Steele: GOP immigration policy has to be family-based

posted at 2:20 pm on April 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

CNN’s Peter Hamby reports that RNC chair Michael Steele called for a comprehensive immigration reform effort from Republicans in a private meeting with Hispanic Republicans last Friday.   Using video taken of the speech by an attendee, Hamby notes that Steele emphasized the need for the GOP to prioritize families in its policies, a position that would put Steele at odds with many conservative Republicans:

In a private meeting with Hispanic Republican activists last week, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele called for a comprehensive immigration policy that puts families first – a stance at odds with some conservatives in his party who see border security and enforcement as top priorities.

Steele also said Republican leaders are sensitive to “the perception of racism in law” following the signing of a tough new immigration bill in Arizona. …

“If we want to have a comprehensive policy that is uniform around the nation, then the federal government has got to step up,” Steele told the activists. “I look forward to our Republican leadership putting on the table good solid efforts to create the kind of reform that takes in mind first and foremost the family, that recognizes that this is not a nameless composition.

“That there are moms and dads, grandmas and granddads, and children, generations, that are affected by the decisions that are made in Washington D.C.,” he continued. “So my promise is to make sure that that the family is the focus as well. Not the just the statistics that show up on paper.”

In one sense, Steele has to frame the argument in a way that appeals to a broad range of potential voters. That’s his job, after all, and Steele didn’t mention any policy specifics in this speech. He wants Hispanics to stay within the GOP, which was the entire intent of the meeting. Steele promised that the Republicans would offer their version of comprehensive immigration reform soon, and that it would differentiate itself from the nakedly political gambit offered by Barack Obama and the Democrats in this midterm cycle.

Still, one has to suspect that Steele held that meeting in private for good reason. He’s already created enough problems for himself with the activist conservative base of the party, which wants an enforcement-first approach to immigration reform. It’s possible to both enforce the law and be sensitive to families, but the priority for conservatives is enforcement of border security and visa controls now. Flipping those won’t endear Steele to the base, and could backfire on his outreach efforts.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen polled on the most explosive aspect of the Arizona legislation, and found it less controversial than thought among likely voters:

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer last week signed a new law into effect that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 60% of voters nationwide favor such a law, while 31% are opposed.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans support the law along with 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democratic voters are evenly divided on the measure.

At the same time, however, 58% of all voters are at least somewhat concerned that “efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens.” That figure includes 29% who are Very Concerned about possible civil rights violations.

In other words, the takeaway here is that Americans want a tougher approach to enforcement as long as it doesn’t violate civil rights. That’s about as surprising as “water is wet.” Immigration reform is somewhat like ObamaCare — it’s designed to appeal to a narrow base, not the overall electorate. In a bad economy, a push for liberalization of immigration controls is about as popular as higher taxes, and for similar reasons.

What may be surprising is the widespread consensus on these questions.  Voters believe that national security and border control take priority over fixing the status of “undocumented workers,” whether they be Republicans (77%), independents (78%), or … Democrats (51%/38%).  On giving the police authority to stop people on the basis of suspected immigration violations, as many Democrats support it as oppose it (43% each), while 62% of independents also back it.  Black voters, whom Michael Steele invoked as regular victims of profiling, support the idea of police stops 63%/33%.  “Other,” comprising Hispanic and Asian voters, only narrowly oppose it, 44% with 38% approving.

This seems like something approaching political consensus.  We shouldn’t be afraid of pushing an enforcement-first agenda, as long as we make sure that civil rights get protected.

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

Comment pages: 1 2

Best part of the AZ law is the cunundrum it puts McCain in, at a perfect time.

Schadenfreude on April 26, 2010 at 2:25 PM

We shouldn’t be afraid of pushing an enforcement-first agenda, as long as we make sure that civil rights get protected.

Bingo!

Mason on April 26, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Meanwhile, Rasmussen polled on the most explosive aspect of the Arizona legislation, and found it less controversial than thought among likely voters:

you’d think the msm and la raza would get a clue…

cmsinaz on April 26, 2010 at 2:26 PM

This guy’s job is to raise money and not direct policy. Do your job Mike!

thomasaur on April 26, 2010 at 2:26 PM

I wonder what the polling for a total immigration moratorium for five years would look like.

