Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Immigration Is Not a Deal Breaker for Rubio
Sen. Marco Rubio’s involvement in the Gang of Eight attempt to pass comprehensive immigration reform has been one of his campaign’s biggest stumbling blocks. This, and and his refusal to disavow some form of “amnesty,” has left him vulnerable and at odds with the base. The only way for Rubio to win the nomination — so the theory goes — is to take a hardline on immigration.
This conventional wisdom sounds very logical and compelling. There’s only one problem with it: It’s completely wrong.
Exit polls from the first three nomination contests have revealed two interesting facts: Immigration is a top priority for only a small percentage of voters, and that 2) A majority of GOP voters so far actually support legal status for illegals working in the United States. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are all very different states in very different parts of the country, but immigration has consistently been the top priority of between only 13-15% of Republicans there in election night entrance/exit polls. What’s more, in New Hampshire, 56% of GOP voters said they support legal status for current illegals (go to the second page of results). And while one might chalk that up to the squishy nature of the average Granite State primary voter, the same question yielded almost the same result (53% favoring legal status) among staunchly-conservative South Carolinian GOP primary voters. CNN didn’t ask the same question to Iowa caucusers, but I doubt those voters are any more hawkish on “amnesty” than voters in the other two states.
Moreover, the same exit polls show that about a quarter of those who support “amnesty” for current illegals (22% in South Carolina; 24% in New Hampshire) actually support Trump. This indicates that immigration can’t account for Trump’s dominance in the race so far. His appeal is based on much more than the issue of immigration and, in fact, he is getting many votes despite his stance on immigration.
I’m going to submit that people shouting “Rubio supports amnesty!” and braying about the Gang of Eight are going to be sorely disappointed at their effectiveness in derailing a Rubio candidacy. They are probably also going to have to rethink what sort of compromise they are going to have to accept on immigration reform and legal status for immigrants. They are in a minority in their own party and are most certainly an even smaller minority among the general voting public.
Our immigration system needs a reformation and it needs to start with controlling our borders, tracking visas, and requiring verified legal status for employment. But anyone who thinks there is a silent majority looking to deport over ten million people is living in a bubble.
Published in Immigration, Politics
No. polls show about 60% of GOP voters supporting non-establishment candidates. With Jeb out of the race, Rubio is now the Great Establishment Hope. Voters know this, and they don’t like him for it.
I doubt that many people know exactly how terrible that bill was, because Rubio went to great extremes to misrepresent it. I don’t know how many people know how much his Super PACs are raking in from open borders guys like Larry Ellison and Peter Singer.
Please do if you can- I would be interested. I will say that Byron York made many of the same arguments in his piece in the Examiner, and I trust his reporting.
I’ll try to get around to it today.
I think I remember reading that Byron York piece. I’ll try to look it up too. I would be inclined to take him much more seriously, too. But some of this stuff ought to be verifiable.
The thing that we still don’t know is the poll bases- all adults? Registered voters? Likely voters? Likely primary participants?
The clear story emerging from the comments on this thread is that most don’t like immigration or immigrants, and are convincing themselves that we would be able to deport 11 million Mexicans- if only we had a tough enough president who had the will to follow through. The other “reasons” for disliking non-Trump come off as labored rationale.
This is fiction- just look at the legal history of the wall (where “conservative” voters who are also border property owners pulled out all the stops to keep the fence off their properties, and GW Bush used a national security exception to overcome the court challenges, plus the legal maneuvers and case law that prevent deportation), and where most illegal immigrants come from (visa overstays).
But, after 4 years of Hillary rivaling Obama’s 2009-2013, we assume that the Right will grow up and try to get back close to where we are today.
This: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ID=c987c046-1f08-48be-aaba-807881f38b96 Spells out the provisions of the bill and the proposed amendments that were rejected. It gets worse every time I read about it. ( I don’t know enough about Mike Lee to know exactly how reliable he is.)
When we grow up and try to get back to where we are today, what will that look like?
Is it ignoring the existing laws so as to avoid being called a racist or is working with the Democrats to craft comprehensive legislation(but trying to back out if it is harmful to Presidential aspirations)?
Actually, ignoring current laws regarding visa overstays is a bipartisan endeavor that has also been hamstrung by court decisions in the manner of Plyler v. Doe (and the budget cutters have fed this).
The current Simpson-Mazzoli bill has a couple of fatal flaws related to family unification priority that overwhelm every other aspect of this. Whether you like it or not, you have amnesty right now, one way or the other. The question has always been how to avoid doing this all over again.
Thanks. Everything I know about Mike Lee is good. I’ve become rather more suspicious over this past year, I have to say.
Who is saying this?
So, you’re good with the status quo, I guess. No need to make any major changes? Everything’s good — on the whole?