Border war: WaPo on the Romney/Giuliani immigration battle
posted at 10:19 am on August 17, 2007 by Bryan
For the purposes of this post, I’m less interested in the actual fight than in how the Washington Post frames it. The backdrop is the escalating battle over immigration and reform between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. But let’s take a look at who the Post brings in to referee.
The two leading Republican presidential candidates have turned the GOP primary campaign into a nasty, week-long debate about illegal immigration, accusing each other of supporting efforts to give undocumented residents sanctuary from federal immigration laws.
At campaign stops, in radio ads and with increasingly hostile statements by supporters, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani are talking about little else as they position themselves on an issue critical to conservatives in their party.
“They are trying to rattle their sabers louder than the other and thump on their chests,” said Angela Kelley, the deputy director of the pro-immigrant National Immigration Forum. “Both of these guys are trying to remake themselves.”
The National Immigration Forum–referee #1. Who are they? Why, they’re a pro-”comprehensive” lobbying group that blurs the line between legal and illegal immigrants, that’s who.
We continue with the Post report, some back and forth between the two camps and their surrogates, and then arrive at a second group that Post brings into the fray on its own.
But Romney’s tough rhetoric about sanctuary cities is new, said Shuya Ohno, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. Ohno said Romney was “kind of a non-factor” in most debates about illegal immigration in the state.
“It’s only after he started spending a lot of time in Iowa getting ready for the presidential run did he really step into the public on the issue,” Ohno said. “It’s certainly much stronger than anything we heard when he was running for office here, and certainly much more polarizing.”
So what’s the “Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition” and why do they get the last word on this issue? Well, here’s a big button prominently displayed on their website:
Well la ti da: I’m pro-immigrant and I vote too. But “pro-immigrant” isn’t what they really mean. They’re another open borders lobby that blurs the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants and play up on emotion to shame law and order types into looking the other way on enforcement of this particular set of laws. They spend precious space on their site (in the upper right corner) slamming ICE for enforcing the law. Below that, a set of YouTube documentaries about the plight of illegals. Over on the left, links to about a dozen other open borders groups. It’s not real difficult to figure out where the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition is coming from.
So the two groups that the Post brings in of its own volition to referee the sparring between Romney and Giuliani happen to be open borders types. They’re about as fair and even on this issue as NBA ref Tim Donaghy. What, were NumbersUSA’s phones disconnected the day the Post was drafting this story?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 10:26 AM
This would be like Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton fighting over the Reagan legacy.
Neither of them sincerely wants to own the issue.
Valiant on August 17, 2007 at 10:28 AM
What media bias?
Nice work Bryan.
MT on August 17, 2007 at 10:28 AM
I noticed the WAPO story was written by Shear Balz.
Buzzy on August 17, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Yeah, that’s what I meant to say.
- The Cat
MirCat on August 17, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Corollary: He who controls the internet, controls the world.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2007 at 10:35 AM
It always annoys me when I hear the issue of illegal immigration defined as a “conservative” issue. Sure, conservatives were horrified with the shamnesty legislation but so were an undisputed majority of American voters… We ALL screamed our brains out to stop that legislation. This is truly a bipartisan issue that affects all Americans and their communities.
Babs on August 17, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Shouldn;t that pin button say:
“I’M PRO-LEGAL IMMIGRANT
and I Vote“?
Unless they mean that anyone who can sneak into the country is an “immigrant” and not a de facto invader?
Otherwise the button might as well read:
“I support people who steal when they feel they need to-
and I vote”
Romney and Guiliani have both seen what the majority of Americans think about illegal immigration on the Shamnesty debacle, and, if they want to have a chance at the Presidency, they will adapt their stances to the reality of our national need to secure the borders.
Both should make up buttons that read:
“Legal immigration is good for the nation”
to clarify the difference between the open-borders Suicide-of-America-Now! morons and themselves.
profitsbeard on August 17, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Shouldn;t that pin button say:
“I’M PRO
-LEGAL IMMIGRANTAmericanand I Vote“?
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Wait, you mean after getting out of the liberal MA and away from the effects of the common sense sucking machine that exists inside the Beltway, Mitt has found out that this is a big issue in the rest of America? Shocka I tell ya. Mitt had the gall to meet with average people and maybe, just maybe he realized how important this is to most Americans.
The true irony in this debate is that the unions, long represented as defenders of the American worker, are one of the biggest supporters of allowing illegal immigrants to enter the work force. I guess in view of their shrinking numbers and receding political clout they are recruiting a new base of members to line their pockets and throwing hard working Americans off the bus and under the wheels.
LakeRuins on August 17, 2007 at 10:45 AM
In the staunchly Blue State where I live, union leadership may be supporting illegal immigration due to their hope that it will stop the declining rate of union membership.
But the “rank and file” union members themselves are strongly opposed to illegal immigration.
ColtsFan on August 17, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Yes, All were screaming, but for different reasons. The libs screamed because the legislation was too punitive and the conservatives screamed because it wasn’t punitive enough. Regardless, the result, in the end, was the same. I’m a hard case on this issue and worry alot about candidates using this to further their personal aspirations, and then turn on a dime, when they achieve it.
captivated_dem on August 17, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Looks like a slap fight between two politicians who really shouldn’t be drawing attention to their pro illegal immigrant past. Well at least Mitt doesn’t have those embarrassing “I heart illegals” film clips to overcome but neither is using the word “deport” or wearing a “illegal immigration is a crime” buttons. That’s what it’s gonna take boys.
Buzzy on August 17, 2007 at 10:59 AM
As for Romney, I just have a gut-feeling about him and I wouldn’t even consider voting for him. Best I can come-up with is that he’s “too perfect,” and there’s always something wrong with “too perfect” people.
As for Giuliani, I can’t get past accepting 400,000 illegals with open arms. That is completely unfair to have the tax payers who are citizens absorb that. My own community doesn’t have nearly that number of illegals but you can see that the quality of life has drastically changed.
Giuliani also says that crime rate in New York City dropped. Funny how the crime rate in my area in the past seven years has tripled, and it’s just along a stripe of land where day laborers hang-out. Something tells me that NYC isn’t looking into the numbers that illegals commit, because I don’t believe it.
moonsbreath on August 17, 2007 at 11:08 AM
First, he did not welcome them with open arms. He requested that the federal government guard the borders and deport the felons first — the feds failed to either. So, he inherited a city with 400,000 illegals that he could not get rid of if he wanted to. Koch had a policy to not inquire into citizenship status when residents contacted the city employees on matter of health and safety — Guiliani continued the policy, because it prevented the 400,000 large immigrant community (that the feds refused to deport) from decending into kaos, with each community employing a form of Omerta. Sounds like a reasonable reaction by a mayor with no jurisdiction in the area of immigration where the feds refuse to act.
Second, are you claiming that Guiliani cooks the books on crime? Support please, or do you just have a hunch?
tommylotto on August 17, 2007 at 11:19 AM
I some cases, yes you are correct, but not entirely. If I remember correctly, the Rasmussen poll prior to the bill collapse was very telling. I believe something along the lines of 75-80% of all American citizens were opposed to granting Amnesty to illegal Aliens and for an enforcement first policy. I could be wrong about the numbers because I’m going from memory but I’m pretty sure it was close to that. The conclusion I drew after reading it, though, was that most people, regardless of party affiliation, were against the bill for the same reasons, though a minority of Dems were claiming the bill was too harsh. At the same time, though, there were a minority of Republicans also against the bill for fear of losing de-facto slave labor.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 11:25 AM
As for your last sentece, I’m in complete agreement with you.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 11:27 AM
The WaPo coverage is what we’ve come to expect.
The real issue is the good news that Giuliani and Romney won’t be able to revert to the mindless elite pro-immigration position if either were to become president. While both be milder than my preference on illegal immigration, they can’t pull a Bush on the issue. And by the way, we knew in 1999 Bush’s position on immigration.
But the news is better than just this. Giuliani is a guy who takes law enforcement very seriously. I predict he would actually do something about the employers of illegal immigrants. I would trust Tancredo to be serious about the employers of illegal immigrants, but I don’t trust the supposedly right-wing choice Fred! on this issue. And the only way to stop illegal immigrations is to stop big business from buying their labor.
thuja on August 17, 2007 at 11:40 AM
moonsbreath, you and I probably agree on most of the major campaign issues but I just have trouble wrapping my head around what you wrote in this paragraph. Since when has perfection become a negative? It seems to me that, out of our own cynicism, we have created an environment where it is impossible for anyone to be acceptable. If their is a thread on this site about how the candidate has deviated at any time in their lives from any hot button issue (abortion, immigration, taxes, healthcare, foreign policy, energy policy, spending, affirmative action, judicial philosophy) the comments section is full of those of us who write, “he’s finished, he’s done, stick a fork in him.” Now we have a guy who is lined up well with conservatives on just about every major issue, he’s presidential, well polished, articulate, has a solid family life, has a good sense of humor and is obviously very smart and our reaction is to call him “too perfect” to be acceptable. I just think that we have become a little to cynical. I think we should at least be working from the template that the candidates are innocent until proven guilty.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Articulate. Well Reasoned. Thoughtful.
Must be something wrong with you.
JackStraw on August 17, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Liberalism is such a cult. One of the earmarks of a cult is that you don’t get the real story until your trapped in it. I’m pro-immigrant too (I married one) but I want patriotic LEGAL immigration from people who will produce FOR America instead of sucking our blood.
I’m with moonsbreath regarding Flip Romney. He’s too clever by far. *Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.* I’d be happy to buy a used car from him but that’s it.
We amature pundits know phoney and he’s phoney. He’s into whatever you’re into.
Mojave Mark on August 17, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Rasmussen apparently had a better read on the public, than our legislature. Agendas could be seen on both sides, but the Republicans came through for us. I for one am grateful. Now to filter through the noise of politics and be convinced and not duped into voting for the candidate, that truly has the best interest of this nation and its’ people, at heart, will be more than challenging. I fall sway to emotions too often, but not anymore. Unless there is true substance there.
captivated_dem on August 17, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Well, how to address this without offending you….
So what you want is a flawed candidate? This is nonsensical to me. No one is perfect. We all have flaws. You know what the difference is? Some of us have flaws that are completely visible from the outset (overweight etc) or are evident very quickly (bad temper etc). Mitts! flaws are not evident. Perhaps he is overly concerned with physical appearance etc? One thing is clear…Mitts! positives are very evident after a few times listening to him. He is articulate and educated. he knows the issues and has a plan. Delving deeper into his history we find both good and bad events etc. On the hole, Mitt! has many more positives than negatives and that makes him the best candidate (or non-candidate) on either side.
So, don’t worry that he is too perfect. He is not and he’ll be the first one to tell you so.
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 12:04 PM
“On the HOLE?!” WHOLE!
Jeeze! I was thinking of Austin Powers and really meant to get it right. I need a nap!
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Well, we know what your issue is and you are eliminated from reasoned debate when it comes to Mitt!.
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 12:15 PM
I don’t agree. Mitt may be great; haven’t decided yet.
But you can be sure that I’m looking for the authentic amongst the vast sea of phonies that make-up our political class.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2007 at 12:20 PM
csdeven– should have said that I consider all politicians phonies until they prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on them IMHO.
I lived in NYC during Giuliani’s time. He’s not a phony at all. What you see is what you get. That doesn’t mean I like him or will vote for him, but if I don’t, it will be because I don’t agree with his positions.
JiangxiDad on August 17, 2007 at 12:25 PM
JiangxiDad, that is a very respectable and free thinking position to take. You havn’t eliminated nor have you jumped on board. You are waiting to get more info before making a decision. Its the people who eliminate prior to gaining that information I have a hard time respecting.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Some of the finest people, I have ever had the pleasure of knowing, have been Mormons(LDS) and reorganized RLDS. These people have literally taken the story of Jesus Christ, pulled it out of the Middle East and made it an American Christian story. The Book of Mormon is a wonderful read. The breakup of the church after the death of Joseph Smith led to some pretty horrible things. It appears, what ever powers that be, have prepared a damaging Swift boat for the Romney campaign to try and marginalize. September Dawn, coming out August 24th, is factully based upon the Mountain Meadows Massacre that has haunted the Mormon church for 140 years. I DO question the timing of THIS. For a historical perspective, link here
captivated_dem on August 17, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Yeah, I do the same. They have to have the right policy positions and then not be a phony. If I had the choice between phonies and a candidate that was less than what I want, but is honest, I’ll vote for the honest guy.