Pretty favorable, I would imagine.

Rebar on April 26, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Steele is about five different people, and what he says depends entirely on who he’s talking to at the moment. He’s really in the wrong business. He should be selling used cars.

RBMN on April 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM

This is almost as silly as that time Ken Mehlman developed that policy of… oh wait, the head of the RNC doesn’t generally set the policies of the party.

myrenovations on April 26, 2010 at 2:29 PM

60/31 support for the AZ law nationwide?

Hey, Donks, your oppositional preening looks like a winner to me! Keep it up ’til November, OK?

Bruno Strozek on April 26, 2010 at 2:29 PM

HEAD BANGING SMILEY!!! You gots the money now! I want it!

Skywise on April 26, 2010 at 2:30 PM

It’s possible to both enforce the law and be sensitive to families, …..

How?

it sounds like amnesty would be right around the corner…

cmsinaz on April 26, 2010 at 2:32 PM

We shouldn’t be afraid of pushing an enforcement-first agenda, as long as we make sure that civil rights get protected.

That’s all I’m asking for.

El_Terrible on April 26, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Imagine how much money it would save with free health care and open boarders.

the_nile on April 26, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Cheaters are cheaters, and rewarding cheating is a really stupid idea.

Fix legal immigration and enfore deportment laws against illegal cheaters.

Also, clamp down hard on those that knowingly hire them.

saiga on April 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM

You mean Americans are more concerned with national security and law enforcement than ensuring amnesty for illegal aliens? I need to sit down for a moment.

What’s the lefty argument for amnesty going to be when unemployment is 9.7%? That these workers in factories and fields are doing jobs Americans won’t do?

That will go over like a lead balloon.

amerpundit on April 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM

I had great hope for Mr Steele when he became Chairman. But he seems incapable of understanding his role. It is not a Policy position and he should stop speaking on those matters before he hurts the party more.

OBQuiet on April 26, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Right now it appears the only thing standing between the GOP and massive electoral victory this November is Michael Steele.

tommyboy on April 26, 2010 at 2:35 PM

In other words, the takeaway here is that Americans want a tougher approach to enforcement as long as it doesn’t violate civil rights.

ditto

ted c on April 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Right now it appears the only thing standing between the GOP and massive electoral victory this November is Michael Steele.

tommyboy on April 26, 2010 at 2:35 PM

He doesn’t think we’re ready.

Kensington on April 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Quick…Someone name me the RNC Chairman prior to Steele. Why is this guy always on my tv?

ramrants on April 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM

as many Democrats support it as oppose it (43% each)

I hope for crr6′s sake she doesn’t read this. The trauma from her world view collapsing might deprive us of one of our favorite trolls.

gwelf on April 26, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Does he (Steele) speak in tongue?

/quickly duck out of the way

Sir Napsalot on April 26, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Steele had better take a turn to the right. The only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow stripe and dead possums.

kingsjester on April 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM

I still don’t see how this law violates anyones civil rights. The left acts like police are going to start rounding people up just for being hispanic or harassing hispanics at will…the new law doesn’t do this.

gwelf on April 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Quick…Someone name me the RNC Chairman prior to Steele. Why is this guy always on my tv?

ramrants on April 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Because his intellect just drives the media to his doorstep.

thomasaur on April 26, 2010 at 2:40 PM

National security and border enforcement can not be seperated there can’t be security if we can’t defend the border. We can’t even have a border if it can’t be defended.

fourdeucer on April 26, 2010 at 2:40 PM

reform that takes in mind first and foremost the family

Yes, because keeping foreigners’ families (and especially law-breaking foreigners’ families) together should be the top priority of U.S. immigration law.

God forbid we should actually have U.S. immigration laws that put the best interests of Americans first. That would be racist.

AZCoyote on April 26, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Meanwhile, Rasmussen polled on the most explosive aspect of the Arizona legislation, and found it less controversial than thought among likely voters:

70% of Arizona approves of the new law. Who cares what other people in other states feel? This is a state issue.

