(The mixed messages which Washington sends on undocumented immigration
are rooted in two realities, at once contradictory and complementary.
They want the immigrants here in the U.S., to work as a desperate and
impoversished helot class without rights. They use them as a pressure
force against the more fortunate, luckier, often but not always white
workers - Blacks get sucked into this, too -- to encourage the native
born workers to be hostile toward the immigrants. Here the organ of
the business community is warning their politicians of the dangerous
consequences their appeals to xenophobia and racism can have for
their ability to continue to rule the country. This is thoughtful
stuff from the other side of the fence. It's worth reading with a
good deal of attention. These rightists are playing with political
fire. There are things for the rest of us to be learned from this.)
===================================================================

August 24, 2007

POTOMAC WATCH
By KIMBERLEY STRASSEL

Native Sons
August 24, 2007; Page A14
WALL STREET JOURNAL

History students call it a teaching moment: A week before the general election
in 1884, fiery Protestant minister Samuel D. Burchard warned about the perils of
allowing his party to identify with "Romanism." Standing by his side in New York
was Republican presidential candidate James G. Blaine. Catholic voters were
furious.

Mr. Blaine lost the state by 1,149 votes, and the election to Grover Cleveland.
It then took Catholics 100 years to get over it, when Ronald Reagan finally
convinced them to trust his party again.

Today's question is whether Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are providing future
scholars with their own teaching moment. Their spitting row over illegal
immigration continues to lead the news, given how little else there has been to
fill the newspapers in these dreary August days. At its current momentum, it
also threatens to become a case study in how nativism can drive a political
party off a cliff.

For their part, both men would like to present this as nothing more than primary
politics as usual. A vocal Republican minority is demanding tough talk on an
issue that has inflamed its passions for most of this year. Who are these two
frontrunners to refuse? Immigration gives them an easy way to talk up their
security credentials, while simultaneously keeping the conversation away from
thornier questions about social issues, or Mormonism, or unsupportive children.
It also allows them to distinguish themselves from that dastardly immigration
reformer, John McCain.

Unfortunately for their party, what neither man can do is keep the rest of
America from listening. And for every base Republican who is gratified by talk
of ID cards and border patrols, there's an entire family of Hispanic immigrants
who are absorbing the mean language of "sanctuary cities," "lawbreakers" and
"deportation." Many of these folks are religious, entrepreneurial, and true
believers in the American dream; as such, they're the biggest new voting
potential the Republican Party has seen in ages. But a growing number, just like
those Catholics of yore, are angered by the recent rhetoric and wondering why
they should pull a lever for any party that would go out of its way to tag their
community as the source of America's problems.

Here's some math for the numerically challenged at certain GOP campaigns: Bob
Dole got 26% support from the Hispanic community and lost. George Bush in 2000
got in the mid-30s and barely made it to the White House. By 2004, the president
had increased his share of that vote to close to 44%, and won decisively. That's
because while Hispanics make up only about 7% to 8% of the vote nationally, they
have far larger constituencies in key swing states. If Mr. Bush hadn't wooed
them in Nevada this past election, John Kerry would now be running for a second
term.

Mr. Giuliani, to his credit, seems to comprehend this at some level. The former
New York mayor has done his share to escalate this ugly fight, though he's also
refused to step back from his position that the country needs to provide some
path to citizenship for today's illegal population. This is deliberate on his
part, done with an eye toward moving back to the center and courting Hispanic
votes in the general election. It also provides a contrast -- at least for those
paying attention -- with Mr. Romney, whose own campaign hasn't yet managed to
look beyond the short-term goal of using immigration to rile up primary state
voters against opponents.

Supporters of both men like to point out that their favorites don't have any
choice but to engage in the immigration fight. They note that one reason Mr.
Bush was able to make a sincere plea for immigration reform in 2004, and thus
win the hearts of many Hispanic voters, was that the topic wasn't yet at a full
boil. The president wasn't getting skewered by his own base at town hall
meetings.

True. But it's also true that there's a big difference between addressing the
question of the border as part of a wider discussion about national security,
and using immigrant-bashing as a campaign weapon against a foe. The former,
Hispanic voters would tolerate -- might even appreciate, given that many are
concerned about terrorism and crime. The latter goes well beyond political
necessity and straight into the realm of the offensive, of abusing immigrants
for electoral gain. And you can bet the voting Hispanic public understands the
difference.

The real worry for the eventual GOP nominee is that the party will so damage its
reputation with Hispanic voters over the next few months that it will prove
unable to connect on any other issue. Mr. Bush talked about immigration in 2004,
but what earned him most of his support from the Hispanic community was his
assurance that he, and his party, stood for them on the whole gamut of electoral
questions. This resonated in particular with foreign-born immigrants, who are
more socially conservative on issues such as abortion and marriage, who run
small businesses and like tax cuts, and who are inordinately proud of their
adopted country.

"George Bush ran in 2004 and said, 'I know you, I want you, I share values with
you, I believe in the American dream,' and he got a lot of patriotic, pro-war,
entrepreneurial Latinos to vote for him," says Frank Sharry, executive director
of the National Immigration Forum. "Now here's the next generation of GOP
leaders and their slogan is: 'We don't want you, and we don't like your family
members that don't have papers yet. But we still want your vote.'" Charming
message.

It's a message you can bet that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will be
highlighting -- on Spanish-language TV, in key states like Florida and Arizona
-- come this spring. Evidence suggests those ads, which will point out how hard
certain Republicans fought against the recent immigration reform, might find a
receptive audience. Local businessmen and evangelical leaders are already
warning Republicans that their communities are angry, and ready to show it at
the polls. Massey Villarreal, a leader at the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
was recently quoted as saying: "I've been trying to put my finger in the dam of
Hispanics leaving the Republican Party. I can't anymore. I've run out of
fingers."

Teaching moment? It's still too early to know. But Messrs. Romney and Giuliani
could both do worse than to do a little history reading on that man who never
was president, James Blaine.

================================
WALTER LIPPMANN
Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
writer - photographer - activist
http://www.walterlippmann.com
================================