Immigration at Issue in NY-23, Virginia, New Jersey Elections
New America Media, Blog Report, Marcelo Ballvé , Posted: Nov 03, 2009
Today's elections, many of them in eastern seaboard states, are the first big political test for the Obama administration. While most pundits focus on whether or not Republican candidates will surge on a voter backlash against Obama policies, there's another trend to watch: the surprising prominence of immigration politics.
Immigration has even surfaced as an issue in NY-23. The once-obscure upstate New York congressional district-- where maverick conservative Doug Hoffman displaced the official Republican nominee-- is now a cable news and blog sensation. As his upstart candidacy surged, Hoffman found himself holding forth on immigration policy on Fox News.
On Oct. 21, Hoffman appeared on the Glenn Beck Program and was asked at length about his issues on immigration (the full transcript of the interview is available here). Asked what he thought about an "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants, Hoffman replied:
I do not believe on giving amnesty. I do believe, again, in giving better easier regulations and red tape to make workers that want to come into this country, giving them green cards easier so that we know they're in here legally ...
Drilled by Beck, Hoffman traced out his immigration stance in full detail. No legalization for undocumented immigrants, but crackdowns on employers who hire them and less red tape for immigrants, especially skilled ones, who want to enter the country legally.
Hoffman's is a fairly predictable conservative stance on immigration, but what's more interesting is that he was quizzed at such length on the issue. As a candidate for an upstate rural district that borders Canada, Lake Erie, and Vermont, Hoffman is likely to spend more time on issues like small farms and forestry management in the Adirondacks. But immigration has become a litmus test issue for the conservative movement, which wants its candidates in lockstep on the "no to immigration amnesty" plank of its platform.
(Meanwhile, House Democrats are pushing Obama to act on comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to legal status for the nation's 12 million undocumented immigrants.)
The other two of today's most-watched races are gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia. Immigration policy is made at the federal level, so until recently, governors had little incentive to get involved in the immigration issue-- especially during campaigns, when they had more to lose than to gain by weighing in on an issue they couldn't control.
But as attempts by Congress to reform immigration failed in recent years, the federal government began delegating immigration enforcement powers to states and localities. One program, known as 287g, allows law enforcement agencies to contract with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, to carry out duties once left to federal agents. State capitols also began to take immigration matters into their own hands, weaving their own webs of tough immigration-linked laws.
This trend suddenly made immigration a politically exploitable issue at the state level.
Virginia's gubernatorial race has become, among other things, a referendum on 287g. The Republican candidate Bob McDonnell wants to extend 287g across the entire state and ask state troopers to enforce immigration law, something Democrat Creigh Deeds opposes.
Several law enforcement departments in Virginia counties already have 287g contracts with ICE. Supporters of the program argue that it has helped reduce crime by hastening the deportation of undocumented immigrants involved in illegal activity, but immigrant rights activists say 287g has led to a culture of racial profiling that has terrorized Latino communities.
In New Jersey, immigration has been less prominent an issue, but it hasn't been ignored. The 287g program has been hotly debated statewide, and it came up during a gubernatorial debate last month.
Incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, has also sought in-state tuition for New Jersey's undocumented immigrant students. His opponent, Chris Christie, opposes that plan.
Page
1 of 1
|
User Comments
Brittanicus on Nov 05, 2009 at 16:30:50 said:
Has anybody thought deeply about the consequences of another illegal immigrant amnesty? Let's forget for the moment that suddenly 20 to 30 million people are going to be legalized? That Sanctuary states like California, New Mexico have been financially ridden hard into the ground, because illegal workers and their families are feeding at a gold mine at the taxpayer expense. Let’s not mention that since the 1986 Simpson/Mazzoli bill, those made legal, was able to bring into the United States their extended family members. That although they signed an affidavit to support those, many ended up at the taxpayer’s expense. So let's ignore the expenditures to educate, free health care treatment and all the rest of hidden costs of subsidizing a large portion of the US population. The fact that the businesses that draw them here, from every corner of the world--PAYS NOTHING TOWARDS THEIR UPKEEP. IT'S FREE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES FOR PARIAH BUSINESS, BETTER KNOWN AS CORPORATE WELFARE? Every one of the Democratic leadership have used their influence to weaken E-Verify, county police fed program 287 (g) and ICE raids on businesses.
