Illegal immigration waffling by Democrats

Michael Luo:

THE Republican presidential candidates talk about illegal immigration as if they were in an arms race on toughness. The Democratic candidates have begun to tread more warily on the issue, as their debate last week in Las Vegas showed, but they still favor the language of accommodation over alarm.

Each approach, political strategists and officials warn, could have costs next November. Pollsters on both sides agree there is widespread anxiety, even anger, about the impact of illegal immigration. But an increasingly influential Hispanic electorate could be turned off by a hard line from the party they turned to in increasing numbers in the last two presidential elections.

Much will depend, strategists say, on how the candidates balance their statements.

“A Republican who only talks border control or a Democrat who only talks about benefits and services for illegal immigrants are going to find themselves in a lot of trouble next fall,” said Dan Schnur, a Republican strategist who worked on Senator John McCain’s presidential bid in 2000.

Looking at the Republicans at this point, it is often hard to find much difference among most of the leading contenders. They sound just as tough as the candidate who has been the angriest on immigration, Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, whose shoestring campaign recently began to run a television commercial in Iowa declaring that Islamic terrorists roam free in the United States because of an unsecured border.

The Republicans have railed against “amnesty” and “sanctuary cities.” They have promised to build a fence on the Mexican border to keep “illegals” out.

“The ratcheting up of the language to win the Iowa caucuses may seem like the thing to do, but we’ll pay a price,” said John Weaver, a Republican strategist who worked for Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign.

Mr. Weaver left in the summer as Mr. McCain’s candidacy stalled, in part because of fallout over his vocal support for an immigration bill in the Senate that would have toughened border security but also offered a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already here. “We cannot be a white male cul-de-sac party and survive.”

Grass-roots outrage derailed the bipartisan compromise that Mr. McCain had backed in the Senate. He now says he got the message that the border must be secured first.

Democrats have dwelled less on the issue and are becoming increasingly cautious, especially after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s stumble in a debate two weeks ago as she tried to explain her position on whether illegal immigrants should be able to get a driver’s license, as had been proposed by New York’s governor, Eliot Spitzer.

Mr. Spitzer backed down from his proposal last week in the face of stiff opposition, but at the Democratic debate in Las Vegas on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton’s chief rivals, Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards, both struggled to explain whether they supported the concept. Mr. Obama said yes, with caveats; Mr. Edwards said no, with more caveats.

Their thrashing about on the question reflects the growing concern among Democrats that Republicans might use the issue against them next November, painting them as soft on enforcement and accommodating of lawlessness.

Some polls show that the majority of Americans agree with proposals backed by most Democrats in the Senate, as well as some Republicans, to establish a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally, provided they clear certain hurdles. But the surveys also show that most feel the country needs to do more to secure its borders and oppose awarding driver’s licenses.

...

If a majority of people supported the "path to citizenship" "comprehensive reform" approach, we would have it. Where there is majority support is for the rule of law and that is where the Democrats are in trouble. You don't support the rule of law when you support sanctuary cities are benefits and privileges for those here illegally. That is why the waffling by Obama and Edwards which matches the previous waffling by Clinton makes people believe that they are not serious about enforcing the law. The equivocations are for the purpose of giving them wiggle room to ignore the law.

I think Luo is wrong in suggesting that Republicans may be in trouble for supporting the rule of law. Immigrants who followed the rule of law and are here legally and who can actually vote, support the Republican approach and resent those who try to avoid the legal process.