Enoxo on April 26, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Steele is working for the enemy. He is playing to lose. Throw the bum out.

Jerricho68 on April 26, 2010 at 2:44 PM

The biggest problem with Steele is that he never shuts his big yap. He must like the taste of leather, because his foot is almost permanently in his mouth. Raise money and leave policy alone you knucklehead! Better yet, just go away and stop ruining the momentum we’re trying to build heading to NOvember.

search4truth on April 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Are illegal aliens entitled to Constitutionally protected civil rights?

There must be some provision under current law that extends civil rights protections to illegals, I just don’t know what exactly it is.

That being said, why should we be overly sensitive to the ‘rights’ of these criminals?

I have nothing against being sure we behave in a manner that doesn’t violate these people’s basic human rights, but that’s different in a legal context than ‘civil’ rights as they are being discussed, right?

Maybe I’m over-thinking this?

catmman on April 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

When Howard Dean drove the Dems to majorities in the House and Senate he knew he was polarizing and he was in public very infrequently, doing in all behind the scenes and very successfully at that. This guy is worse than Paris Hilton.

Marcus on April 26, 2010 at 2:46 PM

RNC chair Michael Steele called for a comprehensive immigration reform effort from Republicans in a private meeting with Hispanic Republicans last Friday.

Say goodnight, Gracie.

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Love these poll results. Go ahead and push Amnesty this year Dems. Please. 100 seat gain, here we come. Si se puede!

Also: Schadenfreude on April 26, 2010 at 2:25 PM

You’re a “McCain hater”. Me too.

JimP on April 26, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Are illegal aliens entitled to Constitutionally protected civil rights?

There must be some provision under current law that extends civil rights protections to illegals, I just don’t know what exactly it is.

That being said, why should we be overly sensitive to the ‘rights’ of these criminals?

I have nothing against being sure we behave in a manner that doesn’t violate these people’s basic human rights, but that’s different in a legal context than ‘civil’ rights as they are being discussed, right?

Maybe I’m over-thinking this?

catmman on April 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

They are “criminals” in exactly the same way that slaves were 3/5 of a person.

unclesmrgol on April 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM

You mean Americans are more concerned with national security and law enforcement than ensuring amnesty for illegal aliens? I need to sit down for a moment.

What’s the lefty argument for amnesty going to be when unemployment is 9.7%? That these workers in factories and fields are doing jobs Americans won’t do?

That will go over like a lead balloon.

amerpundit on April 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM

We cant have people take responsibility for their own actions.

the_nile on April 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Michael Steele is an idiot.

single stack on April 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM

They are “criminals” in exactly the same way that slaves were 3/5 of a person.

unclesmrgol on April 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM

So the law is inhumane and should be changed , you say?

the_nile on April 26, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Michael Steele may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot.
- Groucho

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 2:52 PM

No.

Pay for your own damn family and leave me out of it.

Kohath on April 26, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Mike: you flunked flank. Get the flunk outta here!

txleadfoot00 on April 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

The thing that bugs me the most about Steele is that I thought he would make a good party chairman. As foolish as I am I thought Repblican party not the Democratic party.

chicken thief on April 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

unclesmrgol on April 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Explain that please?

Illegal aliens, who have broken the law to get/stay here, making them in fact – criminals – are to be considered in the same vein as slaves in the 19th century?

catmman on April 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

So the law is inhumane and should be changed , you say?

the_nile on April 26, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Exactly. I’m a Lincolnian. All these anti-immigrant laws are of Democratic manufacture. They are the ones who wanted to limit by race and ethnicity; the Republican ideal (as expressed by Lincoln) was to allow those who would work to come. Google Lincoln Know-Nothings.

unclesmrgol on April 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM

enforcement-first

FIFY

FloatingRock on April 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM

There must be some provision under current law that extends civil rights protections to illegals, I just don’t know what exactly it is.
catmman on April 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Maybe it is this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

They have broken the law, but they cannot be treated inhumanly…they are not citizens, but they come from the same creator as you and I.
And perhaps this little gem commemorating the signing…

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
‘ With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

They came for the same reasons your forefathers came…now we have to figure out how to stem the tide, and clean up the mess that for the past 30 years have spilled out into our country…and do it with grace, dignity, pride,and as Americans.

right2bright on April 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Illegal aliens, who have broken the law to get/stay here, making them in fact – criminals – are to be considered in the same vein as slaves in the 19th century?

catmman on April 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

The laws making them illegal are the same kinds of laws making slaves slaves. They are Democratic laws, not Republican ones.

unclesmrgol on April 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

I’m sure he’s talking about that Arizona farmer’s family.