So president Obama bypasses the masses the hard pressed American, who have entreated him--NO BLANKET AMNESTY! No path to citizenship! So the millions already here get a free ride to your pensions, social security, public option health care welfare. NOW HERE COMES THE FIRESTORM! Have we taken leave of our senses, to think for one moment that another amnesty which is in the works? That a single layer fence is going to hold back millions upon millions more people will--COME? This will not be small meandering lines of illegal aliens, crossing the border during the hours of darkness? This is going to be an unimaginably rush at 9.000 border patrol agents, that is--Expected?--to hold at bay those who reach our border? Not even the National Guard and regular GI's could stop the wave upon wave? They will sweep in from El-Salvador, Columbia, Guatemala, Peru, Chile and of course Mexico. They will arrive from Canada, Ireland, Poland and Romania by plane clutching a tourist visa.
Every corner of the world will hear the resounding trumpet call of Osama’s AMNESTY. Chinese immigrants with tourist visas will fly into Mexico City and perhaps terrorists smuggled in by M 13 gang members? Not just the poor, but the sick, mentally handicapped along with criminals, absconding from the arm of the law across this planet. NOW THE MOST URGENT QUESTION IS? WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THIS? We are already swallowing the massive funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot even find jobs for hapless 15 million American workers, who (if true) are joining day-laborers at Home Depot, Walmart, and Lowe's parking lots? So who is going to house, feed and pay-out--more strained US taxpayer money? Perhaps we should send families of illegal aliens to squat in Sen. Harry Reid's gated home in Nevada. Send another crowd to live in House Speakers grape plantations in Central California. How about Chuck Schumer, HS Chief Janet Napolitano, Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein, Gil Cedillo leaving their house key under the mat, for some large family from Indonesia, India to find?
Brittanicus on Nov 05, 2009 at 16:29:02 said:
Let's give them free bus fare to each and every politician with a lousy immigration grading, such as Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) or the whole Sacramento Liberal Marxist assembly, who have sold bona-fide legal Angelino’s into state insolvency? Why not have them live-in at every ACLU office and their communist lawyers so they could feed them. Every pro-illegal immigrant Chamber of Commerce member could open a spare room and settle some family members, until more brothers and sisters could be sponsored and join them. The Catholic Church and other religious groups could welcome them at the church doors and distribute money from the plate? The minority of Evangelicals churches could open up the rectory, accommodating hundreds of cots from the tired and poverty stricken. All the anti-sovereignty lawmakers should have plenty of room in their Virginia mansions, their custom ranches for large numbers of impoverished families. Even the President has that large White structure--could exhibit some kindness to homeless families and FEMA could establish a tent city in the grounds? Any of the House and Senate who compromised illegal immigration enforcement, should announce their address for resettlement of people who just run the gauntlet at the under funded border fence.
Let's face it these people who call us names such as xenophobes bigots and worse, adding ugly cuss words to their vocabulary should also open their doors to anybody who enters America illegally. Microsoft multi-billionaire Bill Gates and the thousands of businesses that don't incur a darn cent should bring these family members together in their giant homes. Corporate owners who have colluded with State governors, Mayors, Judges and other lower echelon officials, should participate with a welcome mat. Perhaps American workers should obtain a hard copy list of every unpatriotic American and give illegal matriarch a page of addresses for their extended illegal families? We have San Francisco’s mayor Galvin Newsom and Los Angeles Antonio R.Villaraigosa and all the other--SANCTUARY CITIES AND STATES who have completely ignore federal laws, can also give refuge in their abodes to incorrigible
gang members who have killed without conscience, illiterate drunk laborers who have slaughtered families on our streets, because they could comprehend English warning signs.
Then just picture the traffic chaos in every corner of America, unless you live in an isolated ranch in the Mohave Desert, in California. We think we have road rage now, but give it a few weeks after unfettered AMNESTY. I even have a better idea. Open America’s doors completely? No Ellis Island, Galveston Island. No documents, no inspections. NO NOTHING. Give everybody a bus ticket of their choosing, to where they wish to go? See how long the open border zealots put up with that progressive rush to overpopulation. IF you have changes of heart give a tongue-lashing to your legislators at 202-224-3121 in Washington. Learn the financial services in billions of dollars to foreign nationals at NUMBERSUSA,. Hidden corruption that has finally been uncovered, at JUDICIAL WATCH? What the US Census has to say about the POPULATION GROWTH in the future of our children at CAPSWEB? Our population will escalate from 255 million to 383 million by the year to 2050? The next 100 million will suffocate our ability to maintain water, energy, food, communication, infrastructure and a balanced environment.
