A Good Sign
Posted on November 12th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
The Krikorian-Kaus thesis that Obama will make immigration a lower priority in his administration seems to be indirectly supported by the whining in Ruben Navarette’s latest column. I have also assumed for some time that amnesty would have been more likely under McCain than Obama, in part because McCain has made this something of a personal crusade and in part because McCain believes that it will win voters for the GOP, while the Democrats have no need to offer Latinos much of anything.
Here’s where Navarette is likely to be very wrong:
He will probably toss Latino supporters a bone by stopping construction of the border fence that he voted for in the Senate and ending the workplace raids that have caused so much disgust in the Latino community.
Does that make any sense? Obama voted for the fence, but he’s going to halt construction of it and take the attendant criticism for ignoring border security so that…his Latino supporters will feel better? Repeatedly on the campaign trail and in the Senate, Obama has talked about stricter enforcement against employers of illegal immigrants, and in this questionnaire he does not say that he opposes workplace raids. Maybe that doesn’t reflect what he will do in his administration, but this would seem to be another case of expecting Obama to do things that he has given no indication that he will do.
Filed under: immigration, politics
I think if Obama wants to do an immigration bill that is in any sense favorable to illegals, he is going to have to build that fence first, or he will have no defense against conservative attacks and working class backlash. Which I think Obama knows quite well, which is why he has strongly supported building the fence, and why he won’t back away from that course.
Enough of the fence has been built or is being built to provide political cover for whatever the president wants to do. DHS just put three sections of the Texas fence on indefinite hold after realizing (acknowledging?) how completely ridiculous and infeasible it would be to build them – it is very difficult and costly to build a fence in the floodplain of a river, especially when you have an international treaty that specifically forbids doing such a thing!! Their are some very good alternatives to a Texas wall out there. Around Laredo, the Border Patrol is now using swamp boats to patrol up and down the shallow river. This is proving very effective for a fraction of the cost of the wall and without any of the environmental/diplomatic consequences. And the agents love it! Beats sitting in an SUV with a pair of binoculars all day.
Obama supporters may be projecting their values onto him, but I don’t know where you get the idea that he is somehow going to be tough on immigrants. On the contrary, during the Democratic primary, Obama struck a very pro-immigrant tone and supports an amnesty of some type. The DREAM Act would probably be a good place for him to start. It will probably pass and is a good trial balloon to float out in front of the Congress.
If the Democratic party under Barack Obama’s leadership repositioned itself as the party of tariffs, controlled borders and reduced immigration, it would turn me into a Democrat.
Is this really possible, though?
Howard
Don’t get too carried away, Howard. Obama’s general views on immigration remain pretty far to the left. My point in drawing attention to Navarette’s expectations was that Obama has specifically supported the things Navarette thinks he might oppose. That doesn’t make Obama sound on immigration or anywhere close to it. On some things, such as licenses for illegal immigrants, he is as bad as you can get. At no point did I suggest that he is going to be “tough” on immigrants. But he is probably going to be “tougher” than Navarette would like, which means that he isn’t going to completely roll over and ignore the problem.
Daniel, your point is well taken. I think that you are right.