You know, the one who was killed last month by illegal aliens.

stenwin77 on April 26, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Hopefully other states will follow AZ’s lead and enact similar laws.

farright on April 26, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Steele. The new GOP Overlord making policy all on his own.

Sultry Beauty on April 26, 2010 at 2:59 PM

The laws making them illegal are the same kinds of laws making slaves slaves.

unclesmrgol on April 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

I don’t think I have ever heard anything more mindbogglingly ignorant.

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM

They came for the same reasons your forefathers came…now we have to figure out how to stem the tide, and clean up the mess that for the past 30 years have spilled out into our country…and do it with grace, dignity, pride,and as Americans.

right2bright on April 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Absolutely:

That is what happened to Army Pvt Juan Escalante, whose illegal status was discovered while he was serving in Iraq. He was discharged and shipped home, and ICE began deportation proceedings against him and his parents, who had smuggled him into the United States from Mexico when he was four years old. However, Escalante’s unit commander wrote a letter on his behalf, saying he had served with distinction, so ICE reversed its decision and accepted his citizenship application. The deportation case against his parents, who also have two U.S.-born children, is still pending.

Absolutely:

But in 2008, Bautista was called into an office by her superiors. They told her they knew who she really was. She asked to talk to an attorney.

“I tried to retain my military bearing at all times,” she said. “I tried not to show any emotion.”

But inside, she was scared. Would she be arrested? Kicked out of the Army? Deported? The military launched an investigation and confiscated the documents bearing her aunt’s name.

Several of her fellow soldiers and superiors wrote letters on her behalf. In one, a superior described how Bautista helped the wounded before tending to herself after the explosion and wrote that she was “an exceptional role model.” “It will be a shame for the Army to get rid of an outstanding soldier like this,” the letter read.

In the end, Bautista was honorably discharged and arrived in Los Angeles in July 2009. Having to leave the military, she said, still hurts. Even now, she wishes she could return to Iraq.

unclesmrgol on April 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

right2bright on April 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

I think I said as much. We should be sure to protect these folks human rights.

I’m not saying these folks don’t need to be here, but they don’t need to be here illegally? Granting amnesty won’t fix the problem as you state.

And not to pick fly poop out of pepper here, the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, but if we’re going to use it…

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

catmman on April 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

I don’t think I have ever heard anything more mindbogglingly ignorant.

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Ditto.

unclesmrgol on April 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

How about the immigration policy be based on the family of the rancher that was killed near Douglas recently? How about it be based on the American families torn apart by drugs being smuggled over the border? How about it be based on families driving on Interstate 8 that get caught in running gun battles between human traffickers? How about it be based on American families that indirectly pay for medical care and social services for illegal immigrants?

deewhybee on April 26, 2010 at 3:12 PM

I’m pretty sure that ALL politicians who are yabbering all over the media against AZ’s new law
1. have NOT read it
2. have no idea how and what happens leading up to and or during arrest of illegals

They are just spitting out the talking points without even realising how stupid they are beginning to sound. They have no idea living in DC or NY about what is going on in the real world and they have become so desensitized to our pain that even brutal killings and rapes don’t register on their phsyche. Their brains are numb to reality and their minds are twisted . I wish instead of generalizations and scare-mongering, they would first READ the darn words of AZ law . Atleast once.

macncheez on April 26, 2010 at 3:12 PM

unclesmrgol on April 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

I’m proud for these people, having served in the military and serving with distinction. I served with several non-citizens (who were legal) awaiting their awarding of US citizenship on active duty over the years. This doesn’t excuse their breaking the law as the military later affirmed by discharging these folks. You cannot honestly swear an Oath to the Constitution and to abide by your nations laws if you yourself are purposefully circumventing those laws.

You’re an open boarders advocate, right?

catmman on April 26, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Palin is on board with this also. She and Gov Brewer spent the day together yesterday at the Diamondbacks baseball game. Will be interesting to see where Mitt, Newt, and others fall on it.

spen52 on April 26, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Cheaters are cheaters, and rewarding cheating is a really stupid idea.

Fix legal immigration and enfore deportment laws against illegal cheaters.

Also, clamp down hard on those that knowingly hire them.

saiga on April 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Ditto.

Let’s get this fixed.

BTW: After the borders are secured, how about a limited amnesty program as follows–path to citizenship for a family (parent(s) and children) as long as they provide information leading to the deportation of two times their number in illegal aliens. Ineligible if they’re found to have any scrapes with the law in the past or for a probationary period. Command of the English language within, say, two years. Cap the number who can avail themselves of the program at some number.

If that creates too much a stigma, have we considered licensing bounty hunters for this task? Establish some evidentiary criteria for bounty hunters to compile. If their information leads to deportations, they get a reward. They’d have no capture or detention authority; indeed, they’d be fined for doing so.

There has to be a better solution than general amnesty for all.

BuckeyeSam on April 26, 2010 at 3:13 PM

OK, so family members who are here should go home with the illegals.

tarpon on April 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM

…’violating civil rights of some American citizens’…People on the left were spouting this before ink was dry on the bill. Why don’t we just wait and see how the police in AZ handle this before passing judgment. I’m sure by now they have a good idea of who is and who isn’t legal.

Kissmygrits on April 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM

WithOUT the consent of the governed.

That, my friends, is totalitarianism.

jukin on April 26, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Reunite the families in old Mexico.

Jerricho68 on April 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM

“Exactly. I’m a Lincolnian. All these anti-immigrant laws are of Democratic manufacture. They are the ones who wanted to limit by race and ethnicity; the Republican ideal (as expressed by Lincoln) was to allow those who would work to come. Google Lincoln Know-Nothings.
unclesmrgol on April 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM”

Lincoln wanted to colonize the free Blacks and freed slaves to other countries. Abe wanted a ‘Whites Only’ USA. Therefore, ‘uncleshemrhoid’ is for sending ALL the illegals back to Mexico and points south because they are NOT ‘white’. Unc is the real “Know-Nothing”.

JimP on April 26, 2010 at 3:22 PM

OK, so family members who are here should go home with the illegals.

tarpon on April 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Millions of people work away from their families.

the_nile on April 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM

I always thought Lincoln was a clown, but that was a good idea.

Jerricho68 on April 26, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Steele is offering a truly good GOP position. Family first is a smart strategy on this issue.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM

LEGAL IMMIGRATION. FIX IT. STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and stop encouraging it.

Gangs, drug wars, nurder , crime, disrespect for the rule oif law.

When will it end? When we fix legal immigration and have a respnsible orderly approach to immigration. Letting millions of cheaters game the system, then reward them for it seems wildly stupid to me.

saiga on April 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM

This position could resolve a lot of the racists charges regarding the Hispanics with the GOP.

And, set a boundary that I’m willing to bet most Hispanic families would embrace.

The sense I get is that border control is NOT the hot issue with Hispanics. It’s being treated as though you’re here illegally, when you’re not. And it’s the issue of tearing families apart.

This could be a winner.

If only Romney had said it.

Oh wait, he doesn’t ever say anything. *haha

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:29 PM

the Establishment Left just wants ideology over everything.

Dr. K suggested concertina wire…many suggest guest worker programs…

I think most of the media/Left/Establishment just want an easy solution…legalize everyone and get into a one party state (a la Tom Friedman) that they would really prefer.

r keller on April 26, 2010 at 3:30 PM

People, the immigration system is absurd. Years and years, with tons of money needed.

