The anti-immigrant tail wagging the GOP dog

anti-immigrant-rally-e1418756718245-1024x516The defining issue of the 2016 Republican primary — the issue that divides the winners from the losers, the survivors from the political roadkill — has probably been immigration. The two frontrunners, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, take an uncompromising approach to the issue, refusing to even consider offering legal status to those here illegally. And one by one, those candidates who took a less absolute position have fallen by the wayside.

The major exception would seem to be Marco Rubio, but even his campaign is faltering and may not survive another week. He has never quite recovered from his involvement in the so-called Gang of Eight attempt at comprehensive immigration reform, and because of that history is considered by many conservatives to be a traitor to the cause, and at best too weak to be trusted.

But let’s take a look at what exit polls are telling us:

A majority of Georgia Republican primary voters — 53 percent — believe that those immigrants working here illegally should be offered a pathway to legal status. Just 39 percent believe that those here illegally should be deported to their home country.

Again, this is in Georgia. More to the point, this is among Republican primary voters in Georgia. But is that an outlier of some sort, an artifact of polling?

No. Quite the contrary.

The results were similar in neighboring South Carolina. Among Republican primary voters in the Palmetto State, 53 percent believe that illegal immigrants should be granted legal status. Just 44 percent believe that they ought to be deported.

In Tennessee, the numbers were 49-44 percent in favor of legal status. In Arkansas it was 47-44 percent. In Texas it was 47-43; in Oklahoma it was 50-47. The only Southern state to break the trend was Alabama, and even there it was 45 percent in favor of legal status, and 50 percent in favor of deportation, which is hardly a monolithic rejection of so-called amnesty.

In northern states, the results were even more lopsided. In New Hampshire, for example, 56 percent of Republican primary voters supported legalization, while 41 percent backed mass deportation.

So how does a position held by a minority of Republican voters even in the most conservative areas of the country become THE litmus test for viability among Republican presidential candidates? How does a minority in one party wield so much influence that it can effectively shut down any progress on an important issue at the national level?

There are many ways to answer such questions, but in the end, it comes down to the unwillingness or inability of Republican leadership to challenge their own extremists, to the detriment of their party and country. And if you give extremists that power over you, you in time become defined by those extremists.

Reader Comments 0

1355 comments
TomMiddleton
TomMiddleton

Caitlyn Jenner's Clinton slam is latest example of conservative streak

Peachs
Peachs

Cousin Vinny takes Mississippi. 

rimsky
rimsky

Memories of that incident have colored U.S. policy on Somalia for years, with successive administrations reluctant to get involved or risk a deadly repeat as al-Shabab gained strength.

January 2014 marked what appeared to be a turning point. The United Statesdeployed a small team of military advisers to be based in Somalia for the first time in more than 20 years to help the Somali military plan and coordinate operations against the al Qaeda-linked group.////////

Good job President Obama.  Where other Presidents screwed up Obama used his smarts to beat the enemy.

DownInAlbany
DownInAlbany

@rimsky If the "other" Presidents had used the same tactics, you would be screaming, "...NO boots on the ground..."  Or some such nonsense.

Donnie_Pinko
Donnie_Pinko

@DownInAlbany @rimsky 

I assume it's the 'no boots on the ground' mantra that is at the center of this liberal gushing over Obama, as it usually is.

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

For all those who keep hunting more reasons to hate Trump - which is puzzling since him running as a Repub would seem enough for this crowd.

The Donald explained last evening why he has lawsuits.  He does not settle, he goes to court.  And his explanation is common sense.

If people and/or corporations with money settle lawsuits the number of them increase.  If you don't settle, you have fewer lawsuits. 

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

@KUTGF @JohnnyReb why don't you give us the details or did you pull that from your lower extremity?

Just to spell it out, when Trump says he does not settle, he means before court.  Whereas many corporations roll over shortly after a suit is filed.  You see this often in discrimination suits where a company decides it is cheaper to settle.