csdeven on August 17, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Sorry, the link didn’t work for me. Ask or Google it if you’re interested.
captivated_dem on August 17, 2007 at 12:58 PM
New York City was a sanctuary city while Giuliani was mayor. He could have repealed that status initiated by Koch. He was an enthusiastic backer of the policy.
The United States is a Federal Republic. This measn that local jurisdictions cannot override Federal law. Giuliani should have been prosecuted for the act of sedition of Fedral immigration law while he was mayor.
Most of the other candidates have a case of amnesty amnesia. Mitt Romney called the McCain – Kennedy shamnesty bill “a reasonable proposal” (AP 3/26/06).
Mike Huckabee supported the Bush backed amnesty plan. As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee offered a proposal to give state funded scholarships and state benefits to illegal aliens.
The only candidate that has been rock solid on the immigration issue is Tom Tancredo.
GFB on August 17, 2007 at 1:02 PM
tommylotto on August 17, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Feel free to argue this point around here, but I’m afraid you won’t get too far. Giuliani’s argument is rational, but a lot of people here just don’t want to hear it, likely because they worry that people might buy it. They’d rather just shout “flip flopper!” (even though his position has remained remarkably consistent on this issue) and “sanctuary city!” and hope those who don’t do the research believe it.
Big S on August 17, 2007 at 1:07 PM
GFB, Romney was strongly against that bill from the outset. He used the words “reasonable proposal” prior to ripping it apart piece by piece. He said those words in an attempt to be non-confrontational while at the same time being opposed to it. Its a common tactic in debates. Another example of this would be if Romney said, “I’d first like to thank my collegues for their hard work on this very important issue. That having been said, I must respectably take issue with some key elements of their proposal…” Just because he used the words “I’d like to thank my collegues for their hard work on this very important issue” does not mean he ever agreed with what it was they were proposing.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Zetterson, you may be right but I want a candidate who calls a ShAmnesty a ShAmnesty.
Illegal immigration is the issue for 2008 that a Republican candidate can win on and there isn’t any reason to softball the issue. The illegals are all voting Democrat and 70% of American Citizens want to hear something of substance on the issue. Mitt may actually mean something else when he calls the McCain Kennedy Amnesty Plan a “reasonable proposal” but enough voters to elect him didn’t find it reasonable at all. It makes him look weak and almost as pandering as Rudy does on the issue.
Buzzy on August 17, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Hrm? Since when is Romney one of the two leading Republican presidential candidates? According to RCP’s poll averages, Romney’s still running behind both Thompson and McCain. So, even if you want to say that Thompson doesn’t count until he officially declares his candidacy, you’ve still got McCain ahead of Romney in most polls. (McCain, who’s been written off by most.) And it certainly doesn’t look good for him to be consistently beaten by a guy who hasn’t declared his candidacy and hasn’t spent a dime and has barely visited anyone on the campaign trail yet.
Basically, after spending millions of dollars and running hard for months and months on end, Romney has still barely broken into double digits. This immigration flap is not some clash of the titans. This is just Romney yapping and nipping at Giuliani’s heels.
aero on August 17, 2007 at 1:50 PM
It is so easy to throw out that “sactuary city” meme. So what do you do? You have 400,000 illegals in your city, you are powerless to deport them, you can’t shoot them (most of the time — though he was accused of trying on ocassion), and the feds won’t even deport the felons. If you report school kids, you have roaming bands of thugs on the streets instead of in school trying to assimilate. If you report those who report crime, crimes go unreported. If you report those who seek medical attention, they get sicker and more expensive to cure when it gets critical. So, you think he should have reported them (and suffer all the negative consequences) just so the feds could have a longer list of illegals that they failed to deport?
