Reasonable Republicans for Immigration Reform

Election Hiatus

2008-08-15T20:50:00.003-06:00

Sorry everyone. I am busy electing reasonable people this election season, so I have had to take some time off from blogging. Check back after the election as I intend to resume then.

Vote Reasonable!

Hispanic votes propell McCain to victory

2008-03-22T16:24:00.002-06:00

CAUSA reported that John McCain believes harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric has hurt the party: “I know that there have been some races, like here in Pennsylvania, where Senator Santorum emphasized that issue [immigration] and lost by a large number,” he said. “We just had a loss of Denny Hastert's seat out in Illinois." McCain said. "The Republican candidate out there, I am told, had very strong anti-immigrant rhetoric also, so I would hope that many of our Republican candidates would understand the political practicalities of this issue.”

In fact, the evidence suggests McCain’s ability to appeal to Hispanics voters is what won him the nomination. Florida is where everything turned and McCain became the front runner. He beat Romney by just 5 percent of the vote. Hispanics made up 12 percent of the electorate with more than half voting for McCain and just 14 percent for Romney. That means more than 6 percent of McCain’s Florida supporters were Hispanic and he only had a margin of victory of 5 percent. It seems very likely McCain’s reasonable approach to immigration compared to Romney’s harsh rhetoric is why McCain is the nominee today.

No more Telephone games please

2008-02-21T16:40:00.002-07:00

My attention today has been focused on a major immigration reform bill under consideration in the Utah Senate. Initially, it was intended to be modeled after Oklahoma’s severely anti-immigrant law but the Utah version was stripped of some of some of its harshest measures. Nevertheless, it remains very draconian. The bill is a major, expansive piece of immigration reform that has gone from concept to committee to the floor almost over night. The frightening thing is, no one, not even the bill’s sponsor Senator Bill Hickman seems to have any idea what is in it and what its impact will be. There are serious questions about it’s adverse impact on landlords, business owners and law enforcement. Senators asked Hickman question after question about these concerns that he could not answer. After each question the senator would turn to the body’s legal counsel for help. Counsel would then whisper something into Hickman’s ear as if it were a game of telephone with frightening legislative consequences.

The bill passed its second reading and must be voted on one more time before moving to the house. If the lawmakers are wise, they will wait and study this more before acting on it. The sponsor doesn’t even know what it says. The rest of the body doesn’t understand it’s implications. It would be foolish to make it law. I was shocked how many senators who didn’t get there concerns resolved still voted for it to be read a third time. When that moment comes, we will see how many Senators have the courage not to act rashly at the detriment of sound policy.

We're back :)

2008-02-21T10:41:00.005-07:00

Sorry everone for the long delay in posts. Unexpected and excessive business at my day job kept me from this blog for a while, but things have settled down and I'm hoping I can be a little more active from now on. I apologize for the long pause, and I hope you'll participated with me on this blog in the future.

Nativism doesn't win elections: A Political Case Study

2007-11-08T13:23:00.000-07:00

Anti-immigrant radicalism isn’t usually a winning strategy, not even in the short term and in conservative state, (see Anti-immigration hard-liners fare poorly in St. George). During election season, candidates all over the country, on both sides of the aisle, face the temptation to pick up a few cheap votes by making irrational, poorly thought-out promises to crack down on immigration. In primaries, which are magnets for unreasonableness, that strategy may find some success. But a municipal election in St. George, Utah on Tuesday is an insightful case study that shows why that doesn’t guarantee an election victory in a general election.

Before the primary, anti-immigrant groups insisted St. George City Council candidates sign a pledge to implement nativist immigration policies at the local level. The strategy initially appeared to work as the three candidates who signed it advanced beyond the primary, one earning a first place spot and another third place. Six candidates in all advanced, three who signed the pledge, and three who did not. Based on the primary results, nativist primary activists seemed confident they would get at least two of their three candidates on the council. Fortunately for the sake of St. George’s reputation, economy and people, more reasonable general election voters refused to give any of the three pledge-signing candidates a spot on the council as the more anti-immigrant politicians placed dead last behind the three more reasonable candidates. It’s hard to say exactly why this group faired so poorly, but it’s clear their strategy was not a winning one.

A major election would amplify such results as more independents and Hispanics would be casting votes than in a municipal election. One can make a strong argument that Bush’s ability to attract at least a noticeable amount of Hispanic voters, delivered him the election. Considering the anti-immigrant rhetoric pouring out of the GOP candidates (John McCain excluded), we are now more likely to see something similar to what happened in this municipal election than to see something similar to Bush’s success in 2000. The GOP may choose a Romney, Guilliani or Thompson because of their harsh stances, but when the more reasonable and diverse general election voters come into play, it’s a losing strategy for any party. Birthrate trends show the Hispanic population growing and the Caucasian population decreasing, so future elections will become even harder if candidates don’t mature and reach out to more diverse voters.

This case study also underscores the importance that reasonable voters become active early in the process to counter the Petri dish for irrationality that is a primary election. Are you familiar with any other case study elections that highlight, or deemphasize the role of immigration?

Family Values don't end at the Rio Grande

2007-10-31T17:48:00.000-06:00

The AP is reporting that thousands of children whose parents are arrested in immigration raids in the U.S. face mental health issues including post-traumatic stress disorder, separation anxiety and depression. There are lots of different people who can share the blame for this. But no matter who is responsible, it doesn't change the fact that children are the victim. Our current immigration policy is dangerously hard on families. It is time for Republicans to stand-up, and find a solution that is pro family!

The Good, The Bad and The Uncertain of Yesterday's Vote

2007-10-24T21:42:00.000-06:00

As you’ve probably heard by now, the DREAM Act failed a crucial test vote in the Senate Wednesday as supporters failed to win the needed 60 votes to end debate on the issue. Here’s an analysis of the good, the bad and the uncertain news from the way the votes fell.

The Good (if there is any):

The four senators who did not vote Wednesday likely would vote in favor of the measure if the next vote is really close. The tally Wednesday was 52-44 in favor, but that doesn’t include votes from McCain, Kennedy, Boxer and Dodd. I’m sure it’s little conciliation to the thousands needing the relief this bill would have provided, but if nothing else changed, we would be four votes closer to 60 than the tally suggests at first glance.
Twelve republicans voted Yea, and a few of them were surprises. The most notable was Sam Brownback of Kansas, our newest, former republican presidential candidate. Brownback has a somewhat mixed voting record when it comes to immigration, but it appears more unreasonable than reasonable. Today is a welcome exception and a slight redemption from his vote last June against comprehensive reform.

The bad (besides the fact it failed):

A handful of republicans we often can count on as a voice of reason failed us. Some of the most disappointing include Senators Smith, Warner, Cornyn, Graham and Specter. Republicans had more Senators voting for the issue than democrats had voting against, but we Reasonable Republicans still have a long way to take the party.

The uncertain:

We know at least five senators, all Republicans, will retire at the end of this session (Craig, Warner, Hagel, Domenici, Allard). Their votes make up three Nays and two Yeas. In other words, the next time this is voted on, the senate could have an entirely different makeup. And so could the White House, which said it wouldn’t veto, nor support the bill.

It seems unlikely that this issue will be addressed again before 2008. MSNBC quoted the bill’s chief sponsor Dick Durbin of Illinois as saying, “In a campaign year, it is a very difficult issue. If it’s tough this year, it’s tougher next year.” Some senators, he said, “are running scared” on the illegal immigrant issue. “Switchboards light up, the hates starts spewing, and people get concerned, to say the least,” Durbin told reporters. This political atmosphere likely explains why John McCain skipped the vote, even though he was present for an earlier vote that day. Given that we at Reasonable Republicans are eager to have someone like McCain in the Oval, and the distraction it would have been to his campaign, we will give him the benefit of a doubt that if the vote were close, he would have shown up to vote yes.

Mr. Tancredo, have you no shame?

2007-10-24T04:59:00.000-06:00

It’s 4 a.m. and this blogger can’t sleep. At the risk of sounding crazy, I’m tossing and turning, worrying about a piece of legislation called the Dream Act. Imagine growing up, knowing that no matter how hard you work in school, or how good you are, you may never have the chance to go to college or become the person of your dreams. Worse, imagine facing deportation each day to a country you don’t remember, or may have never really known. This is the reality for thousands of innocent students who are the children of undocumented immigrants. Through no fault of their own, they were brought here at a young age by their parents. Now, many in and out of the party want to punish these children to discourage illegal immigration.

Punishing innocent children for the actions of their parents to make a political statement is not an immigration policy. It is a vendetta. It is cruelty. How can we expect these children to study hard, stay out of trouble and embrace America when we deny them the chance to dream in the only country they know?

Ask Tom Tancredo. He is a bigger embarrassment to the party than Joseph McCarthy. The New York Times reported that the presidential candidate asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to raid a press conference in support of the act, and arrest illegal immigrants who would attend. Senator Durbin says the three students who spoke at the conference were legal residents, but does it really matter? Free political speech is a human right, not one granted by Mr. Tancredo or immigration status. Did he really expect law enforcement officers to attend a political event, asking to see the papers of anyone with an accent or dark skin? Looks like I’m not the crazy one after all. I call upon the people of Colorado to remove this “man” from office before single handedly destroys the party of Lincoln—or worse, America and all its dreams.

The Senate will debate and vote on the Dream Act today. Please use this link at Immigrants List to find contact information for your senators and urge them to support this important legislation.

It begins...

2007-10-21T21:12:00.000-06:00

Welcome to the first post of the Reasonable Republicans for Immigration Reform blog. We here at Reasonable Republicans are disturbed by the anti-immigrant forces that are taking over the party of Lincoln. These groups have recklessly succeeded in blurring the distinction between the majority of immigrants who come here to honestly work, and the minority who come here for mischief. This has exacerbated racial tensions, threatened the party and endangered the country as true threats slip past the border. This does not mean all foes of comprehensive immigration reform are bigots, but even the most non-discriminatory opponents have slandered noble, compromise efforts with unfair and inaccurate labels of “amnesty,” leaving us with a broken status quo.

The content of this blog will address these issues in more detail. We will frequently analyze and refute immigration myths, and will bring you the latest news and commentary about this important topic. In creating this blog, we have four goals we hope to accomplish. First, we hope to counter the power of the small but loud anti-immigrant forces that are intimidating republicans from supporting a comprehensive solution. Second, we seek to establish a community of likeminded Reasonable Republicans that will build the framework for a future political action committee or non-profit organization. Third, we seek to persuade undecided republicans that in order to protect our country physically and economically, honor family values and ensure election success, the party must pursue a reasonable, comprehensive solution. Fourth, we seek to show Hispanic voters that not all republicans are as heartless and uninformed as many of those who have derailed past reform efforts. These goals are supported by our belief statement which appears in the blog description at the top of this page.

So if you are a Reasonable Republican, why do you support comprehensive immigration reform?