Newsweek (Opinion)
By Bill Whalen
May 8, 2015
Houston
once played a special role in American presidential history. It was
there, in October 1960, that then-candidate John F. Kennedy addressed a
group of Protestant
ministers on the separation of church and state—a necessity, JFK’s camp
believed, in order to lay to rest anti-Catholic concerns.
Houston
was back in the news last month, again for something that overshadows
the election. The drama this time: Jeb Bush appeared before a gathering
of Hispanic evangelicals
and laid out his stance on immigration reform.
What the meeting demonstrated: Bush’s strength and vulnerability on the topic.
His
strength: not only his ability to speak fluent Spanish but to deliver a
message that other Republicans dare not to. As The Washington Post
reported, Bush told the
National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, “We have the ability
because of immigration to be an emerging country again, to be full of
optimism, to believe that our future is brighter than our present. But
we have to fix a broken immigration system
and do it in short order.”
Bush
told the audience that reform would mean increasing border security and
expanding the possibilities for legal immigration. “But it also means
dealing with the 11
million undocumented workers that are here in this country, 11 million
people that should come out from the shadows and receive earned legal
status.
“This
country does not do well when people lurk in the shadows,” he
continued. “This country does spectacularly well when everybody can
pursue their God-given abilities.”
Now
Bush’s weakness: taking his desire to connect with Spanish-speaking
audiences a step too far (as far as conservative-leaning, early-primary
electorates would be concerned).
For example, equating illegal immigration with “an act of love.”
Compassionate, yes. But also fingernails on the blackboard for his
party’s conservative base.
Before
coming to Houston, Bush paid a visit to Puerto Rico and the Universidad
de Metropolitana Cupey, where he had this to say about the island’s
future: “Puerto Rican
citizens, U.S. citizens, ought to have the right to determine whether
they want to be a state. I think statehood is the best path, personally.
I have believed that for a long, long while. I’m not new to this.”
Credit
Bush with putting himself, quite literally, out on an island. Back in
2012, Mitt Romney also supported statehood—albeit, in a more nuanced
fashion. The rest of
the field in the election generally avoided statehood talk.
So
let’s see where two other leading Republicans—Scott Walker and Marco
Rubio—end up on Puerto Rico, which offers candidates both abundant
sunshine and 20 delegates to
the 2016 national convention.
And, for that matter, where the Republican Lead Three (for now, anyway) stand on illegal immigration:
1. Bush
Back
in February, at the Club for Growth’s candidate procession, Bush was
asked if he was going to tailor his immigration stance. His response:
“If I go beyond the consideration
of running, I’m not backing down from something that is a core belief.
Are we supposed to just cower because at the moment people are all upset
about something? No way, no how.”
Bush
said he would endeavor to decrease family-based chain migration in
favor of more economic immigration. As for those already in the U.S.:
“My belief is we need to
give people a path to legal status. You pay your fines, you get
provisional work permits, where you come out of the shadows; you pay
taxes; you pay fines; you don’t receive government assistance; you learn
English; you don’t commit crimes. Any of those things
that you do would be a deportable offense.”
2. Rubio
Three
years ago, at this time, Rubio was pushing his compromise version of
the Dream Act—and fighting an uphill (and, ultimately, losing) battle.
(“I found it of interest,”
House Speaker John Boehner told reporters. “But the problem with this
issue is that we are operating in a very hostile political
environment.”) Translation: no way, no how.
Today,
as a candidate, Rubio’s altered his message. This past weekend, in
Iowa, he told The Des Moines Register that border security comes before
legalization. The paper
wrote: “Rubio acknowledged that public appetite for immigration reform
is lower than it was even two years ago.... He and other senators
“underestimated” the lack of trust Americans have in the federal
government to secure the border. Gaining back trust will
require boosting security along the U.S.-Mexico border, instituting a
workable electronic employment verification system in which employers
check prospective workers’ immigration status, and developing a better
tracking system for people who enter the country
legally to ensure they don’t overstay their visas.”
3. Walker
A
political adage says, “Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by
the barrel.” Wisconsin’s governor is in a dustup with The Wall Street
Journal over an editorial
claiming that he doesn’t understand much about immigration economics.
(Walker had said he’d curb legal immigration to protect American
workers.)
A
month earlier, the same paper reported that Walker told a private
dinner of New Hampshire Republicans that he backed the idea of allowing
undocumented immigrants to
stay in the U.S. and eventually become eligible for citizenship—though,
publicly, Walker has stated he’s “not for amnesty.”
All
of which prompted Walker’s campaign to push back hard on what a former
aide categorized as a “full, Olympics-quality flip-flop.” The odds of an
anti-Walker super PAC
broadcasting those words across Iowa and New Hampshire’s airwaves?
So
there you have it. Bush is digging and wagering that a general-election
message can survive sticks and stones—and February and March primaries.
Rubio is playing up
secure borders. Walker is talking both legal and illegal immigration.
Does anyone here have an advantage? Or a decided disadvantage?
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment