Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Immigration Debate: Succeful Bait?

By Raquel Martin

Paradoxically, we are a nation founded by oppressed immigrants, yet immigration reform doesn’t seem to poll well. Generally, republican candidates try to cover the issue vaguely, often suggesting border control for national security purposes, while democrats are faced with a double edged sword: upset their moderate constituents by suggesting policies that include amnesty and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants or risk loosing the liberal and Latino vote. This issue is particularly crucial during the primaries because it is more likely to influence Latino voters on the democratic side, and extremely conservative voters on the republican side, whereas during the general election party affiliations are likely to be less fluid.

Republican Candidates on Immigration

Ironically, Senator John McCain is standing his ground on immigration. He has gone to unusual lengths to sympathetically portray the yearning for a better life among immigrants. In a recent speech to the Miami Chamber of Commerce, McCain explained that "the trackless deserts of Arizona, people who broke our laws, not to harm us, but to possess for themselves the ideals and opportunities cherished here." His plan, if implemented, would allow illegal immigrants to gain “amnesty”. The process would be quite a bit more complex and lengthy for those who arrived in the U.S. illegally, than would be for those who attempt to arrive legally. This plan has inevitably caused a strong backlash from republicans. It definitely hasn’t been easy for him. For the last month and a half he has suffered a 40% loss in small donor contributions, of which 99% of them rated immigration as their no. 1 issue. In an interview with TIME Magazine he acknowledged that this plan, which is supported by President Bush, could harm his rapport with the republican base, but "it would be worth it, because it's a matter of national security, it's a matter of economic security, and it's a matter of what kind of nation we are." Unlike McCain, his republican colleagues are tucking their tale between their legs. Romney in particular, denied broadcasting a campaign ad which described McCain’s plan as “amnesty”, though McCain never referred to it that way. It seems as though his main stance on immigration is to oppose McCain, though he won’t admit it. His plan is to secure borders both physically and virtually, support English-immersion, and oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. McCain feels that if Romney is so adamant about stopping illegal immigration, he should "get out his small-varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn."

Democratic Candidates on Immigration


Although Clinton and Obama do not differ greatly in their plans for immigration, Clinton has been accused of “flip-flopping” on the issue. In a recent democratic debate she was asked her view on Eliot Spitzer's plan to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses. Due to her confusing answer, she proceeded to clarify by stating, "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do." Obama strategically responded, "I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it.” This comment was subtle, yet it opened the flood gates for more negative comments. "Hillary Clinton was for it, she was against it, and she wasn't sure if she was for it or against it, in the space of one answer," Giuliani said. "She is known for taking one position with one audience and another position with another audience. ... What they didn't know is she can actually take two different positions in front of the same audience." Fishing for votes, eh? Well, it seems as though she has managed to maintain an overwhelming amount of Latino votes in the primaries. Hispanics preferred Clinton by a more than 2-1 margin in the Democratic race. Although, polls show that Obama has attracted more young Latino voters. Several assumptions can be made to explain this phenomenon. I asked my mother, an uneducated Latina woman (who is now a citizen but originally arrived to the U.S. undocumented), who she planned on voting for in the primaries. She said she would be voting for Hillary Clinton because her husband Bill Clinton “was a decent president.” Knowing that her no. 1 issue is immigration I replied, “Oh, I wasn’t aware he did anything positive for the Latino community. “She responded, “no, but he also didn’t do anything to hurt us.” Moreover, I believe some Latinos, such as my mother, fear excessive conservative changes. They are complacent with maintaining the status quo. Another reason why Clinton may have received an over representative amount of Latino votes is because of the culturally embedded Eurocentrism amongst more traditional Latinos. They may prefer voting for Clinton based on Obama’s ethnicity. Ironically, Obama seems to have more affinity for the Latino constituency that they do for him. In a SOC118 Fox News Debate he stated that he supports illegal immigrants having driver’s licenses, he would only focus on securing ports of entry rather than the entire boarder, and he would like to work with the Mexican government to track the source of the problem which he believes begins in Mexico.

Voter's Guide



Jane Pomeroy

Barack Obama: Always enthusiastic and stylin’, Obama represents youthful change. Though lacking the experience of Clinton (his main contender), those smiles and giggles present a threat to the hard-nosed and unmoving wife of the last Democratic president.

Hillary Clinton: Sensible and consistent, Clinton has proven she won’t crack under pressure, though her consistency may be confused with repetitiveness. Perhaps those savvy pins that seem to pop up everywhere will have reminded SOC 118 of her presence just enough to sway the vote in her favor.

John Edwards: Ever articulate and informed, Edwards is consistently prepared with an answer to any question the press or his running-mates may dish out. However, it is left to be seen if his smarts can stand up to the energy of some of his running mates.

Erica Huckabee: Preventative health care backed by Jesus, Huckabee hopes too win the hearts of America with a little healthy soul food. Yet, will this optimism truly promote change if not backed by more concrete plans? Will neatly labeled candies be enough to sway America, or backfire, contradicting his promotion of healthy eating habits?

Ron Paul: Quite the light-hearted free bird, Paul has proven even old fogies can be hip with the times. Though his campaign ads have been catchy and clever, his seemingly nonsensical responses during debates and press conferences, though bringing smiles to American faces everywhere (and thus uplifting the disheartened anti-Bushers) may overshadow his charisma.

John McCain: Consistent, concise and articulate, McCain has proven a rock in the campaign, steering clear of controversy and gaining a foothold in the Republican seat. Though he too has an answer for everything, will he be shunned as too conservative for today’s America?

Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani has proven sharp and witty, rarely one to find humor in himself or his running-mates, he’s as hard-nosed as Hillary. With clever and informative campaign ads and a clear focus on reaching Republican goals, his enthusiasm proves promising…but will it last?

In an effort to get out the informed vote of SOC 118, TIME Magazine has decided to compile a comprehensive and concise list of the primary presidential candidates and their stances regarding each of the main issues that are highly debated at the moment.

We felt a quick review would be most useful in promoting the education of America’s voters. Below is a chart that was found at http://www.2decide.com/table.htm.