A Democrat`s Utter Dismay at His Party`s Likely Nominees for President
February 09, 2008, 04:00 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

Super Tuesday is history! What will it prove? Well, it now seems certain that the head of each major party ticket will be a US Senator, neither of whom is in favor of real patriotic immigration reform. With some 50 million legal and illegal aliens and their offspring added to our population since 1965, our government has all the while miserably failed to enforce the law against illegal immigration and allowed runaway legal immigration far beyond any reasonable labor needs.

While the issue of immigration now appears as a top voter concern in all the polls, the majority of American citizens of both parties keep asking the same key questions about immigration that FAIR`s President, Dan Stein asked in a recent interview for a documentary film on immigration ,

"Why do US Senators of both political parties spend more time and energy defending the interests of illegal aliens at the expense of US citizens and legal immigrants? Why do successive US presidents of both parties refuse to uphold and enforce the law, continue to allow massive illegal immigration and repeatedly push for amnesties for increasing millions of foreigners who come to America in defiance of our laws? In light of the known threats posed by international terrorists, why do American politicians continue thwart any effective measures to control our borders and ports, and continue to pander to the interests of millions of illegal aliens and the organizations that seek to represent them? To whom are US Senators and Congress persons responsible and accountable - to the American people or to ethnic lobbies and multinational business interests?"

We all know about McCain and his sponsorship of the infamous and soundly defeated McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. So don`t vote for him if you care about protecting your country from this immigrant invasion. McCain says he will secure our borders and our ports, but most reasonable observers, including this Democrat, would strongly question his willingness to follow through.

And then there`s Obama and Clinton, a dynamic duo, each vying to be more open borders than the other.

One would assume that Obama`s African American heritage might cause him to be less inclined to see the illegal importation of Hispanic slave labor. Not necessarily. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, quoting Federico Peña, a former Clinton administration Cabinet member and Denver mayor now supporting Obama:

 "`Barack Obama has not backed down` on driver`s licenses for undocumented people, said Federico Peña, `I think when the Latino community hears Barack`s position on such an important and controversial issue, they`ll understand that his heart and his intellect is with Latino community.` "

Clinton backed off her support of Spitzer`s plan last fall to give drivers` licenses to illegal aliens in NY State. When asked directly about the issue now, her California campaign spokesman said Clinton "believes the solution is to pass comprehensive immigration reform." [Obama takes big risk on driver`s license issue, By Carolyn Lochhead, January 28, 2008]

Clinton won in California, New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts. But clearly the battle is still on and if the litmus test for winning the nomination gets to be "drivers` licenses for illegal aliens", which is of course where the now-openly totalitarian groups like La Raza and others would like it to be, then I betcha Hillary is their girl.

(I say now-openly totalitarian like La Raza after listening to its President Janet Murguia on Monday, February 4th CNN news program call Lou Dobbs a racist and any other group which favors tighter immigration laws "racists".  She said La Raza would be meeting with media presidents to "hold the networks accountable" and to remove people like Chris Simcox and others from being on any of their news programs. See the show here. )

Obviously, Obama`s intention was to make distinctions between himself and Clinton, who are otherwise indistinguishable positions on immigration. Both have adopted the standard Democratic approach of favoring tougher enforcement along with "earned legalization"—i.e amnesty

Earlier Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and James Carville issued a direct warning on the driver`s license issue in their guide to Democrats on dealing with this potential wedge issue. Turns out two-thirds of those surveyed oppose such licenses and dismiss the safety argument.

But Latinos are hopeful that Obama will stick on this issue and influence Clinton as the campaign goes on. According to the San Francisco Chronicle,

"The Illinois senator is differentiating himself in three key areas: driver`s licenses, a promise to take up immigration reform his first year in office, and his background as the son of an immigrant (his father was Kenyan) and a community organizer in Chicago."

The best wedge issue the Republicans had in this campaign was true immigration reform. But McCain has blown that. This may give the Democratic nominee a free pass on dealing with the issue.

Bush has been giving the Democrats a free pass too. In this campaign, it will be the voters` job to keep their country from being taken over by making lots of noise about the issue.

The absence of a solid immigration voice is deplorable. The oncoming recession (or is it a depression?) may cool the onrush of illegal and legal aliens. But that is no long term solution. We citizens, the true reform majority, will have to fight this out at every level.

As states take action along with cities like Hazleton, it may be that the voters will become single-issue proponents and hit Congress harder and faster than these arrogant elitists now imagine.

When the winner in November faces the challenges of war, deficit, and recession, he or she may be singing a different tune.

Donald A. Collins [email him], is a freelance writer living in Washington DC and a former long time member of the board of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. His views are his own.