What Tom Tancredo and Moderate Muslims Have In Common
The Politico reports:
This literally doesn't matter.
The American people overwhelmingly reject massive immigration when asked their view and have for decades. Conservatives feel stronger about it than liberals do but mix them together and you still have a very comfortable majority in favor of limited legal immigration, enforcing border laws and stopping illegal immigration altogether.
That majority has *never* managed to see its preference put into policy. If a law does get written, it is unenforced. If a proposition or referendum passes (like California's Prop 187) it is quickly found unconstitutional and invalidated by a reviewing court. If some public event causes the authorities to have to make a show of action, the action will be largely symbolic, with the government arm charged with making that action ensuring that "stakeholders" such as Latino pressure groups and immigration attorney lobbies are involved from the start, so that there is a party around to exercise its full "due diligence" rights, thereby slowing the demonstration project down to a year's-long snail's pace.
Conservatives regularly express puzzlement at all this. One hears a lot of talk about "elites" and their interests being different than that of "normal" Americans.
This is all nonsense.
What is going on here is that having adopted an inclusive definition of what it means to be American, the American people and its government have lost the ability to construct a case to be made to object to immigration that fits within the ideals of the current political age we live in.
It's not that the opposition cannot mobilize. It is that it lacks a believable rhetoric in which to make its case. It literally cannot construct an argument that is recognizably American in any way the vast majority of the American people would define that term.
In that sense, the anti-immigration forces face much the same dilemma as so-called "moderate Muslims". They may believe that their country/faith should do certain things or adopt certain policies, but they are unable to point to any rhetoric or tradition within Americanism/Islam as currently understood by which to justify their point of view. And, so, it remains an unorganized, individual phenomena with no political power.
Until we begin addressing that root cause, no change is possible. And that cause cannot, by definition, be addressed within mainstream political organizations or institutions.
Immigration crosses party lines
Immigration was, until recently, an issue likely to cause only Republicans political heartburn. With the party's Big Business factions battling its increasingly vocal secure-the-borders grass-roots advocates, immigration looked like an internal GOP squabble that had little electoral upside.
That now seems like ancient history.
Immigration is emerging as an issue that is resonating with independent voters--the very ones who carried Democrats to landslide victories in 2006, winning control of the House and Senate. And it's presenting Democratic candidates with the challenge of how to discuss an issue they're not used to being defensive about.
Immigration is now viewed as an issue that affects key domestic areas long considered Democratic turf: health care, crime and education.
Growing numbers of immigrants--legal and illegal--are changing the composition of affluent suburban towns across the country, impacting independent and Democratic-leaning voters, who are concerned that schools are overcrowded, health care systems are strained and crime is on the rise.
Forty percent of respondents to a newly conducted, Democrat-sponsored Democracy Corps poll said the main reason the country is going in the wrong direction is that "our borders have been left unprotected and illegal immigration is growing." Immigration was easily voters' top priority, beating out concerns over the Iraq war, health care and the economy.
Republican pollster Rob Autry said the immigration issue polled near the top of the list among independent voters in last month's surprisingly competitive special election in a solidly Democratic Massachusetts district, where he polled for Republican Jim Ogonowski's campaign.
This literally doesn't matter.
The American people overwhelmingly reject massive immigration when asked their view and have for decades. Conservatives feel stronger about it than liberals do but mix them together and you still have a very comfortable majority in favor of limited legal immigration, enforcing border laws and stopping illegal immigration altogether.
That majority has *never* managed to see its preference put into policy. If a law does get written, it is unenforced. If a proposition or referendum passes (like California's Prop 187) it is quickly found unconstitutional and invalidated by a reviewing court. If some public event causes the authorities to have to make a show of action, the action will be largely symbolic, with the government arm charged with making that action ensuring that "stakeholders" such as Latino pressure groups and immigration attorney lobbies are involved from the start, so that there is a party around to exercise its full "due diligence" rights, thereby slowing the demonstration project down to a year's-long snail's pace.
Conservatives regularly express puzzlement at all this. One hears a lot of talk about "elites" and their interests being different than that of "normal" Americans.
This is all nonsense.
What is going on here is that having adopted an inclusive definition of what it means to be American, the American people and its government have lost the ability to construct a case to be made to object to immigration that fits within the ideals of the current political age we live in.
It's not that the opposition cannot mobilize. It is that it lacks a believable rhetoric in which to make its case. It literally cannot construct an argument that is recognizably American in any way the vast majority of the American people would define that term.
In that sense, the anti-immigration forces face much the same dilemma as so-called "moderate Muslims". They may believe that their country/faith should do certain things or adopt certain policies, but they are unable to point to any rhetoric or tradition within Americanism/Islam as currently understood by which to justify their point of view. And, so, it remains an unorganized, individual phenomena with no political power.
Until we begin addressing that root cause, no change is possible. And that cause cannot, by definition, be addressed within mainstream political organizations or institutions.
