Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
Here's a fascinating point about how Republicans talk about immigration from a Newsweek interview with New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, who's been mentioned on one occasion or another as a potential Vice Presidential nominee:
As we sit down at a local Starbucks, I ask about immigration. It’s a topic she has been reluctant to discuss since winning the Republican primary in 2010, so what comes next is surprising: a battle plan that contradicts nearly everything the GOP has been doing and saying since 2007, Romney’s “self-deportation” strategy included. “‘Self-deport?’ What the heck does that mean?” Martinez snaps. “I have no doubt Hispanics have been alienated during this campaign. But now there’s an opportunity for Gov. Romney to have a sincere conversation about what we can do and why.”
Naturally, Martinez has some suggestions. First, Republicans should remind Latinos that Obama pledged to pass comprehensive immigration reform by the end of his initial year in office, but “didn’t even have the courage to try.” Next, the GOP should outflank the president--on the left--by proposing its own comprehensive plan. “I absolutely advocate for comprehensive immigration reform,” Martinez says, , sipping a caramel macchiato. “Republicans want to be tough and say, ‘Illegals, you’re gone.’ But the answer is a lot more complex than that.” Martinez envisions an approach “with multiple levels”: increased border security; deportation for criminals; a guest-worker program for people who want “to go freely back and forth across the border to work”; a DREAM Act-style pathway to citizenship, through the military or college, for children brought here illegally by their parents; and a visa (coupled with a “penalty” or a “tagback”) that allows rest of the illegal population to remain in the U.S. while they follow standard naturalization procedures.
Martinez’s point is not that Republicans should peddle so-called “amnesty.” In New Mexico, she’s taken a lot of heat from Latinos for repeatedly pushing to repeal a state law that allows illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses; she also opposes a standalone DREAM Act, arguing that politicians can’t “fix [immigration] by saying, ‘Here’s the DREAM Act and we’re done. It has to be part of a larger plan.” She simply believes that a more pragmatic approach will help Republicans in the long run, particularly if it’s paired with the sort of issues-based appeal that inspired her to switch parties and a more aggressive campaign to recruit Hispanic candidates for local office. Maybe then the GOP can finally do what she did in her first statewide contest: approach the magic 40-percent mark among Latino voters. That alone would be enough to swing a presidential election.
“We’ve got to stop with the rhetoric,” Martinez says on her way out of Starbucks. “I’m so tired of the rhetoric. ‘Lower taxes,’ you know. ‘More opportunity.’ Da da da. It’s this five-liner of nothingness. There have to be some distinctions for people to latch onto.”
This last point is particularly key, and I wonder if it's been lost on too many of those on the right. Hispanics are often painted as communities of outreach met with a broad brush of aspiration and pablum. But in reality, the overlaps on specific policy issues should allow for much more targeted appeals. Martinez's dismissal of the "five liner of nothingness" is refreshing to hear from a Republican, and others would be wise to heed it.
- Comment (56)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
If you first eliminate free public school education for young illegals and non-citizens, plus abolish birthright citizenship in favor of "jus sanguinis" (citizenship based on parents), and employ a saudi-style guest worker program to benefit the U.S. agriculture sector (or jobs americans don't want to do)--the Dream Act would be a much easier sell to a skeptical public.
Shorter answer: you nationalize California's Prop 187
Edited on May 16, 2012 at 8:00amOct '10
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
the old thinking: we need to "secure the borders" first before we legalize
the new thinking should be: we need to find a way to discourage migrant workers from bringing their children and non-working dependents illegally to the U.S.
Aug '10
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
Starve the Beast:
And we're listening to her opinions because... why, exactly? · 6 hours ago
Edited 6 hours ago
Because she was "sipping a caramel macchiato"? I dunno, don't do Newsweek-speak, but it must be an important signifier somehow.
May '10
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
She is 100% correct. If you look at my comments here, over and over again, I repeat that Tone Matters. If you want someone to listen to you, you don't start by calling them a bunch of lazy scum and screaming "AMNESTY" in capital letters every time the subject of immigration arises. It is amazing what kind of progress you can make if you use smart strategy, get the order right, explain the reasons effectively, and express yourself in a non-confrontational manner.
Martinez's approach is almost 100% like GW Bush's approach, and what Jon Kyl was trying to effect when he was point man on the subject. And everybody on our side reacted like Mark Krikorian, whose name almost doesn't belong in polite company. Secure the border, require English education. Then assimilate the good people without rancor.
As long as we adopt the latter's exclusionary-no-matter-what approach, we will suffer for it. I can't wait to see what kind of shrieks will arise here when Marco Rubio proposes his modified "DREAM" bill. He will turn overnight from the great hope into a pariah. But his principle will be right on.
