Mickey Kaus, spurred on by other media speculation, wonders whether Mitt Romney will pivot on immigration now that the primary race seems to be drawing to a close. Kaus fears/anticipates that Romney will switch from his pro-enforcement position to some kind of support for mass legalization for undocumented immigrants.
However, numerous political dangers could accompany a Romney immigration pivot. What heightens the danger of such a switch is that Romney has a limited number of pivots he can make. Because he needs to ward off the narrative that he is a "flip-flopper," Romney must ensure that his pivots are as few as possible and provide as much utility as possible. Switching on immigration enforcement might be an electoral waste of a pivot.
Romney's strong stance on immigration enforcement is one of his strongest ties to the conservative grassroots. His persistent defense of immigration enforcement helped him fend off both Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. An openness to amnesty is one of the (many) third rails of grassroots conservative politics. Romney has challenged this slice of the electorate a lot already; he can't afford to pick needless fights with it. It would be infuriating to the grassroots to see Romney stay consistent on Romneycare while turning his back on immigration enforcement. Many (though not all) of the conservatives who promised during the primary to stay home if Romney were the nominee are likely to hold their noses and vote for him in November, but, if he pushes too many of them too far, he might lose more than a few disaffected conservatives.
Moreover, it just isn't clear that support for some kind of amnesty will rally Hispanics to a Republican candidate. Few Republicans fought as loudly and proudly for legalizations of all types as did John McCain throughout 2008. But, when election day came, he lost Hispanics by 36 points to Barack Obama (31-67 percent). George H.W. Bush was the vice president of a man who pushed through an unambiguous amnesty for undocumented immigrants (Ronald Reagan). Bush lost Hispanics by 40 points in 1988 (30-70 percent). Or consider the converse of this: the most pro-enforcement GOP candidate, Romney also convincingly won Latinos in both the Arizona and Florida primary races. His support for enforcement did not sink him.
The fact that support for legalizations might not be politically beneficial does not necessarily mean that it is bad policy, but the Romney camp should not be mistaken in thinking that pivoting to amnesty will be a successful pander to Hispanic voters. Poll after poll after poll shows that Hispanics, like many other Americans, are interested in much more than just immigration issues: the economy, education, and other issues often rank higher for American Hispanics. Furthermore, many Hispanics support immigration enforcement.
Instead of slicing and dicing America into ethnic groups with distinct panders, Romney should instead put forward a campaign theme that speaks to the needs of all Americans -- "white," "black," and Hispanic. Support for immigration enforcement seems a position that appeals to the middle. Contrary to Beltway spin, opposing a perpetual influx of exploited serfs is a centrist, popular position. As median wages continue to stagnate if not decline, Americans are anxious about threats to the middle class. Many Americans see illegal immigration as a wedge used by the wealthy against the middle and working classes, undercutting the wages of the native-born and legal immigrants. I've suggested before that Romney could use his support of immigration enforcement as part of a broader message for improving the prospects of the American middle class in the twenty-first century.
Gingrich and Santorum made inroads by charging that Romney represented elite monied interests, and Barack Obama seems likely to try to use class warfare and the politics of resentment as a smokescreen to cover up the economic disappointments of his administration. (Never mind that Obama's own term as president has seen economic inequality grow even more.) Supporting immigration enforcement could be one way of showing that Romney stands with the middle and could provide a contrast between the GOP challenger and the president.
Defending immigration enforcement need not be a demonization of the other. Romney could focus his criticisms on those businesses and individuals that knowingly hire illegal labor: focus, that is, on the jobs. Government benefits going to undocumented immigrants could also be a fruitful topic.
Romney can put together a message that both supports the middle class and provides a vision for further economic growth; the decline of the middle class is one of the biggest problems if not the biggest problem the post-2000 economy faces. Immigration enforcement could play a role in this message of the middle. Romney might regret trading that electoral tool for a fruitless pander to certain activists and corporate lobbyists.
Follow Fred Bauer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/fredbauerblog
Of course not, but that is what the anti-enforcement lobby will say it is. They always do because it's so hard to make a case for immigration anarchy on the merits.
Yeah, what a wishful thinking? It won't fly for a man who wants "the illegals" to "self-deport."
Believe what you want, the majority of Hispanic voters will look at your position on their immigrant brothers and decide how to vote.. If you'd like one more lesson in Race Politics then keep this position Romney and give Obama another four years..
Sen. McCain almost loss his Senate seat, until he flip flopped on CIR.
The next election will be close, but Mitt can win, without Hispanics.
Then you say McCain did a 180 on CIR and imply that's why he lost in 2008, and asked us if we "missed his ad" about "build the dang fence"? That ad was from 2010 when he was running to keep his senate seat and did the 180, not from 2008 when he ran for President! In 2008 he stated unequivocally that he would pass CIR during his first 100 days in office. Perhaps those years are jumbled together in your head? Or just a desperate attempt to prove an obviously weak arguement!
But again, keep that stance.. Worked out well for the Republican party in California..
And wow... You think Republicans have a chance at the black vote (more than 10%).. Wow, just wow.. I love fantasy politics..
And the Rupublican party in CA has been hurt precisely because they followed the advice of people like you and did not maintain strong stances against illegal immigration, hoping to get Hispanic votes. In 1994, Pete Wilson DESTROYED Kathleen Brown 55-41% in the governors race by strongly supporting Prop 187. He even won the WOMEN'S vote! An extraordinary accomplishment for a male Rupublican running against a Democrat woman in a liberal state! Can Bush say that? Not a chance. And you may have noticed that women are a much larger group of voters than Hispanics, and as Wilson proved, many of them are willing to support Republicans over this issue. Arnold Schwarzennegar also WON in 2003 by coming out strongly against drivers licenses for illegals, saying he would repeal it on Day 1, after Gray Davis approved it and which was one of the major reasons he was recalled. As for the Republicans who followed your advice and were weak on this issue: Lundgren LOST, Simon LOST, and Whitman LOST. Facts are a bit..h, aren't they??!!
Illegal immigration is a powerful issue that many voting Citizens staunchly oppose. Illegal immigration/illegal immigrants hurt the middle and lower classes, consume significant social safety net resources that should be consumed by Citizens in need, fuels unemployment, invites health issues, overburdens hospitals, all for what??
Mass legalization for illegal aliens? Didn't Ronald Reagan try that? How did that turn out?
Reagan said, “The amnesty was the worst mistake of my presidency.”
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1538/545/The_dangerous_legacy_of_the_1986_amnesty_for_illegal_aliens_illegal_becomes_legal.html