, great. But why would I, for instance, want to visit and post when the first sentence labels me as a wingnut? I can get that abuse from dozens of Blogs for supporting a secure Border, God, and family. I did not think that would happen here.
Burank,
Do the math from Utah-3. If only 44% of the Bush base is for the hard line that means 44% of the 52% of the voters who voted for Bush, which means 23% of the electorate is hard line. That is the same 80-20 split that has been around for months. The other 80% include the far left amnesty and citizenship for all and those of us in the middle who will have nothing to do with either extreme. You picked your position, it is not my fault you are on the far right.
And I can call you whatever I wish. I am not trying to make it comfortable for your side. The back taxes and fines are not enough for you fosks who want to make working for a living a felony without Federal permission (the House Bill). The other option offered is to starve these people out of their jobs (and onto our streets – there’s an Einstein idea if I have ever seen one). But the key in all of this is the far right sees a guest worker program as rewarding criminal actions instead of punishing them. Their words. So no, I will not stop relfecting the mirror.
Ernie,
Additionally, those other issues do not negate the fact your side has become extreme to the point that many (actually most) conservatives like me are not only pulling back, but willing to fight to stop the Tancredo Taunters on this one issue. The position is that bad. The proposals are that bad. The results were that bad. So bad that your support of those other issues do not buy you any reprieve on this one. The borders were left unprotected and that was criminal. Much more criminal than working without papers.
Do the math from here in CA, a true Border state.
Bilbray the “far Right” candidate won. How? Not by promising prosecution of existing Illegals, but by ENFORCING THE BORDER.
Security first, Amnesty after we can figure out how to STOP the flow of Illegal Aliens from entering and expecting entitlements. I have no problems with a worker program, but please, lets stop the Illegal entry into our Country first.
Name calling is fine, I can take it, but it does not reflect the entire group of Americans who do not support either the House Bill or the Senate Bill, of which I am one.
Still cannot figure out how that makes me “far Right”, but so be it.
This was not a victory for pro-illegal immigration forces. Here’s what Chuck Muth said:
“Cannon Fodder in the Immigration War
In a race with national implications, and dominated by the sole issue of illegal immigration, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) scratched out another all-but-certain 2-year term by winning his Republican primary race against millionaire developer John Jacob on Tuesday, 56 percent to 44 percent. But those hoping this race would serve as a bellwether for congressional action on immigration reform or the November elections won’t be able to take much from this contest.
Most importantly, Cannon didn’t win this race so much as Jacob lost it. More on that later. And anyone who thinks Cannon’s re-election means the immigration issue isn’t resonating at the ballot box and won’t be a decisive factor in other close races in November is deluding himself. As are the White House and the U.S. Senate if they think Cannon’s victory is a sign that they can safely move forward with a guest worker program. No such mandate can be taken from the Utah 3rd congressional district race.
One of the main reasons is that Cannon successfully re-invented himself over the past few months. While once an outspoken advocate of lax immigration policies – telling a Hispanic audience at one point that he didn’t make much of a distinction between legal and illegal immigration – Cannon all but became a born-again Tom Tancredo, the outspoken anti-illegal immigration congressman from Colorado, in his campaign rhetoric the days and weeks leading up to the election. Had Cannon not all but renounced his own past policy proposals and votes, the result on Tuesday could have been very different.
Also, it’s important to note that the White House brought out its big gun to pull Cannon’s fat from the fire. No, not the President. The First Lady. As the White House’s point man on immigration for the past few years, the Bush team recognized that Cannon’s defeat would mean the end of any hope for the president’s guest worker program. So Laura Bush, whose popularity is unmatched inside the Beltway, recorded a very strong phone message which was piped into the district just days before the ballots were cast. The last-minute endorsement by Mrs. Bush surely had a positive impact on the outcome of this race.
And then there was the challenger…
On paper, John Jacob certainly appeared to be a formidable opponent. In Utah, candidates can avoid a primary election if they obtain 60 percent or more of the delegate votes at the party’s spring convention. Not only did Cannon fail to obtain the convention endorsement, but he actually lost the balloting to Jacob, 52-48 percent. In addition, unlike the primary challenger from two years ago, Jacob was understood to be a very wealthy individual who was willing and able to fully self-fund his campaign. So on the surface it looked like a perfect storm scenario for a major upset: a weak incumbent, a red-hot contrasting issue and a credible challenger who could write his own checks to deliver his campaign message.