Oct '10
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
Our porous border is a national security issue. I'm all for militarized borders - without them, what's to stop any international terror organization from funneling a small army into the country?
'Comprehensive' immigration reform should consist of multiple phases, each of which can't be implemented until the previous phase is complete. Once the borders are secure, we can talk about a DREAM act, but there are already too many people in college, driving up tuition, racking up debt, becoming unemployable experts on leftist race and gender polemics.
After the DREAM act, the rest of the illegal population can be addressed. The 'pathway' should be to legal residency, not citizenship; I suppose there could be an adult DREAM act, if the adults are willing to serve in the military. No 'pathway' people should ever be able to sponsor any other immigrants seeking entry.
After all of this is done, there also has to be a better way to keep track of immigrants who overstay visas; we don't need drones and wiretapping, just some soft of federal/ interstate database sharing so that local law enforcement has the list.
May '12
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
Some good comments here.
In almost every case of a republican who is latino/hispanic the policy boils down to 'yeah sure, secure the borders, but come on, there are so many illegal immigrants here we are gonna just have to go ahead and give them all a path to citizenship, etc.'
Apr '11
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
I remember when Mitt put forward details. The response was a throwing up of hands and loud objections to his giving us a long document. It being detailed led to people saying that he was being managerial, and not seeing the big picture. People's refusal to read the Jobs document for being too long and detailed, followed by the claim that they'd like Mitt more if he would issue some long and detailed plans for the economy remains one of the most problematic paradoxes of the election.
Mitch Daniels was right that when Mitt's hosting fundraisers, he talks about the things that the donors are interested in. He's wrong to think that that's dumb.
Apr '11
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
Duane Oyen:
Martinez's approach is almost 100% like GW Bush's approach, and what Jon Kyl was trying to effect when he was point man on the subject. And everybody on our side reacted like Mark Krikorian, whose name almost doesn't belong in polite company. Secure the border, require English education. Then assimilate the good people without rancor.
She's way to Bush's right on this. Notice what she's actually done; campaigned on a restrictionist platform for governor in the most Latino state in the country, implemented anti-immigration policies, and introduced, for the first time, fiscal sanity in a state where even the Republicans (Gary Johnson) were from the fiscally liberal, socially liberal spendthrift wing of the party.
New Mexico is, according to a couple of conservative think tanks, the worst state in the union for crony capitalism, with an enormous gulf between what the connected pay in taxes and what the ordinary businessman pays (think Johnson's private sector Space boosterism, then apply state-wide), and she's taking this on in a serious way.
She's socially conservative, both on life and on marriage, and was a tough prosecutor as DA.
Apr '11
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
John Marzan
Severely Ltd.:
What she sees as empty rhetoric are ends we ought to be working towards. If by "distinctions" she means specifics, I'm all for it. Ryan's economic plan is a start. But "nothingness"? Who suggested this woman for VP? · 3 hours ago
sometimes, conservative operatives only see the last name and get excited, instead of getting to know the person fully. · 10 hours ago
Edited 10 hours ago
She can't be VP; her reason for refusing (that she couldn't abandon her developmentally disabled sister) is not one that she can take back. She's also pretty new. You'd be surprised at how many of her supporters, though, including me, were pretty luke-warm about Rubio, even before the Mormon issue arose. It's true that I fell for her over budget cuts, before I knew the whole person. When I discovered more, though, I liked most of what I found.
Apr '11
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
Severely Ltd.: “We’ve got to stop with the rhetoric,” Martinez says on her way out of Starbucks. “I’m so tired of the rhetoric. ‘Lower taxes,’ you know. ‘More opportunity.’ Da da da. It’s this five-liner of nothingness. There have to be some distinctions for people to latch onto.”
What she sees as empty rhetoric are ends we ought to be working towards. If by "distinctions" she means specifics, I'm all for it. Ryan's economic plan is a start. But "nothingness"? Who suggested this woman for VP? · 13 hours ago
Her criticism of the five-liner of nothingness isn't new, and it's not criticizing Ryan. She lives in a state where fiscal conservatism was promised by a Republican, and not delivered. Also, a country where this happened (with the exception of Bush 41 and the first half of Bush 43's second term, we've not seen a Republican President reduce the size of government since Hoover took over. )
There's a reason that Obama was able to promise cuts and not get punished; "everyone does it". Well, Martinez doesn't. She delivers fiscal conservatism. Substance, not meaningless talk.
Apr '11
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
Fredösphere: I would be very sympathetic to the Gov's point of view . . . if there weren't a little thing called "context." The fact is that the Left has it's own very highly developed list of shibboleths, and anyone talking about immigration who doesn't mention that fact, and its role in creating deadlock, is a political hack.