KUTGF
KUTGF

@JohnnyReb Just a few examples:


In 1973, the Justice Department filed suit against the Trump Management Corporation for alleged racial discrimination, which Trump's company disputed.[403] The case was settled out of court in 1975.[404]

In 1990, after an analyst at Janney Montgomery Scott said that Trump's Taj Mahal project would initially "break records" but would fail before the end of that year, Trump threatened to sue the firm unless the analyst recanted or was fired. The analyst refused to retract the statements, and was fired by his firm.[405] Taj Mahal declared bankruptcy for the first time in November 1990.[406] A defamation lawsuit by the analyst against Trump for $2 million was settled out of court.[407] The analyst's statements regarding the Taj Mahal's prospects were later called "stunningly accurate."[408]

In 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought a financial-reporting case against Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc., alleging that the company had committed several "misleading statements in the company's third-quarter 1999 earnings release." The matter was settled with the defendant neither admitting nor denying the charge.[409]

During the 2008 financial crisis, Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago was unable to sell sufficient units. Lender Deutsche Bank refused to let Trump lower the prices on the units to spur sales. Arguing that the financial crisis and resulting drop in the real estate market is due to circumstances beyond his control, Trump invoked a clause in the contract to not pay the loan.[410] Trump then initiated a suit asserting that his image had been damaged. Both parties agreed to drop their suits, and sales of the units continued.[411]

Eye wonder
Eye wonder

@JohnnyReb

Donald Trump is lying to you.  This will start to become clear when he wins the nomination and makes a yuuuuuge pivot to the center left (where his heart really belongs). The only thing the Donald cares about is having "President of the United States" on his resume.

honested
honested

@JohnnyReb @KUTGF 

So when chump says he never lies and he's always right I guess you believe that too.

honested
honested

@Eye wonder @JohnnyReb 

And that his resume' would end up like shrubs, 'Failed President Of the United States' hasn't dawned on him.

KUTGF
KUTGF

@JohnnyReb @KUTGF Sweetie "settling" before court or after court action filed is still "settling" but my goodness you have attached jet engines to that goal post movers...congrats. 

He has also lost a number of court actions and has withdrawn some......  hey just for giggles, tell us about Trumps orangutan father and how that lawsuit was resolved. 

BuckeyeGa
BuckeyeGa

@Jr,

Settling is settling before or in court lolol

honested
honested

@Brosephus @JohnnyReb 

Well, was it a coincidence that they had such stellar 'successes' initially as scott walker, rick perry, carly fiorina, ben carson, rick santorum, and rand paul to run against him.

I kept expecting sonny perdue to jump in.

rimsky
rimsky

@Brosephus @JohnnyReb You have to be around Trump supporters to know why they support him.  He is unique in his verbal skills which resonates with those kind of people.  They genuinely think that Trump can turn around this country with whatever imaginary ailment it suffers from.

KUTGF
KUTGF

@JohnnyReb You are either amazingly gullible or very very stupid (or both).  Trump has settled many lawsuits. 

Brosephus
Brosephus

@JohnnyReb 

Not looking for a reason to hate Trump.  I'm simply stumped and amazed at how quickly conservatives flipped from whining and complaining about Obama's "lack of experience" to pushing a candidate that has not even been elected dog catcher anywhere before.

Despite what you're likely to say to counter that, running a business is nowhere near similar to running a government, especially the world's sole superpower.  Add the fact that this businessman has countless bankruptcies under his belt, and I can't see how people can flip so far in such a short time.

I understand being upset with the establishment, but you don't chop off your head to spite your face.  That's just plumb stupid.

St Simons he-ne-ha
St Simons he-ne-ha

and the bullying begins to push lil Sessyboots out before the 15th- 

"If he goes forward and loses, it's the end of his career."

Dunt-Dunt-Duhhhh! (concerto in Dminor)

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

A WSJ poll finds that 55% of voters disapprove of the GOP's plan to delay confirmation of a SC nominee.  Of those, 45% strongly disapprove. 

It seems as if this is an issue the Ds could exploit in the general election.

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

@Nick_Danger It would be supreme folly for Repubs to allow an Obama nominee.

It's not gonna happen and the political fall out of not doing so pales to that should an Obama nominee be considered.

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

@Eye wonder @Nick_Danger

According to the poll, 57% of independent voters disapprove, while only 25% approve. 

As one of our conservative friends likes to point out, it is the independents that decide elections.

Eye wonder
Eye wonder

@Nick_Danger

Oh, I hope they do. And I hope the President uses his bully pulpit to maximum effect. I think McConnell is making a huge strategic blunder here.