However, just days before the election, stories appeared which set off alarm bells for seasoned political professionals. The first was when Jacob announced he couldn’t afford to go up on TV the full two weeks leading up to Game Day. The second was that the Jacob campaign hadn’t devoted any serious time or attention to wooing early and absentee ballot voters – voters which can, and often do, make or break a close election. And it went downhill from there.
It’s difficult enough to take out an incumbent as is. You have to run an almost flawless campaign no matter how much money you have, even with the illegal immigration issue on your side. But John Jacob’s performance over the final two weeks of the campaign was anything but flawless.
First came the reports that Jacob may have unlawfully funneled money to an immigrant family. It was an involved and detailed story, but in our sound-bite age all the public heard was that Jacob was a personal hypocrite on the immigration issue. Right or wrong, that’s how the story was perceived by the electorate.
Then Jacob was forced to admit, in no particular order, that he: (a) had a gambling “problem,†(b) had his figures all wrong regarding the number of illegal aliens being housed in a Utah jail, (c) had not one, but two bankruptcies and other business failures, and (d) had a “path to citizenship†proposal of his own based on a practice at Disneyland called FastPass which allows certain people to jump to the front of the line. In other words, “amnesty†by another name.
However, the final nail in the coffin came just five days before the election, at a time when Jacob was, despite all his other problems, still in a statistical dead heat with the incumbent.
First at a campaign event, and then in front of editors from the state’s largest newspaper, Jacob blamed his struggles in challenging Cannon on…the devil. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Jacob said that “since he decided to run for Congress, Satan (had) disrupted his business deals, preventing him from putting as much money into the race as he had hoped.†Overnight, the comments made their way from Utah all across the country and even as far away as London. Jacob tried to recover, saying his “devil†remarks were taken out of context, but the damage was done.
The rest, as they say, is history.
Considering the support Cannon received from the White House which other candidates aren’t likely to receive in November, and considering how spectacularly the challenger in this race blew up his campaign in the end, incumbents who the public perceive are on the wrong side of the enforcement-first brigades of the illegal immigration war are susceptible to ballot box defeat. It’s not a matter of “if†the immigration issue will decide a close race sometime in the near future; it’s when. Cannon dodged the bullet. Others won’t be so lucky.
And that’s the bottom line lesson from Tuesday’s shoot-out in Utah.”
Sorry Bernie, that is very poor math. In CA-50 immigration was not the top issue and it was con verses con. Keep your head in the sand if you must. We are unprotected because the far right fears immigrants becoming citizens in 2016. All the poor analogies cannot remove that fact of life. The far right fears these future American citizens more than terrorist attacks today. They are as obsessed as the NY Times.
Um, what then was the top issue in CA-50? And didn’t Busby sink her campaign when she pandered to the Mexican vote?
And please, some R’s are pulling back, other R’s want Security before Amnesty, THAT is the issue, not Felony’s for all Brown People. Please.
What part of Security first, Work Program Second are you against?
Taumarunui,
Denial runs deep in you. My entire postr debunked everything you wrote. There is no rising wave for Tancredo’s Taunters – that is a fact. There is not even a majority of support on the right. No amount of incumbency would protect Cannon if there was an uprising, and Bush’s support would have been a negative. I see now what we will here is everything said about this rising tide was wrong and misunderstood. And our borders remain unprotected. No credibility on both counts.
AJ, you continue to rant how the “far right” does not want immigrants to become citizens. Why do you feel you have to continue with that mantra? Where is your “proof” that we, who believe in the rule of law, do not want immigrants to become citizens? The truth is, we do want immigrants to become citizens. The right and the legal way. But you chose to twist that to become something else, i.e. anti-immigrant.
Utah has approximately an illegal population of 65,000. That is less than 3% of Utah’s total population. So basically, Utah doesn’t see it has a problem and the attitude is “it’s not my problem, man”. But when their schools are broke from too many students who do not speak English, when their hospitals start to close, when they are being taxed out of their homes to pay for the schools, when the taxes that are needed to incarcerate the illegals who break the law (the ones you seem to think count) then they are going to be saying “Washington, we have a problem”.
So I would like to know what survey or research you have gleened “they don’t want the immigrants to become citizens” from? Where are you coming up with that? And why do you have to continue to ignore the reality that is illegal immigration?
You say the far right has left our borders unprotected? How? What happened to the laws that are on the books already? Are those just more of our laws that you feel are not worth enforcing? So who gets to pick and chose which laws will be enforced and which ones will not be? You? The President? Senator Kennedy? John McCain?
