But Republican presidential candidates still talk as if immigration hardliners will decide crucial primary battles – ignoring the fact that they never did. As a rallying cry for conservatives, the get-tough-on-illegals mantra flopped miserably in 2008 in both the general election and Republican primaries. Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo made angry resistance to unauthorized immigrants the centerpiece of his presidential campaign (“If you want to call me a single issue candidate, that’s fine” he told the Conservative Political Action Committee) but gained no traction anywhere and dropped out before the Iowa Caucuses. His colleague, California Representative Duncan Hunter also stressed immigration concerns and drew only 1% in Iowa.
Meanwhile, the underfunded and over-aged John McCain, a notorious moderate on immigration who had previously supported a path to legalization for the undocumented, won 31 primaries or caucuses, prevailing decisively even in immigration-sensitive states on the Mexican border like California, New Mexico, Texas and his home base of Arizona.
Why would ranting against illegals work any better for presidential candidates in 2012 than in 2008, when all available public opinion surveys show public concern over the issue has been reduced, not intensified?
Mitt Romney in particular should have learned from his own baleful experience, since he wasted millions in Iowa last time trying to clobber his rival Mike Huckabee as “soft” on illegal immigration. He attacked the former Arkansas Governor in TV ads and televised debates for once supporting a proposal (ultimately defeated in the legislature) for in-state tuition breaks for children who had been brought to the country without authorization. Though he outspent his opponent by a ratio of ten-to-one, the former Massachusetts governor lost badly in Iowa (34% to 25%). It makes no sense at all for Romney (a vastly improved candidate in most other respects) to try to use the same feeble issue as a club against Rick Perry (who’s doing a fine job clubbing himself with his endless series of verbal gaffes). Even on an ideological basis, the whole question of in-state tuition is unequivocally a state issue and not a federal question for any prospective president to decide or debate.
The current immigration fixation on the campaign trail not only steals attention from vastly more significant and viable themes (like job creation and runaway federal spending) but also portrays the Republican Party as deeply divided and hopelessly out of touch with mainstream concerns. Aside from the embarrassing discussion about Mitt Romney’s lawn care service, the candidates don’t really differ on immigration policy. The next time one of the leading contenders gets a question or a challenge on the subject the right response would emphasize that agreement. It’s easy to imagine Romney, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, Huntsman, or even Ron Paul (if not Rick Santorum) affirming a clear and unanimous (and, one hopes, sane) Republican approach.
Imagine the relief and excitement if one of the candidates simply declared, “I don’t want to spend much time on this issue because all of us here on this stage agree on the essentials. We want better, stronger, border enforcement, tougher measures to stop employers from hiring illegals, and an aggressive effort to make sure that people who’ve entered our country without permission don’t get rewarded with welfare benefits that they don’t deserve and we can’t afford. But we also believe that there needs to be a sweeping repair of our broken immigration system to allow people who want to become Americans and play by the rules, speaking English and paying taxes and honoring our flag, to get their chance to prove themselves and embrace the American dream. But the only way to give them that chance is to get our economy moving again, so let’s talk about recovery—which is the real concern of every American, including immigrants.”
It ought to be obvious that this approach would work better with the public than Herman Cain’s odd “joke” about a twenty-foot-high fence with a deadly electrical current. Dropping the inflammatory and pointlessly divisive tone on immigration would not only provide a more reliable path to the GOP nomination but could also help to assure victory next November. The only way that Barack Obama’s challengers can hope to make him a one term president is to give more attention to the issues that matter by wasting less time on angry arguments that don’t.
Green Hypocrisy: CEO of Virgin Airlines Says Global Warming Skeptics Should ‘Get Out of Our Way’ | Leah Barkoukis