Monday, April 26, 2010

“Nobody Wins on Immigration” Means Democratic Debacle

I can’t help but laugh. The media loves to talk about problems the Republicans are facing. Whatever the issue, it’s the Republicans who are in trouble. Even Democratic scandals always seem to have a “this could hurt the Republicans” silver lining. But every once in awhile we get an issue where the MSM tells us, this time “nobody wins.” To translate that from MSM speak, that means total debacle for Democrats. The latest example is immigration reform.

Right now, the MSM is awash in articles warning us that “nobody wins on immigration.” The Democrats will have a hard time with this issue, we are told, because they are trapped between a rock and a hard place. But rest assured, the Republicans are in just as much trouble because. . . well. . . because.

The rock the Democrats are facing is the wave of Hispanic activists who are threatening to stay home if nothing is done to grant amnesty to all illegal aliens. And no, that’s not an overstatement. Some of these activists speak in the media about protecting “the rights” of illegals or they try to focus just on Hispanic Americans who they claim will be threatened by “xenophobia” and “racial profiling.” But most activists aren’t as careful. Most talk openly of amnesty -- as anyone who has seen any of their rallies or heard any of their speeches or seen any of their interviews can attest. They want total, immediate amnesty. And like all other Democratic interest groups, they won’t be satisfied with any substitute promises. They want it all and they want it now. Which is why they began issuing public threats a couple weeks back that they would stay at home if the Democrats didn’t act now.

The hard place the Democrats face is the American public. No matter which poll you look at, around 70% of the public opposes amnesty. In fact, they don’t just oppose it, they hate it. And that figure typically includes around 40% of Hispanics.

Interestingly, blacks are even more upset about illegal immigration than the rest of America. A full 66% of blacks support building a wall between the US and Mexico, 60% want to impose stiff penalties on employers who hire illegals, and 56% view this as a major issue. (They see Hispanics as a direct economic threat.)

Thus, the Democrats face this Homerian dilemma of Scylla and Charybdis. If they don’t pass an amnesty, they will lose their Hispanic support, which translates into roughly 9% of the population -- which would doom them in many districts, even in liberal leaning states. But if they do act, they risk alienating 60% of the public, even many liberals, which will doom them everywhere.

What’s more, their usual tricks won’t work. They will be inclined to split the baby, by passing “tough immigration reform” that provides meaningless gestures to both sides. But neither side is in the mood to accept meaningless gestures. Moreover, even if the Democrats include a “stealth amnesty,” Democratic activists have shown that they aren’t smart enough to see what they’ve been given and shut the hell up. They will instead protest that they got what they wanted, just not openly enough for their tastes.

Thus, the Democrats not only can’t satisfy both sides at once, they can’t avoid angering somebody no matter what they do. . . even if they do nothing. Sounds like a total loser for the Democrats.

But what about those poor Republicans. This is a “nobody wins” scenario after all, right? Well, to believe that, you need to pretend that you didn’t read what you just read, i.e. you need to forget that the public is overwhelmingly opposed to illegal immigration. Because the case for the Republicans being hurt is that “the public” will see them as “extremists and xenophobes” and will be turned off by their anti-immigrant stance.

Of course, this stupid argument flies in the face of the one before it. If the public is so overwhelming opposed to illegal immigration that the Democrats are in trouble, then the public isn’t going to be turned off by the Republicans opposing illegal immigration. In fact, the only people this will offend are the Democratic activists (and journalists) who already despise the Republicans. Oh no! Moreover, looking at the numbers for blacks, this issue isn’t even going to resonate with them because majorities of them actually agree with the Republicans on this issue.

Further, the public has shown in poll after poll that they clearly distinguish between the issues of immigration and illegal immigration. Unless the Republicans start bashing all immigrants, which they won’t, there is little danger that anyone outside of liberal news rooms will see the Republicans as xenophobes.

Basically, there is no way this issue hurts Republicans. So when you see the next article that talks about this being a no winner or which tries to find the silver lining for Democrats, just chuckle at the mental contortions the journalist had to go through to reach the conclusion they wanted.


Unknown said...

Andrew: Can't find any fault in any of that. Just wanted to emphasize that in the "news" reports on TV here, you see very little of the misplaced anger and the usual spate of Mexican flags (and other scattered Latin American flags and symbols). The original shots of the police officers being hit by flying debris and full water bottles have disappeared from the screen entirely. The amnesty signs are downplayed, as are the plethora of Spanish language signs, Che posters, and anti-American slogans. All we see here now are peaceful demonstrators, begging for "equal rights." Not a single shot of a "coyote," fatigue clad guerrilla, or drug cartel soldier in sight anywhere.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, That's how they always do it in the MSM. Leftist protests are always shown as peaceful, with the whacko elements carefully edited out when they show the parades for public consumption.

I'm sure you've seen the same thing with the gay pride rallies in SF. Check out the difference between what you will see on the news and what you will see on Flikr from the same rally.

BevfromNYC said...

And Yey, Al Sharpton has jumped into the fray. He's heading to Arizona now to give that Governor what for! Now is the time to lock the doors and turn out the lights in NYC...

AndrewPrice said...

Sorry Bev, you can't get rid of him that quickly.

I saw several articles today that said that Sharpton taking up this cause is not playing well in the black community.

Mike K. said...

Amnesty can hurt Republicans if they support it. I don't trust either party on this issue.

AndrewPrice said...

Mike, That's true. But opposing amnesty can't hurt the Republicans in any way, which is the garbage the media is trying to sell.

As for not trusting either party, I'm with you 100% on this one. They have different reasons, but both parties have shown that they care less about what we think on this subject than they care about taking care of their interest groups on this.

Interestingly, that's what's made this such a poisonous issue -- they've lost our trust so badly no one even trusts them when they say something rational any more. They've become the parties who cried "not really an amnesty".

Tennessee Jed said...

a solid point, Andrew. Nothing says Democrat debacle quite like "nobody wins on {fill in the issue.} I have a little game I play where each day I email the liberal editor of the local paper and give him a daily example of political bias as practiced by the AP. That brings a question to mind, though. Reuters seems to be better, but perhaps it only seems that way by comparison. What say you?

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I think Reuters remains more fact focused. The AP has decided that they no longer need to present the facts "without comment," i.e. in an unbiased way. That has actually become their official policy. I don't think Reuters has gone that way.

That's great about your local editor! I hope you're giving them heartburn or that they realize that maybe they should drop the AP service?

Writer X said...

Update: San Francisco politicians are calling for a boycott of Arizona. Oh, no! Arizonans are quaking in their boots. Not!

The sad thing is that any boycott will hurt the poorest among us the most--the very people the Democrats claim to want to help!

We look forward to Al Sharpton's visit. He's always good for comic relief.

StanH said...

This is an issue that I believe, holds the most volatile potential response from the American people. In a deep recession, competition for employment can become a life or death exercise, especially in the construction industry. We are a country of laws, and this is an in your face affront to one of the most important pillars of our society…enforce the damn law!

AndrewPrice said...

Writer X, Yeah, it would stink if the people of San Francisco stopped going to Arizona! If only they would stop coming to Colorado as well.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, I agree. This is easily the most explosive issue because everyone can see the harmful effects on their own lives. Washington doesn't get that because they live in a bubble, listening to corporate lobbyists who live in the same bubble.

Post a Comment