When you diminish the importance of one law, you diminish the importance of all laws.
You act like there are no laws concerning the border and the failure to implement the Shamnesty Bill leaves our borders wide open. Come to Laredo, AJ, our borders ARE wide open. What happened to the 1986 Shamnesty Bill? I thought that was supposed to stop the invasion of illegals into our nation? Oops, guess it didn’t work. No one bothered to enforce the laws that were supposed to help. So here is a novel idea, let’s enforce the current laws and see if that makes a difference before we enforce more laws that will be a re-run of 1986.
There is one thing missing from your argument: protection of the American people. The whole argument from those who agree with you is about protection (and benefits )for the illegal immigrant.
Our president has made a devil’s pact with Mexico (Fox) and so what if Mexico doesn’t stand up to it’s part? We are more honorable than Mexico so we will. That makes a hellofa lot of sense. NOT.
Since you seem to want to be so accomodating to Mexico and it’s feelings (allowing it to dump its uneducated on us so they can import Central Americans who will work for less money that Mexicans will and therefore maintain their caste system) here is a suggestion: we adopt Mexico’s immigration policies.
If we did that, I could just hear the screams from you (and El Presidente Fox) as you declare the policy unfair.
Retiree05,
Facts are facts. Immigrants are illegal because more came in this country than the arbritrary and completely made up number set by Congress each year, not because of any truly sinister act. The border protection was junked because the Senate bill had a guest worker program that would define a legal way for immigrants (documented and undocumented) to get in the back of the line, pay back taxes, learn English to become elligible to be citizens in 10-15 years. All those conditions did not suffice for the far right – they wanted more punishment.
This was the reason given by the house and all their far right followers for leaving our borders unprotected. My points are 100% accurate and I bet they are uncomfortable. Because they are meant to be. Tancredo\’s Taunters left us exposed to terrorists because some immigrants may become citizens in 10-15 years. Plain and simple. Get over the fact it was the dumbest, most criminal move yet in the immigration debate. And the far right is now just as obsessed and off track as the NY Times. I never held a gun to anyone\’s head and said make a putulent statement on a path that is opposed by 80% of the country. They did it all on their own. And they deserve criticism for putting fear of a guest worker program over our collective national security. Same as the NY Times and their fear of financial investigations and monitoring overseas communications. Now, if you folks on the far right thought taking your marbles and going home was going to work, you were mistaken. Sadly and seriously mistaken. Now no one wants to play marbles with you at all.
Ernie,
We were given security last. Look, don’t insult my intelligence with patently mindless slogans. Both the border protections and the guest worker programs will take years to implement. Documenting workers and getting them registered will take longer than border measures to complete, but if you know anything about Federal programs we are talking 3-5 years at the earliest – after Bush is out of office.
We have nothing. The far right took their marbles and left us high and dry and the rest of us are in no mood to play with them anymore after this stunt. Anyone who is serious about a comprehensive solution will get my backing because that is the only thing that will pass. Security first? Good one, that is really, really hillarious. Were is the promised security? Oh yeah, bottled up in the House in a temper tantrum fit. Yeah, security first is written all over this debacle. And any attackers who make it through our borders are now the responsibility of Tancredo’s Taunters. As far as I am concerned anyone who has decided leaving the borders exposed is not credible on national security. Perfect is the evil of good. And in this case good saves lives and perfect leaves them at risk.
Yes, why enforce Laws. Slogans, heh.
So the far Right runs the Country now…. could have fooled me. The whole Immigration Debate was canned by the far Right.
Classic.
Set up the strawmen just to knock ’em down.
Both Bills sucked AJ. Sorry, you cannot have it both ways.
We shall see which way the tide turns on this, but labeling and attacking folks who do not agree with you is not the answer.
AJ, facts are facts and you can twist them until you fall over, but it doesn’t make you right. And you are not right.
If you don’t agree with the number of immigrants allowed into the U.S. the policy should not be ignore the laws, but to change the number of people allowed in and do it legally.
How was border security junked? WHAT BORDER SECURITY? What happened to the border security laws that were supposed to go into effect in 1986?
What punishment? Expecting people to enter our nation legally? Expecting people who wish to work here to make better lives for themselves to do it the right way? Is that punishment? Do you think there should be no obstacles to entering our nation? How about “good faith”? Where is the “good faith” on the part of the illegal? There is none. Where is the “good faith” on the part of Mexico? There is none. What is next for you? Eliminating exams in our universities because it makes getting that degree harder? We demand that you have a legal license to drive in the United States but you don’t think that people should have to be legal to be here?