It’s not a workable deal.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:30 PM

What’s the difference between a right and a civil right, anyway? The only thing I can come up with is that rights are universal, while civil rights are limited to some sort of group.

hawksruleva on April 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Steele is offering a truly good GOP position. Family first is a smart strategy on this issue.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Let one woman have an anchor baby so they can let 500 family members in legally. Now that sure makes sense. We’re overrun already. LEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM WITH TIGHT CONTROLS AND REASONABLR QUOTAS AND RESTRICTIONS IS NOT ONLT RIGHT, BUT BEST. Get Real.

saiga on April 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM

This seems like something approaching political consensus. We shouldn’t be afraid of pushing an enforcement-first agenda, as long as we make sure that civil rights get protected.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Look, I live in ground zero for this, I understand how much this affects our state.

But I’m also afraid for people like my friend Enrique, who was born in Sonora, married a U.S. citizen, got his citizenship, and is a proud conservative. Will he have to carry his driver’s license with him at all times now? And what all the other Hispanics who were born and raised here? Will they have to carry ID on them from the moment they walk out of the house?

I get the idea we’ve got to do something about illegal immigration, and I agree with 90% of this law, but not at the cost of some basic, fundamental civil rights.

ExUrbanKevin on April 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Steele is offering a truly good GOP position. Family first is a smart strategy on this issue.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM

No wonder anchor-babies have been popping all over the place for the last few years.
No wonder the first thing an illegal does once he/she is in US is to hookup and get a baby started, for WIC and a real SS# and welfare and foodstamps. There is a reason they are called anchor-babies.
A family bred for anchor.

macncheez on April 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM

the RAS poll results on enforcement arent surprising at all IMO. Americans know that the Dem ‘reform’ is the same as Dubyah ;’reform’; it is amnesty. Like Reagans 86 ‘reform’ it will act as a magnet and bring millions of people here who will compete for jobs in the all new EXPORT economy Obama and SEIU AFLCIO are trying to build. the rest of us know it is unaffordable and will alter the country, like the wave of immigration sponsored by Tony Blair did to the UK, even their right is left over there now as they kowtow to a generation or more raised on entitlements..

just say no to amnesty

ginaswo on April 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM

and Steele is too weak for this job, the GOP needs someone who isnt afraid of a fight or a whine from the left…Americans are ready for November is the RNC/GOP leadership?
where are the hardaxxes of the GOP who I used to rail against?

ginaswo on April 26, 2010 at 3:35 PM

“So my promise is to make sure that that the family is the focus as well. Not the just the statistics that show up on paper.”

Agreed…so when you catch one, pack the whole family up and ship them back, anchor babies and all.

Laura in Maryland on April 26, 2010 at 3:35 PM

People, the immigration system is absurd. Years and years, with tons of money needed.

It’s not a workable deal.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:30 PM

If you never start working on something, you will definitely never finish it.

Arizona will probably fix a lot of their immigration problems by ANNOUNCING the tough policy. Forewarned, the kidnappers will head over to California or Texas. When San Jose passes Tucson as the kidnapping capital of the world, let us know how impossible it is to change the behavior of illegals.

hawksruleva on April 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM

If we removed anchor babies, then deporting these criminals would be a lot easier…

Wolftech on April 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM

exurbankevin, I carry my id at all times and I am as white as wonder bread, it is a law or you can be id as vagrant if you dont have id and enough money in your pocket to get yourself home, that has always been the law in NYC.

ginaswo on April 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Ed Morrissey: “In one sense, Steele has to frame the argument in a way that appeals to a broad range of potential voters. That’s his job, after all, and Steele didn’t mention any policy specifics in this speech.”

In just what sense is that Steele’s job? He is not a politician, neither in the executive nor legislative branch. As long as he’s just spewing pretty words which will in no way commit/restrict any GOP candidate, he can do what he wants in the privacy of his ego. Unfortunately, this individual has too many times proven himself to be a loose cannon…a one-man circular firing squad, so to say…just with the incidental House and Senate casualties..as if they mattered….

Ed Morrissey: “In other words, the takeaway here is that Americans want a tougher approach to enforcement as long as it doesn’t violate civil rights.”

Helloooooooooo…these illegals are violating my civil rights.
Anyone give a damn about that?
Hint, hint, you morons in the GOP*I* vote, they don’t (at least, not legally…yet).

Steele: GOP’s 2010 “answer” to McCain 2008.

DUMP THIS LOSER ALREADY!!!

