Is McCain Gulling the Immigration Hawks?

The GOP platform talks tough, but the issue appears to be fading

Tim Cavanaugh | September 3, 2008

Q: How do you whip members of your party into a white-hot fever, take charge of an issue people feel passionately about, push through policy changes with measurable, practical results, and still end up with half a loaf?

A: By being an immigration hawk in the Republican Party.

The current GOP platform has by and large pleased advocates of tighter illegal immigration enforcement, by being both practically and rhetorically stricter than its 2004 predecessor. Rather than containing a brief standalone section on immigration that calls for "legal, safe, orderly and humane" reforms, this year's much longer model places immigration within the "Defending Our Nation" section and starts out with a blunt statement: "Immigration policy is a national security issue, for which we have one test: Does it serve the national interest?" In place of 2004's oxymoronic coupling of a condemnation of amnesty for in-country illegal workers with a call to bring "workers who currently hold jobs...out of the shadows," the 2008 platform contains a terse: "We oppose amnesty," along with an even-more terse, "English empowers." With calls to expand requirements for the E-Verify system and to complete the border fence (neither of which were in consideration in 2004), the current platform luxuriates in a full paragraph denouncing various favorites of the pro-immigrant left:

The rule of law means guaranteeing to law enforcement the tools and coordination to deport criminal aliens without delay—and correcting court decisions that have made deportation so difficult. It means enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas, rather than letting millions flout the generosity that gave them temporary entry. It means imposing maximum penalties on those who smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S., both for their lawbreaking and for their cruel exploitation. It means requiring cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement and real consequences, including the denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities, which stand in open defiance of the federal and state statutes that expressly prohibit such sanctuary policies, and which endanger the lives of U.S. citizens. It does not mean driver's licenses for illegal aliens, nor does it mean that states should be allowed to flout the federal law barring them from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, nor does it mean that illegal aliens should receive social security benefits, or other public benefits, except as provided by federal law.

About the only tempering of the steel in this year's platform is a call to reform the arcane legal immigration system: "It is a national disgrace that the first experience most new Americans have is with a dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy defined by delay and confusion; we will no longer tolerate those failures." Many immigration hawks would argue that there is no contradiction here, because legal and illegal immigration are clearly separate.

But whether you're a full immigration restrictionist or just a zealot about illegals, the relief at having a stricter platform may still be outweighed by the man at the top of the ticket. Most immigration hawks remain skeptical of Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) conversion to a tougher immigration stance, and they're right to feel that way.

During an endorsement interview at the Los Angeles Times early this year, the candidate repeated his statements about caring for the illegal population ("God's children," in his words) and gave strong indications that while he has "heard the American people" on this issue, that didn't mean he'd changed his own beliefs on immigration. Border and workplace enforcement have measurably toughened under Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff (also a reluctant enforcer), and there are hints (noted in a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies) that the illegal immigration population in the United States is dwindling, yet this does not seem to satisfy restrictionists. "Can you reason people out of a position they haven't been reasoned into?" I asked. McCain shook his head and said sadly, "I don't know." He ended up getting the paper's endorsement, but it's hard to blame immigration hawks for thinking McCain is patronizing them.

Very little of that skepticism is evident among delegates at the Xcel Center this week, however. Most of the people I spoke with had a variation of one Colorado delegate's phrase: "As a candidate I think John McCain takes the security of our borders seriously." That's a surprising level of trust in McCain's tough-on-immigration bona fides, especially considering that the only prominent political figure who has spoken up for immigrants in St. Paul this week was the way-off-the-reservation Jesse Ventura. This could also be an acknowledgment that McCain's Democratic opponent has even less red meat to offer.

Or it could just be recognition that immigration is fading as an issue. The field of Republican hopefuls this election included at least three—California Rep. Duncan Hunter, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, and Texas Rep. Ron Paul—who made immigration a central plank. All failed to get anywhere near the nomination. McCain, the most openly liberal immigration candidate, won handily. There is a wide gap between the numbers Lou Dobbs needs to get good ratings and the numbers a major party candidate needs to secure a nomination. And with a soft economy and more border patrols providing powerful disincentives to enter the country illegally, with comprehensive reform having failed spectacularly, the public seems ready to accept that illegal immigration is a problem that can be managed, not solved—and that it is now being managed.

So, perhaps, are the delegates. But Republicans as a whole haven't lost the ire. "McCain at least has embraced some semblance of enforcement first," said J.D. Hayworth, the former Arizona congressman turned radio host. "But the notion of having the Board of Governors certify that the borders are secure, as he has set forth in several campaign statements, is problematic. Excuse me, but I just don't think I can take Janet Napolitano's or Bill Richardson's word that the borders are secure... Self-deportation is a helpful sign, but the failure to have the government act as a catalyst, act as an enforcer, makes this all very frustrating. We've done this in such fits and starts, with such a lack of resolve, that it's worrying."

Not worrying enough, apparently, to make a difference in the voting. Immigration hawks are stuck without a true presidential friend this year, but a tougher-talking platform will at least provide some comfort.

Comments

Lonewacker|9.3.08 @ 12:16PM|#

GNnnnhh! Ai! Ai! Lightweights! Not AskingQuestions! MoneyedInterests! Bildeburgers! CthulhuFtagn!

jtuf|9.3.08 @ 12:57PM|#

McCain started with calls to make legal immigration easier so that we can make border security feasible. Now he calls for border security so that increasing legal immigration is more feasible. I think a bill to tripple immigration quotas will get wide bi-partisan support by 2015.