Carrie Watts on Nov 05, 2009 at 03:51:22 said:
"White House Claims \\\'Stimulus\\\' Saved/Created 650,000 Jobs (but it imported 1,125,000 foreign workers at same time)\\\"
By Roy Beck, Friday, October 30, 2009
www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/october-30-2009/white-house-claims-stimulus-savedcreated-650000-jobs-it-imported-1125
Join this group and fight for \\\"Americans\\\" to keep \\\"our\\\" jobs, no amnesty for illegal aliens, no visas while our unemployment rate is extremely high!
Nezua on Nov 04, 2009 at 10:47:21 said:
RexJ123:
"merely wanting to come into the US and work is not reason enough to give someone a visa or a Green Card. Let's verify there is a NEED to have this person come into the US"
Why do you think US corporations advertise for workers in Spanish Radio in Mexico, and have recruited labor from MX since the railroads were laid under Porfirio's time in office? That's called "a need."
Deb:
" We have enough illegals in this country and should be working to get rid of them, not let more in or grant citizenship to people who will not respect our laws."
We do. Blackwater mercenaries are Illegals. So was the entire Bush administration. The US Marines who invaded Iraq are Illegals. The banksters are Illegals. When you speed or smoke a joint or jaywalk or hide something from the IRS, you are an Illegal. We have many Illegals in this land. The intense focus on stopping immigration from Mexico is more about racism and fear of culture changing than it is concern for Law. NAFTA has been violated by the US, which makes our government today stocked rife and full with Ilegals. And it is one of those violations of law (the provision in NAFTA that would have prevented the US from gutting the corn industry in MX by subsidizing our own supply etc) that the incoming labor force from MX responds to.
Mary J:
"Let's not forget that New Jersey is the state where several illegal alien gangbangers stabbed four young black Americans at a school playground, killing three of them, and seriously maiming the last one, only a couple of years ago. "
Okay, let's not forget that. And let's see how many descriptors we can glom together to paint a picture of Mexican evil. "Illegal alien invader criminal killer gangbanger leprosy mongering law ignoring scuzzy loser ugleh peeplez"
Oh! I did even better than you and Lou.
Anecdotal instances of crime of brown on black (attempts to divide and conquer, that is) do not equal a valid argument to keep a policy in place that further divides and conquers the Latino community. In fact, I'd say your tactic does on a verbal and virtual level what the police too often end up doing on a street level. So your comment and use of fear tactics is pretty predictable. And forgettable.
Alex on Nov 04, 2009 at 00:24:21 said:
In my view illegal immigrants already in the country should be given Green Cards but new ones should not be admitted except through the DV American Lottery.
MaryJ on Nov 03, 2009 at 18:56:51 said:
Let's not forget that New Jersey is the state where several illegal alien gangbangers stabbed four young black Americans at a school playground, killing three of them, and seriously maiming the last one, only a couple of years ago.
That is why New Jersey adopted 287(g)-- although of course, this article doesn't mention it.
Deb on Nov 03, 2009 at 13:04:49 said:
I agree with Rex, there has to be a need and necessary skills to allow someone in this country for a job. Those here on a visa who are unemployed should be sent home, so the American taxpayer will not be responsible for any type of welfare for them or their anchor babies. There should be a moratorium on any new immigrants unless they are highly skilled and in demand. But companies should be made for look for qualified Americans before any immigrant is hired. 287(g) should be mandated nation-wide, with checks being made on anyone who is arrested for any charge. Those found to be illegal should be deported immediately. Immigration is going to be the next hot topic and trouble for Oshama. I think Americans are going to get very angry when he pushes for another amnesty. We have tried amnesty several times before and have failed miserably in enforcing the laws. We have enough illegals in this country and should be working to get rid of them, not let more in or grant citizenship to people who will not respect our laws.
RexJ123 on Nov 03, 2009 at 11:34:03 said:
"I do not believe on giving amnesty. I do believe, again, in giving better easier regulations and red tape to make workers that want to come into this country, giving them green cards easier so that we know they're in here legally ..."
First, this is awful English. Did he really say it like this?
Second, merely wanting to come into the US and work is not reason enough to give someone a visa or a Green Card. Let's verify there is a NEED to have this person come into the US, and then we can worry about getting him or her a visa or Green Card. Maybe there are already people here in the USA in that particular region that can do the job. If the employer is merely looking to keep costs down by hiring a foreigner to come in and do the job for substandard wages, too bad.
Post Your Comments
Disclaimer: Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of New America Media. NAM reserves the right to edit or delete comments. Once published, comments are visible to search engines and will remain in their archives. If you do not want your identity connected to comments on this site, please refrain from commenting or use a handle or alias instead of your real name.