Adam Nagourney of the NY Times takes a long look at the Dan Riehl Vote (also known as the Bill Cutting Vote) in Iowa and how anti-immigrant sentiments are shaping the Republican primary. For those who have defended Republican discussions of immigration policy as being circumscribed to illegal immigration, note that most Republicans want to reduce all immigration.
The poll found that 31 percent of Republicans said immigration into the United States should be kept at its current level, 14 percent said it should be increased and a majority, 51 percent, said immigration should be decreased.
This is an unmistakable reality of the Dan Riehl Vote — it’s about closing off our borders to all comers, legal or illegal, but most importantly brown. Whoever can best ensure that America won’t be sullied by any more brown skinned people will win their adoration.
Nagourney observed, “Mr. Brownback stood for 30 minutes at a breakfast with Republicans as question after question — without exception — was directed at an immigration system that Iowans denounced as failing. [Emphasis added]” Until they succeed in getting the Republican Party to embrace the policies of Hunter and Tancredo, anti-immigrant voters, particularly in Iowa, will focus their attention and Republican candidates’ time on their fears of immigrants. The net result is that Republican candidates will be forced to inch their positions on immigration policy closer and closer to the expectations of the Dan Riehl Vote, particularly if they want to perform strongly in the Iowa caucus.
Technorati Tags: 2008 elections, Adam Nagourney, Bill Cutting, Dan Riehl
8 Responses to “The “Dan Riehl Vote” Holds Sway In Iowa”
Gary,
Their solution? Build a fence, fine companies and round up all the undocumented workers.
A physical barrier will not make that much more of a difference when Bush funds only 210 new border agents when legislation called for 10,000 more.
A technological barrier would be much more effective because you could track anybody that comes across.
As for those that are now here, it is ridiculous to believe that the U.S. can go around rounding up illegal immigrants and send them packing. We don’t even know the real number that are here. We hear numbers from 11 million to 20 million.
As for opposition to the McCain-Kennedy legislation that would put those that are here now on a path to citizenship in 11 years, I think there are several factors at play. (Also, there are ways to prevent abuse of the path to citizenship. Republicans like to make it sound like more and more illegal immigrants will keep jumping onto the path, year after year.)
Certainly there is the racial aspect. Do not try to shrug it off. When people like Tom Tancredo say Miami looks like a third world country, it is about race.
I think some Republicans oppose a path to citizenship because they figure of those 11 to 20 million, most of them will vote Democratic than Republican, especially after the GOP jihad against them all these years.
A fence like the Berlin Wall In Reverse, to keep out poor illiterates who will end up on welfare and in state institutions IS THE ONLY ANSWER. This sentence “A technological barrier would be much more effective because you could track anybody that comes across.” is an example of delusional and dishonest BS.
Mexico is a kleptocracy run by a couple of hundred families. It keeps out Guatemalans trying to slip into its third-world failed-state and beats them up/rapes them before tossing them back over the border.
GWB is a man-servant for big corporate interests, McCain has several blindspots in his mental universe, and the Democrats want to turn the US into just another nanny-state run by political elites.
A series of Maginot Line/Siegfried Line embankments and fences are the only way to keep the US free from these lowlife.
A technological barrier would not be more effective in tracking people coming across than a simple wall with some barbed wire on it?
don’t forget a moat as well
“don’t forget a moat as well”
… a flaming moat with flame-retardant alligators.
[...] Marc Santora and Sam Roberts of the New York Times have an article out today documenting Rudy Giuliani’s ways of talking about immigration and how, to borrow their words, his tone has shifted now that he’s in the presidential race. As mayor of New York Giuliani held what would be considered fairly liberal positions on immigration — New York has a very large immigrant community, both legal and illegal. Giuliani used to work to protect rights and services available to illegal immigrants; now he’s falling in line with the rest of the Republican field and kow-towing to the Dan Riehl wing of the Republican Party. [...]
Something to say?
What Adam Nagourney and others don’t understand is WHY Iowa Republicans are so upset about illegal immigration. The flow of illegal immigrants to communities to work in the packing plants is having a major impact on small towns. Local workers who used to get 8-15 dollars an hour are being replaced by illegals openly recruited in Mexico by companies. They require the local government to spend up to a quarter of their local budgets to support them. And the state of Iowa, according to a recent report by the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, is losing $100 million or more in the costs incurred by these immigrants.
It’s not about racism…IT’S ABOUT MONEY. Conservatives want to spend less of it…and spend it on US citizens…not those brought in at substandard wages and dumped on the communities to support. The sooner we quit talking about the “r” word and start talking about the cost to communities…and the nefariousness of companies who bring them in as disposable workers…the quicker we’ll reach consensus on the issue.
Left by Gary Barrett
March 20, 2007 at 9:43am