Mike Laursen|9.3.08 @ 1:09PM|#

¿Dónde está Lonewacko? Estoy triste porque él no está aquí.

|9.3.08 @ 1:28PM|#

McCain only got back in the good graces when he realized
that the majority of legal citizens of the USA did not
want to have to press 2 for ENGLISH !
I think... immigration quotas will only go lower in the
future because the citizens of the USA are more
concerned with legality and sovereignty than
legalizing the 20+million illegal aliens.

|9.3.08 @ 3:14PM|#

You realize, M A, that immigration quotas and legalizing millions of illegals are two completely separate issues?

|9.3.08 @ 4:09PM|#

Americans refusal to accept the consequences of illegal immigration has only intensified. All independent (versus commissioned, or push polls) show 70% or more of Americans are pro deportation.

That is why neither McCain nor Obama will talk about it in depth. They give general statements without specifics to try and offend the fewest possible.

The political elite of the GOP, feeding big business, ensured that a pro amnesty and immunity for crimes for illegals candidate got the nomination. Only 1/3 of Repubs voted McCain. Almost all the rest voted for a pro deportation candidate, but they split the vote.

What has happened is Americans, fed up with the Fed government putting HISPANICS ILLEGALS ABOVE THE LAW, and demanding PREFERENTIAL TRREATMENT FOR HISPANICS ( the Pew Hispanic Center says almost all illegals are Hispanic ), have turned to their local and state government. 45 States have passed 246 laws this year reigning in the lawlessness.

Then there is the economic problem. If the 30 -36 million illegal were given amnesty and immunity for their crimes, it would cost at least 5 trillion in benefits within 20 years. Basically, it would bankrupt our SS system, and put the country in severe financial danger.

After the Bush amnesty and immunity for crimes proposal, the economists must have had a chat with the candidates and pointed out that their plans just were not economicialy sound. All the candidates shifted their position to border security, and to limitations of who would get amnesty and immunity for crimes.. ie McCain says they have to have been here a long time..Clinton added they had to have a clean record.... etc..

Now the situation has become even more difficult for the pro RACIST PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR HISPANICS crowd.

Business is starting to back away from wanting all these Hispanic illegals

The Pew Hispanic Center released a study showing that Hispanics are taking 4 generations to get to the point where they get a high school education.

Normally, immigrants to it in one generation. It is important because immigrants are a net drain on the economy ( taxpayers carry them ) until their offspring get a high school education). Hispanics are just as smart as anyone, but it is cultural. They do not value education. As the kids say, they do not want to get good grade, because that is "acting white".

In CA the high school drop out rate for Hispanics is 30%. As they are producing legions of babies, they will form the majority of the work force.

Business is in a panic. They need an education work force and Hispanics are not going to have the skills.

For the first time in 200 years, Americans are not increasing their level of education.. it is decreasing.

Without an educated work force say good bye to First World Status and get use to being a second tier country.

So you can expect both Obama and McCain when dealing with illegal aliens to tighten up even more, have more raids, create real border security, and place really difficult conditions on illegals for amnesty and immunity. They are going to try and get rid of as many undereducated Hispanic illegals as possible, and keep only those who have adopted American educational values and are educated.

Mike Laursen|9.3.08 @ 4:53PM|#

Now the situation has become even more difficult for the pro RACIST PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR HISPANICS crowd.

OK, I'm going to give you a ten points for attempting that bit of rhetorical judo. I'm not sure you could have sold your argument to anybody other than Lonewacko, but the all-caps undermined any serious consideration of your point.

Keep practicing. Our joe didn't get to be joe overnight. It took hard work and commitment.

|9.4.08 @ 7:29AM|#

THIS IS ANOTHER BS ARTICLE. NO, TOUGH TALKING DOES NOT CUT IT. MCCCAIN IS FOR OPEN BORDERS, FOR STOPPING U.S. SOVEREIGNTY AND "MERGING" US WITH MEXICO (& CANADA). THIS IS CALLED "TREASON" - HE WANTS OPEN BORDERS AND IS PART OF THE CFR (COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS) JUST AS OPEN BORDERS OBAMA IS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE NO CHOICE. HIS TOUGH TALK IS A PLOY TO KEEP PEOPLE BUSY AND I FEAR PALIN ALSO WHO YOU NOTICE NEVER SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT THE ILLEGAL INVASION. THEY ARE ALL FOOLING AMERICANS INTO BELIEVING WE HAVE A CHOICE WHEN WE DON'T. HTIS IS ALL GLOBALISM!

|9.6.08 @ 10:11PM|#

I am treasonous.

|9.14.08 @ 10:51PM|#

McCain is soft in the head and weak in his resolve to ostensibly defend the nation.

He fails to diffentiate the Mexican incursion from a constituent base. He imagines that he serves Mexican interests.

He calls Mexican invaders "God's children," while slating Iran for regime change.

He is a treasonous colluder in the Mexican occupation and annexation of American territory.

McCain is NOT presidential timber, because he is an arch quisling.

He drafted odious legislation--with Chappaquiddick Ted--which was resoundingly defeated by a deliberate American people.

Then the dim bulb who would be president, had the gall to say he will "secure the border first," before he grants amnesty to invaders.

The American people are saying: "Seal the borders, period!"

He attends war councils of La Raza, and thereby legitimizes the Mexican reconquista with his presence.

John McCain is an unworthy suitor for the Crown of Ithaca.

His infamy is legendary. In short, he is a pretender to the throne.

He can never regain the trust of the American people.