Eye wonder
Eye wonder

@honested @Eye wonder @Nick_Danger

Because it is a tactical blunder with potentially disastrous consequences for conservatives.  McConnell could use this as an opportunity to show that the Rs were serious about governing and that they can act like grownups, and also to at least get a moderate person to fill the seat.  As it stands, he is feeding the Republicans as obstructionists theme and also potentially giving conservatives a very liberal justice if we have a D pres and D Senate.

Brosephus
Brosephus

@JohnnyReb 

Whatever happened to #AllLivesMatter?  If #AllLivesMatter, wouldn't #AllVotersMatter, or is that only relevant when you feel that your particular group is being excluded from something?

honested
honested

@JohnnyReb @Nick_Danger 

Well, that will provide the Next President the opportunity to nominate a real Center-Left candidate and have them approved by a Democratic Senate.

A win-win for America!

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

from honested down below:

If more Americans would come to grips that lots of small donations make MORE difference than a handful of huge ones. 

Imagine people taking the steps to elect a truly representative government! 

Good point.

It dovetails nicely with one that I like to make occasionally. About the Presidential Election Campaign Fund

You know that little checkbox at the end of your tax return? wherein, if you wish, you have the one (1) and only chance to designate exactly how your tax dollars should be spent, in this case, to fund elections rather than (presumably) forcing national candidates to go prostitute themselves for money?

Here's the problem. The IRS says that about 33 million bother to do this. But over 140 million individual returns are filed each year.

So only about one in five care enough to make even that token, cost-free gesture to make our campaigns just a little teeny-tiny bit less bought-and-paid-for by powerful interests.

Be fair--if you were a DC bigwig and you saw stuff like that, how much would you care about the little people? Who can't be bothered to make even a token effort to help themselves?

Eye wonder
Eye wonder

@Visual_Cortex

The key word you used twice is 'token.' I'm all for a complete overhaul of the campaign finance system - i.e., each candidate gets $X to spend however they choose and when it's done it's done.  But I'd rather give that $1 to a homeless person. Checking that box on my tax return would make me feel like (even more of) a cog.

honested
honested

@Visual_Cortex 

A token effort in a contest that most people will at least know who are the contestants!!

Next step is to get people to learn who their state reps, county commissioners and Congressional reps are. Lots of small checks can make a difference.

And it all is so substantially more important than the victory or defeat of any sports team at any level as the results WILL affect your life and your finances!

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@Eye wonder @Visual_Cortex

But see, if you're due a refund, it's not like you're relieving yourself of a dollar (actually $3, here) that you could give to a homeless person. That money just goes to the general fund, if you don't allocate it thus.

I realize that the Presidential campaign fund goes to scoundrels and saints alike and that has its own moral baggage; still, I think the argument comes out on the side of checking that box, and so I do every year.

rimsky
rimsky

A judge will decide by the end of this month whether to proceed with a proposed class action lawsuit filed by a Jamaican fashion model against Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's modeling agency, the judge's office said.

Alexia Palmer accuses Trump Model Management LLC of lying to the federal government in its work-visa application that said she would be paid a $75,000-a-year salary while living in the United States, according to court documents.

Instead, according to court papers, Palmer received a total of $3,880.75 during the three years she was under contract with the agency. The complaint alleges “fraudulent misrepresentation” and violations of U.S. immigration and labor laws. It asks for $225,000 in back pay.///////

A billionaire who cannot pay his bills.  Go get him Alexia.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@rimsky

I'm going to make a Bold Prediction and state that this NYC real estate thug that the GOP are about to nominate has got a crap-ton more stories like this just waiting to be told. 

That their own candidates were too damn lazy to dig out when it would've mattered.

honested
honested

@rimsky 

chump must have gotten some yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge commissions off her salary!

Peachs
Peachs

@rimsky he has a following that can't balance a check book more less understand Trump is running on fumes. He is living off debt like every other real estate developer, and has learned how to get needed cash flow prostituting his name and brand.  Not unlike the English did in the early 20th century 

honested
honested

@Visual_Cortex @rimsky 

All they wanted him to do was provide the big shiny to alert the auslanders there would be an election. They never thought he would be the big shiny on the ticket!