Why do you ignore the laws that are already on the books? Your ranting how we now have no bill to protect the border is just flat out wrong, AND YOU KNOW IT, but for some reason you have decided to take on the cause of LULAC, LaRaza and every other racist organization. Give law breakers a brake, don’t deport them, but make sure they don’t violate AJ’s neighborhood by-laws. That is just going too far.
I looked at some of the polls you made note of. Not one of them asked if the people being polled thought that the illegals should be given blanket amnesty.
Going to the back of the line? Give me a break. Going to the back of the line is getting in line to begin with. It is remaining in your native country until you get permission to come to the U.S. It is not being allowed to continue to work here while others who are really at the back of the line have to work in their native lands.
Perhaps it would behoove you to read the research done by Pew Hispanic Center. You won’t like it nor will you agree with it, but maybe it will turn on the lights for you about the attitude of the hispanic illegal (5% of which say they have voted in the United States).
When one protests using erronous arguments like you do, it makes me wonder why.
I was quoting political consultant Chuck Muth. Those were his words not mine. I’m against any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants, but I would never have voted for as poor a candidate as Jacob proved to be.
Nowhere in your post did you mention that Jacob was a poor candidate, ran a poor campaign and spooked the electorate by blaming Satan for his woes.
Legal immigrants have to wait in line, and then pass a full health check and a criminal background check. Why should we not require the same of those who break our laws by entering illegaly? If they want to emigrate to the US they should go back home and wait in line.
Taunaruni,
Your new here I can tell. I am all for the guest worker requirements and also for booting anyone out of here, never to come back, if they commit a real felony. I did mention why Jacob’s performance would have had no bearing if this issue was really as important as the Tancredo Taunters said it was. Jacobs mistakes were minor and, if the cons and reps truly wanted to deport immigrants by making illegal immigration a felony (or dry up their jobs or do anything but get them into a guest worker program) then Jacobs would have won. If the guest worker program was such a negative, Cannon would have lost despite Jacob’s performance and because of Bush’s backing. QED: It was all a myth. The 80-20 split still holds. 80% back a guest worker program with lots of strong conditions and 20% will have nothing of it.
I’m not against a guest worker program provided it has appropriate safeguards. One of these would require applicants to apply from their country of citizenship. That’s what legal imigrants have to do.
WRT Jacob, Muth notes that “In Utah, candidates can avoid a primary election if they obtain 60 percent or more of the delegate votes at the party’s spring convention. Not only did Cannon fail to obtain the convention endorsement, but he actually lost the balloting to Jacob, 52-48 percent.”
Then Muth tells us that “However, the final nail in the coffin came just five days before the election, at a time when Jacob was, despite all his other problems, still in a statistical dead heat with the incumbent.”
It sounds like Jacob, a weak candidate, had a shot until he shot himself in the foot. Like they say, all politics is local. It would be unwise to regard Jacob’s loss as a win for Bush’s position at the national level.
Taumarunui,
If your not against a guest worker program with the marginal issues you listed (compared to the proposed plan), then you too must believe we deserved legislation be passed so that we would be working to beef up our boarders and registering people here. Otherwise, I don’t believe a word you are typing. The issues you are hanging on are marginal and pale in comparison to addressing the current security challenges with our borders. Anytime you have to spend resources to round up people your taking them from the much more important job of detecting terrorists and stopping attacks. And it is this mistaken prioritization that leaves me to conclude Tancredo and Bill Keller are two variants of dysfunctional obsession.
Crux:
We have open boarders left that way by a political group obsessed with fear about the possibility today’s immigrants may become US citizens in 10-15 years.
Amen, brother! And I would say “obsessed with an irrational fear”
They are so focused on “but the illegals broke the law and have to be punished” that they would do so at the cost of billions and nothing gained in return for the country or the economy. At least legalizing their status and giving them 10 years of probation towards citizenship would make them a tax positive. They would not fear claiming workers comp from a job injury removing much of the burden on our medical system too.
In other words, giving a legal status has immediate benefits to the economy, community, and the country. The methods I have heard bandied about by the far right would cost a lot of money and provide no improvement to the situation. They would simply create another enforcement bureaucracy, add thousands to government payrolls, and provide no tangible benefit to the economy, tax rolls, or communities.