There is no other issue, except maybe debt reduction, where the GOP has been so routinely sucker-punched by the bad faith of the other side. Based just on the quotes you show here, the Gov sounds like one of those pathetic inside-the-bubble Republicans for whom the true passion is reserved for denouncing their friends on the right. If that impression is unfair, I'd be delighted to be corrected. Until that happens, I invite everyone here on Ricochet to join me as I spew her out of my mouth. ·
She ran on a restrictionist platform in New Mexico. And won. And implemented restrictionism. As a Latina. You simply can't do that if you're interested in avoiding the hate of La Raza. She won't be VP, but she deserves our wholehearted support, not our vomit.
Jan '11
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
James Of England
...and introduced, for the first time, fiscal sanity in a state where even the Republicans (Gary Johnson) were from the fiscally liberal, socially liberal spendthrift wing of the party.
Wait! Gary Johnson is fiscally liberal. Are you using the classical definition of the word " liberal" here?
Oct '10
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
The argument that might sway some who are opposed to any form of amnesty, under any circumstances, is that our immigration policy has tacitly (sometimes openly) encouraged illegal immigration, and that suddenly, and strictly, enforcing immigration policy is a drastic change in policy. As a parent, I have experience with the consequences of empty threats, or unenforced rules.
So, then, the only answer is that the first thing that must be done is to tightly close what has been a de facto open border.
May '10
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
James Of England
She ran on a restrictionist platform in New Mexico. And won. And implemented restrictionism. As a Latina. You simply can't do that if you're interested in avoiding the hate of La Raza. She won't be VP, but she deserves our wholehearted support, not our vomit. · 1 hour ago
In that case, the blame lies with how her quotes were selected to create a wrong impression--something I anticipated when I wrote "Based just on the quotes you show here [. . .]". Stirring up division within the Right is a favorite MSM mischief-making pastime.
Oct '10
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
Tone? What about the other side? Here's their latest gimmick.
Edited on May 16, 2012 at 5:58pmJun '11
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
lowcountryjoe,
I'm pretty sure "enforcing the law" is a valid use for government, and trying to conflate enforcement of existing law with a call for "more government" doesn't help the discussion.
Also, aside from calling the reasons to control immigration "bogeymen", I don't see any support for your rejection of these arguments.
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
Steve Harris: lowcountryjoe,
I'm pretty sure "enforcing the law" is a valid use for government, and trying to conflate enforcement of existing law with a call for "more government" doesn't help the discussion.
ObamaCare is the law. Ergo, enforcing ObamaCare, by your definition, is a valid use for government.
What about those of us who'd like to repeal or otherwise abolish ObamaCare?
I think lowcountryjoe's point is a valid one.
Jan '11
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
Steve Harris: lowcountryjoe,
I'm pretty sure "enforcing the law" is a valid use for government, and trying to conflate enforcement of existing law with a call for "more government" doesn't help the discussion.
And when those laws do not make much sense? I ask because there are various laws in nearly every juristiction that are just plain stupid or downright obscure (and usually simulataneously stupid). Asking for their enforcement is, indirectly, advocating for bigger government.
List your objections to easing up restrictions on lawful immigration (or granting permission for foreigners to work here as a guests), and I'll support my position. Go ahead and make the list and I'll provide my supported rationale for my views. Deal?
Jan '11
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Steve Harris: lowcountryjoe,
I'm pretty sure "enforcing the law" is a valid use for government, and trying to conflate enforcement of existing law with a call for "more government" doesn't help the discussion.
ObamaCare is the law. Ergo, enforcing ObamaCare, by your definition, is a valid use for government.
What about those of us who'd like to repeal or otherwise abolish ObamaCare?
I think lowcountryjoe's point is a valid one. · 2 minutes ago
Whoa! Getting some backing on this was nice. Thanks!
Apr '11
Re: Susana Martinez on Republicans and Immigration
LowcountryJoe
James Of England
...and introduced, for the first time, fiscal sanity in a state where even the Republicans (Gary Johnson) were from the fiscally liberal, socially liberal spendthrift wing of the party.
Wait! Gary Johnson is fiscally liberal. Are you using the classical definition of the word " liberal" here? · 2 hours ago
I'm using the "dramatically increasing the size of government" definition of the term fiscally liberal, although it is true that he had many plans that would have made totally radical changes, dude, and sponsored libertarian think tanks to come up with even more. His predecessor and successor were also terrible, without even the grace to spend time designing libertarian utopias.
Thankfully, Martinez is one of America's more capable governors; I think it's undeniable that she's in the top ten, although where you place her within it is up for debate.