Immigration Enforcement is a Winning Issue

Politico today is leading with an article on ‘Mitt Romney’s risky immigration play’, basically replaying the same old ridiculous myth that adopting sensible positions against illegal immigration, that are widely supported by the American people, will somehow hurt the electability of a candidate.

In this case, Romney is supposedly outflanking Perry on the right (that’s not too difficult), by adopting a ‘tough’ right-wing stance on illegal immigration, that will help him in the primaries, but will ultimately hurt him in the general, especially among Hispanic voters.

To sum up this view, Politico quotes “Ana Navarro, the national Hispanic chairperson of Jon Huntsman’s campaign who served the same role on John McCain’s 2008 campaign.”

“Mitt Romney has definitely adopted [a hostile] tone, and needlessly,”

“Barack Obama’s basic vulnerability was that he made Latinos a promise on immigration that he has not delivered and Latinos remembered,” she added, referring to the president’s pledge for immigration reform. “We have a unique opportunity to capitalize on a broken promise to the Latino community, and instead of capitalizing on that, we are fighting over who is tougher and meaner and stricter when it comes to immigration. We’re completely missing the boat.”

First off, the idea that Mitt Romney is ‘tough’, ‘hostile’, or ‘right-wing’ is absurd. If anything, he has espoused a moderate, sensible view on illegal immigration — secure the border, don’t give tax payer subsidies to illegals. That is common sense, not ‘hostile’. 

Second, if the GOP is ‘missing the boat’, by not outflanking Obama on the far-left, promising the amnesty he thankfully couldn’t deliver, then that is one boat the GOP should be glad to miss. I frankly hope that ‘boat’ hits an iceberg or gets blown to smithereens by a U-boat. How exactly would the GOP benefit from adopting a position opposed by some 75% of the electorate?

Ms. Navarro should know from her experience with John McCain that pandering does not work. As Ian de Silva pointed out in a great article at Townhall:

“One of the lessons from this election (2008) is the destruction of the myth that Republicans who support amnesty for illegal aliens would do well among Hispanic voters.

No presidential candidate worked harder on illegal immigration amnesty than John McCain. In 2005, he sponsored an amnesty bill that became known as the McCain-Kennedy bill (co-sponsored by Sen. Kennedy). When that bill failed, he tried again the following year, with a variant of the McCain-Kennedy bill. That bill also failed. Unfazed, he tried yet again in 2007. If any one of those bills had passed, at least 10 million illegal aliens would have received amnesty. 

In contrast, Sen. Barack Obama, though a supporter of amnesty, never authored a single major immigration bill. Yet, on Election Day, McCain, the Republican who had persevered on amnesty, was overwhelmingly rejected by Hispanic voters.”

Lastly, securing the border, opposing benefits for illegals, opposing amnesty, etc. are immensely popular, not only among the Republican base, but the American people in general. 

According to a study by Quinnipiac University a vast majority of Americans oppose amnesty, “Only 24% favored the amnesty option. In a breakdown of party affiliation, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all favored enforcement over amnesty.” A majority also favor securing the border first, with Republicans and Independents overwhelmingly in favor, and Democrats split. Furthermore according to Rasmussen, a majority of Americans oppose public schooling tuition breaks and driver’s licenses for illegals.

Thus, immigration enforcement is a winning issue, by far. Only in the upsidedown world of D.C. elites is it ‘controversial’ or ‘risky’. It may be ‘controversial’ for leftists who wish to ‘elect a new people’, or ‘risky’ for chamber ‘conservatives‘ who fear loss of cheap labor will hit their profits, but among average Americans it is sensible and extremely popular.

So let’s rid ourselves of this myth about supporting immigration enforcement making one unelectable once and for all.

If the GOP is smart it will continue to talk immigration enforcement, and hopefully walk immigration enforcement as well.