But, AJ, I would point out that in communities with large numbers of illegals, crimes often go unreported so getting a handle on actual crime stats can be difficult. If you allow them a way to have a legal status, the fear of reporting crimes evaporates.
AJ said:
And I can call you whatever I wish. I am not trying to make it comfortable for your side.
But he doesn’t have that option, because you can just ban him from the site., which is fine and is your right, it’s your site.
But it doesn’t make you right.
It is only the Beltway view.
“The 80-20 split still holds.”
This is wrong and I can prove it. You have stated it innumerous times and I have challenged you practically everytime to link us to the poll that shows that number. Show me where you have done that. Until you do, you are wrong.
“Do the math from Utah-3. If only 44% of the Bush base is for the hard line that means 44% of the 52% of the voters who voted for Bush, which means 23% of the electorate is hard line. That is the same 80-20 split that has been around for months.”
All Beltway thinking and logic, nothing from the real world here.
“The back taxes and fines are not enough for you fosks who want to make working for a living a felony” You say this a lot, but I never see anyone saying this from an advocacy point, just you from an opponent point. So just “who” is for this? I’m referring to” working for a living a felony” I realize the House bill would make illegal immigration a felony, but not working for a living.
“many (actually most) conservatives like me” you are, of course, conservative on most other issues, but on illegal immigration, you are as far left as it is possible for a liberal to get. From my middle of the road conservative view, conservatives are for securing the border, liberals are for Amnesty. It’s both that clear and simple.
“Cannon all but became a born-again Tom Tancredo, the outspoken anti-illegal immigration congressman from Colorado, in his campaign rhetoric the days and weeks leading up to the election. Had Cannon not all but renounced his own past policy proposals and votes, the result on Tuesday could have been very different.”
What is an indicator in this also, Cannon got a lot lower % of the vote than he did the last election in spite of his makeover. I also don’t understand why a lot of people are unaware of this makeover in Cannon’s immigrant position. Strange.
“We are unprotected because the far right fears immigrants becoming citizens in 2016.”
Total Baloney, I’m in the middle and as I have stated many times. Secure the border 100%. Once that is certified, give everyone in the U.S. at that time citizenship(as the Senate Bill does). I’m not against the people that are here, just stop them 100% from coming illegally.
The difference in my position and yours is. I don’t want more illegals coming, the ones here are fine. Your’s is; the ones here are fine, keep them coming.
“Anyone who is serious about a comprehensive solution will get my backing because that is the only thing that will pass. Security first? Good one, that is really, really hillarious. Were is the promised security? Oh yeah, bottled up in the House in a temper tantrum fit. Yeah, security first is written all over this debacle.”
This is actually humorous. It is clear that those that don’t believe in security first, don’t believe in security at all.
I fail to see what is “comprehensive” about a bill that only does one thing.. grants amnesty and citizenship to illegal immigrants, no questions asked. All that flim flam about “guest worker, learn english, pay back taxes, etc” is just the method. Even if some of that were required, why would all those people that have a total disregard for our laws obey any of those.
BELTWAY THINKING
AJ you said: “I am all for the guest worker requirements and also for booting anyone out of here, never to come back, if they commit a real felony.” well, I’m not new here and I can tell you that you are for allowing guest workers to come here that have already been convicted of a real felony, so why would you claim to be in favor of deporting them if they commit one? The Senate bill(which you bought hook line and sinker) allows guest workers with one felony and 3 misdemeanor convictions to enter.
I, like ernie, retire05 and some others, don’t see why you feel you have to call names and label people that don’t have the same point of view that you do, it belittles you and your position and it doesn’t make you right. it only makes it your opinion, the same as the rest of us.
I agree with AJ. I know conservatives right here in the midwest that just want this fixed, they are tired of the endless bitching and moaning and threatening for what seems to be no purpose, other than damaging another conservative.
Tancredo is riding this issue for his own reasons. Now I believe the laws should be enforced as well, but this sudden mania is bizarre. The only way to get the laws enforced is to reform the system and put the resources out there and we can’t do that without a bill. So far the right just rants and raves about enforcing laws and shutting down the border but they are apparenlty more than prepared to leave things the way they are if the rest of the country does not go with their program. I think they hope that eventually people will give them what they want just to shut them up and move on.
There is no reason why we should not be able to secure the border and do a better job of enforcement without having to get all draconian on this. If the Senate will compromise, then the House should do the same so that we can fix this.