These comments are from Rudy on the issue:
Sometimes common sense requires you to do something you would rather not do. An executive needs common sense — a commodity in low supply these days. Common sense or unblemmished immigrration record? Humm, I’ll take common sense.
tommylotto on August 17, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Buzzy, point taken, and I agree with you. That issue is too important in order for wishy washy candidates to be acceptable. But its also too important to have what a candidate says about the entire issue reduced to one single soundbite that doesn’t even reflect the views of that candidate. By doing that you can make any person look wishy washy about anything. If the issue is so important we want as many voters as possible to be fully knowlegeable about the candidates true views on the issue. Shouldn’t that be the goal? Shouldn’t the goal be to get to the heart of what each candidate really thinks about the issue? Mischaracterizing these things does none of us any good. I live in Mass and I have listened to everything that Romney has said about this issue pretty much since 9/11. Reducing Romney’s views on the shamnesty bill to “Reasonable proposal” is not an accurate portrayal of his true views. Its nothing more then the type of mischaracterization that can be done unfairly and dishonestly to anyone. We are not playing “gotcha.” We just want to find out what these guys really think abou this stuff. The only way to do that is to listen to everything they said beyond just a two word soundbite taken out of context.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Is Peter King taking Mitt’s actions out of context:
tommylotto on August 17, 2007 at 2:12 PM
tommylotto, that artical as packed full of untruths, misrepresentations, and gotcha drive-bye hit jobs. So to answer your question, “is Peter king taking Mitt’s actions out of context?” The answer is yes, absolutely. It takes nothing into account in regards to the liberal legislature in Mass which he had to work with. Just the fact that it brought up and tossed out as fact the illegal aliens working on his front yard told might right off that it was an obvious hit piece playing loose and fast with the facts. You will find nothing specific in that artical in reference to what Romney actually did or said on the matter of illegal immigration. Everything is just a piece of drive-bye nonsense with practically zero substance.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 2:40 PM
tommylotto, there is an obvious agenda in that article. With all due respect I would suggest seeking out more objective voices for information. The article should be titled: “Rudy the hero, Mitt the zero”. I personally think both of them are great Americans and would make for fine presidents. I just hate the drive bye hit jobs designed to boost one and denegrate the other. Thats not where I want my info to come from.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Oh, Holy Shit, Bryan. This is priceless, and I was ignoring it all day.
You and Allah needed to merge this with his post on the Seattle Times nitwit, because these WaPo ninnies clearly sit in on those meetings in Seattle with the “smart, educated, well-read and diverse” masters of the universe.
This reads like an Onion piece.
Jaibones on August 17, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Guess I stepped on some toes about Mitt. Let me put it this way, every meet someone you don’t like from the start. You can’t explain it, it’s just a gut-feeling.
As far as a candidate, I want one that has never entertained the thought about a sanctuary city. I may not find such candidate, but that is what I am looking for. Period.
csdeven, I think we all understand you’re for Mitt!
tommylotto, you asked if I believe Giuliani cooked the books? Perhaps the NYPD doesn’t count illegal crime in their stats. I just know, that for my community and roughly around 50,000 illegals, the crime rate has tripled. It does not add-up that 400,000 illegals equals no rise in crime.
moonsbreath on August 17, 2007 at 3:53 PM
No worries about stepping on toes here moonsbreath. I was just curious to know whats behind that ambivalence. I know what you mean by having a sincere dislike for someone from the start and I’ve been there. For what its worth, though, some of those people have surprised me and turned out to be good friends of mine once I got to know them better. On the other hand sometimes I’ve continued to dislike them. It can go either way. Not sure where to go with that.
Also, for what its worth, 400,000 illegal aliens = automatically 400,000 person rise in crime. If we are talking about violent crimes only then that is different. Although, as Bryan argued in an earlier thread, the difference between a legal citizen committing a violent crime and an illegal alien committing a violent crime is the illegal alien’s violent crimes were 100% preventable. Therefore, the % violent crime rate coming from the illegal alien community is irrelevent.
Zetterson on August 17, 2007 at 4:17 PM