Lockstein13 on April 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Steele is offering a truly good GOP position. Family first is a smart strategy on this issue.

AnninCA on April 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM

What does that mean , your husband/wife/child or your extended family?

the_nile on April 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Right wing horrer

HIS_PANIC (Geraldo)

saiga on April 26, 2010 at 3:39 PM

But I’m also afraid for people like my friend Enrique, who was born in Sonora, married a U.S. citizen, got his citizenship, and is a proud conservative. Will he have to carry his driver’s license with him at all times now? And what all the other Hispanics who were born and raised here? Will they have to carry ID on them from the moment they walk out of the house?

I get the idea we’ve got to do something about illegal immigration, and I agree with 90% of this law, but not at the cost of some basic, fundamental civil rights.

ExUrbanKevin on April 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Umm, I’m German-Italian, and I carry ID at all times. It’s called a driver’s license. A photo ID is required for lots of financial transactions, and for buying beer, too. Are alcohol laws a violation of my civil rights?

One of the OTHER laws that illegals break is forgery. Soon, checking the validity of IDs is going to become a big issue.

hawksruleva on April 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM

But I’m also afraid for people like my friend Enrique, who was born in Sonora, married a U.S. citizen, got his citizenship, and is a proud conservative. Will he have to carry his driver’s license with him at all times now? And what all the other Hispanics who were born and raised here? Will they have to carry ID on them from the moment they walk out of the house?

I get the idea we’ve got to do something about illegal immigration, and I agree with 90% of this law, but not at the cost of some basic, fundamental civil rights.

ExUrbanKevin on April 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Oh the horror and pain and the gosh darn invonvenience of having to carry a DL or EAC or GC . Those things weigh 2-3 pounds and you need a special carrying case for them. And having to show it to a LOE , does anyone even know what an effort it is to get a DL out of its carrying case within a short notice ?
There is a basic fundamental civil right we all have : the right to be a jack@$$ , because its racist otherwise .

macncheez on April 26, 2010 at 3:43 PM

How about we copy the immigration policy of Mexico?

1) If you enter illegally, it is a felony. (I do not propose that we should duplicate the “it’s OK to rape the women from Guatemala” policy of their police.)
2) You cannot buy 100% of property in Mexico, you must have a mexican partner.
3) Very few people are allowed to natualize to Mexico and you better have a lot of money.
4) If you have a baby in Mexico, you better have cash and you will both go to prison if you are illegal, because the mother and baby are now illegal.

barnone on April 26, 2010 at 3:50 PM

But I’m also afraid for people like my friend Enrique, who was born in Sonora, married a U.S. citizen, got his citizenship, and is a proud conservative. Will he have to carry his driver’s license with him at all times now? And what all the other Hispanics who were born and raised here? Will they have to carry ID on them from the moment they walk out of the house?

I get the idea we’ve got to do something about illegal immigration, and I agree with 90% of this law, but not at the cost of some basic, fundamental civil rights.

ExUrbanKevin on April 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Uh, too late. ObamaCare now states you must carry insurance proof with you at all times. If you are in an accident, the IRS will now arrest you for failure to have paid your fine or insurance.
/alittlesarc

barnone on April 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM

This seems like something approaching political consensus. We shouldn’t be afraid of pushing an enforcement-first agenda, as long as we make sure that civil rights get protected.

Yes! The Alinskycrats may well be making a huge mistake in fanning these flames by casting it in racial terms. Bring it.

petefrt on April 26, 2010 at 3:54 PM

But I’m also afraid for people like my friend Enrique, who was born in Sonora, married a U.S. citizen, got his citizenship, and is a proud conservative. Will he have to carry his driver’s license with him at all times now? And what all the other Hispanics who were born and raised here? Will they have to carry ID on them from the moment they walk out of the house?

ExUrbanKevin on April 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM

If you have a green card you must – right now – carry the green card with you at all times. In Arizona, in New York, in Idaho, in Nebraska. That is the law nationwide.

Wait what?

Yes you read that right. Legally, all immigrants have to carry their green card with them at all times and have it ready to show to a member of law enforcement. It has been that way forever.

