|
This is another one of those issues I tend to be a fence-sitter for (bad pun, I know). On the one hand, we need better measures to take care of our borders for security purposes - most folks agree with this. But what really seems to be the issues are two-fold:
1. The effects of leaky borders on areas such as our economy, education infrastructure, jobs, etc. etc. I haven't paid close enough attention on this to truly form an opinion one way or another. I know there's arguments that demonstrate different effects, so if others wish to present those arguments here I'd like to read them. What I do not know from my lack of reading on this is this:
-with the advent of more fences, does this also call for a major increase in manpower as well?
-with the advent of more fences, does that also call for a major crackdown on businesses that hire illegals?
2. What this is doing politically. This is interesting to me as well as we've seen a bit of courting by the Republicans of the latinos over the last coupla years. It worked in 2004 as the number of latino votes increased for Bush. However since the border fence issue has come about over the past year, and since there was a pretty hard-line push by Republican folks like Tancredo (R-Co) to crack down on illegals, this has had a seemingly negative effect on the Republicans politically.
Yesterday's election in a Texas district that was once pretty Republican and had a very established Republican booted out by a Democrat is a very good case in point:
| quote: | Rep. Henry Bonilla’s (R-TX 23) loss last night confirms one of the Bush administration’s greatest fears: that a hard-line position on illegal immigration could cause Republicans long-term damage among the growing Latino vote.
Bonilla was a strong supporter of the tough-on-immigration measures sponsored by the Republicans. He voted for the construction of the 700-mile border fence, and supported Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner’s bill penalizing workers who hire illegal immigrants.
Based on the election results, it appears Latino voters – even among his previous supporters – turned on him and supported ex-Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D). In Maverick County (95% Hispanic), Bonilla won a miniscule 14% of the vote. By contrast, Bonilla carried the county in his comfortable 2004 win, and President Bush even performed respectably here in 2004 when he won 40%.
Val Verde County (76% Hispanic) has traditionally been a solidly pro-Bush, pro-Bonilla county. Bush carried it with 59% of the vote in 2004. But Bonilla barely carried it, only winning 51% there against Rodriguez.
By contrast, the majority-white counties in the district remained strongly pro-Bonilla. Medina County (45% Hispanic) overwhelmingly voted for Bonilla, giving him 68% of the vote. That’s not much of a dropoff from Bush’s 70% performance there in 2004.
On the day of the election Bonilla’s spokesman Phil Ricks expressed confidence that Hispanics were supportive of Bonilla’s stance on border security. “If you’re a legal citizen, you’re not in favor of illegal immigration. If you go through the process legally, illegal immigration insults you,” he said.
Hispanic voters didn’t see things the same way. And if Bonilla – the only Mexican-American Republican in Congress – takes this much of a hit among Latinos, Republicans have much to be concerned about looking ahead to 2008.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal....the_latino.html |
From the standpoint of this issue being "right" or "wrong" - that's where I need to do my homework a bit more. However, politics does not always necessarily fall in line with ethics, so regardless of whether or not this is the "right" or "wrong" stance on the issue, it's seemingly backfiring on Republicans politically.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
Dem Presidential Hopeful wants Border Fence taken down...