So all this talk of suddenly turning into Gewrmany circa 1935 is total BS.

angryed on April 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM

I wonder what the polling for a total immigration moratorium for five years would look like.

Pretty favorable, I would imagine.

Rebar on April 26, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Except for the fact that there’s absolutely no need for that whatsoever…

Seriously, a moratorium on all immigration!? How nativist can you get?? Next you’ll tell me that patriotism is a function of how many of one’s family members arrived on the Mayflower.

ernesto on April 26, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Will they have to carry ID on them from the moment they walk out of the house?

“We’re sorry that your husband and your children’s father was killed. We could have stopped it or prevented it so he would still be here at your side. But we didn’t. Because it would have meant some people might have had to carry an ID with them.”

Kohath on April 26, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Kohath on April 26, 2010 at 4:06 PM

“We’re sorry that your husband and your children’s father was killed. We could have stopped it or prevented it so he would still be here at your side. But we didn’t. Because it would have meant some people might have had to carry an ID with them have to wait 2 weeks before buying a concealable firearm.”

See how easy that is? If raw fear is all thats driving this law, scrap it.

ernesto on April 26, 2010 at 4:11 PM

catmman on April 26, 2010 at 3:04 PM

I get it, the founding papers are not “exclusive” but inclusive…they define what the original intent was. To create a safe haven for oppressed people…whether religious, economic, or political.
The solution is a “comprehensive” one. It’s just that the liberals comprehensive is open doors and a free for all.
Steele’s is political, heartfelt, we have to protect the family, typical political garbage…who’s against destroying a family?
Somewhere between is an answer. Reagan had a good start, with a strong pathways to citizenship. I literally had dozens of illegals go through the process (paid by me), and it worked, until the dems begin breaking their promise and wouldn’t hold the real illegals responsible. It didn’t take long for them to destroy a workable solution, which has led to the quagmire (and resentment) we have today.
But the “family first” I don’t buy…It’s America first, and then we work back from that.

right2bright on April 26, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Seriously, a moratorium on all immigration!? How nativist can you get?? Next you’ll tell me that patriotism is a function of how many of one’s family members arrived on the Mayflower.

ernesto on April 26, 2010 at 4:04 PM

The way your mind leaps from logic to an illogical scenario is mindboggling.
What is scary is that you actually think those two sentences you wrote somehow tie together. Weird, just plane weird…

right2bright on April 26, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Yes you read that right. Legally, all immigrants have to carry their green card with them at all times and have it ready to show to a member of law enforcement. It has been that way forever.

So all this talk of suddenly turning into Gewrmany circa 1935 is total BS.

angryed on April 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Working with a gal from England right now, she showed me her card, and she has to go back and finish her paperwork and several thousand dollars to be “legal”…meanwhile the gal cleaning her office…take a guess.

right2bright on April 26, 2010 at 4:24 PM

No.

Pay for your own damn family and leave me out of it.

Kohath

…and I bet you sit in a pew every Sunday and pray to your God. Hypocrite.

Grow Fins on April 26, 2010 at 4:26 PM

Is there anything in the US constitution which
REQUIRES

the federal government to

KEEP THE BORDERS OPEN.

Is there anything in our founding/governing documents which make it an
OBLIGATION
an OBLIGATION to
AID AND INCENTIVIZE ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION
Plz don’t direct me to talking points, propaganda material or ‘opinions’ of ppl who call themselves experts. I’m not looking for interpretations or readings between the lines kindda legal mumbojumbo.
Just show me the plain simple words
I’m in a learning mood.

macncheez on April 26, 2010 at 4:33 PM

The peaceful,droopy pants,tat wearing, Ariznazi sign waving,gainfully employed, ENGLISH speaking La Raza/sharpton supporters sure make the violent Tea Party folks look tame.
illegal
Illegals – Illegal immigration is immigration across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Illegal immigrants are also known as illegal aliens to differentiate them from legal aliens. …

Arizona just following the Federal law and redoing it as a state law.

Col.John Wm. Reed on April 26, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Adopting the California anchor baby solution, because that’s worked so well.

Is this a precedent? the family that aborts together stays together?

Speakup on April 26, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2