• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

GOP Adopts Strong Anti-Immigration Platform Plank

Not surprisingly, the Republican Party’s 2012 Platform will be taking a very hard line position on immigration issues:

TAMPA, Fla.— Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach persuaded the Republican platform committee Tuesday to toughen its language on immigration.

“We recognize that if you really want to create a job tomorrow, you can remove an illegal alien today,” he told the 100-plus representatives to the committee. “That is the way to open up jobs very quickly for U.S. citizen workers and lawfully admitted alien workers.”

The committee agreed to restore 2008 platform planks that didn’t appear in a draft prepared by Republican National Committee staff, who worked in close consultation with Mitt Romney’s campaign.

The platform committee overwhelmingly voted to add language proposed by Kobach calling for the completion of a border fence, the end of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and an end to sanctuary cities. It also voted to support national E-Verify, an Internet database run by the federal government that makes it harder for undocumented workers to get jobs.

Trying to make inroads with Latino votes, Romney has toned down the hardline rhetoric he used in the primaries. The GOP convention is also being held in the key state of Florida, which is home to a large population of Hispanic voters that Republicans realize are key to the party’s electoral chances and future.

Kobach, you may recall, is the person who prepared the original legislation that became the inspiration for the Arizona’s SB1070, as well as the immigration laws in Alabama, Georgia, and other states. While the hard line provisions themselves will be popular with the GOP base, one has to question the wisdom of things like this considering the problems that the GOP is having with Latino voters. This hardly seems designed to ameliorate that problem at all.

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Jr says:

    They do realize they have no chance at winning this election if Obama is capturing 67-70% of the Latino vote?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  2. mantis says:

    Hard line against gays. Hard line against immigrants. Hard line against women. Hard line against voting rights for the poor, minorities, and students.

    The Grand Old Party should really change their name to the Grand Old Rich White Male Party. That’s apparently what they want to become.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0

  3. Hard line against gays. Hard line against immigrants. Hard line against women. Hard line against voting rights for the poor, minorities, and students.

    They’ve always had those. And then they pay lip service, rather than enact a hard line, against high spending.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  4. Any nation can choose its level of immigration. It is also widely accepted that immigration policy should support a nation’s economic growth.

    That said, “illegals took ur jobs” is not consistent with a free market and free trade platform.

    If the tariff at the Mexican border is zero, what is reduced immigration ensuring? That the whole factory and not just the worker will be down south?

    As I’ve said before, stupid people fight immigration, support free trade, and just hope against hope that there will be enough jobs tied to their locality for them to survive.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  5. Console says:

    @john personna:

    Yep. Free trade without free labor movement is nonsensical.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  6. It also voted to support national E-Verify, an Internet database run by the federal government

    And thus the party that rails so much about “intrusive government regulation” backs a mandate requiring every hiring decision in the country be pre-approved by a federal bureacrat.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  7. Vast Variety says:

    Is the GOP purposly trying to loose?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  8. Tsar Nicholas says:

    You can lead the country club right to reality, but alas you can’t make them think.

    That said, however, this election will come down to turnout and there actually might be a method to this parficular madness. CA, TX and AZ are not in play. In Florida the Latino demographic will vote 50/50 or better for the GOP no matter its stance on illegal immigration. Only NV, NM and CO could be affected by this sort of hard line position and to a large extent that’s already priced in. That’s also one of the reasons why Team Romney is focusing on IA, NH and WI. Review the demographics. Do the electoral math.

    In the context of pure electoral politics platforms don’t really matter all that much. Ultimately what matters is who votes and who doesn’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  9. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Doug, drop the mask and stop pretending to be a conservative-leaning individual.

    You just wrote an entire article — and headline — based on a lie.

    Or do you, a lawyer and officer of the court, see no difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant?

    And Stormy: the right aren’t anarchists — those psychotics are on your side. Securing the borders and regulating immigration are a legitimate duty of the federal government. IArticle I, Section 8 of something called “The Constitution.”) Which is why so many of us are so pissed that the Obama administration is not only refusing to live up to its obligations in this area, but is fighting like hell to keep anyone else from doing it.

    So, Doug, feel like correcting your piece? Or do you really believe that there’s no difference between legal and illegal immigrants?

    If so, would you mind if I made a few “undocumented” withdrawals from your bank accounts?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  10. mantis says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Which is why so many of us are so pissed that the Obama administration is not only refusing to live up to its obligations in this area, but is fighting like hell to keep anyone else from doing it.

    Under Obama’s administration, deportation of illegal immigrants is way up. Border security has increased every year since he took office. There are more agents on the border now than ever.

    You are by far the biggest liar here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  11. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @mantis: Bite me, lying sack of insect. That was the whole point of the Obama administration’s lawsuit on Arizona SB 1070 — “we won’t enforce border security, and we won’t let you do it, either!” And now they’re punishing Arizona for daring to challenge — and partially win — the Obama administration for taking their own border security seriously.

    That they’re doing SOMETHING doesn’t mean they’re doing all they could, or should.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  12. Laurence Bachmann says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Bitter much? Every Hispanic politician–Rubio, Martinez, et al–have repeatedly called for some variation of the Dream Act to be passed. The extreme right’s adamant determination to block
    such a compromise is not just perceived as anti Hispanic (by Hispanics) and mean spirited, it is really stupid.

    All of politics is a compromise. Getting as much of your agenda, not clinging to an unachievable end is the mark of rational leaders. If you want the fastest growing minority in America, and one that leans conservative, to support you, you have to support them. And stop threatening to break up families. THAT is the point of the article.

    When ideologues took over the Democratic Party in 1972 they spent 20 years in the wilderness. Ideology without pragmatism is a recipe for defeat. A little moderation on immigration, abortion or modest tax increases would go immeasurably far in winning over independents and social moderates.

    There simply aren’t enough conservatives in this country to get you what you want. Until you compromise with at least one of the above groups you will lose. That is the point of this article. And your indignant rant just proves it’s point.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  13. mantis says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Bite me, lying sack of insect.

    Bite yourself, puppet.

    That was the whole point of the Obama administration’s lawsuit on Arizona SB 1070

    No, the supremacy clause was the point of the lawsuit. I’m sorry you and the Arizona Republicans don’t respect the Constitution.

    “we won’t enforce border security, and we won’t let you do it, either!”

    Again, you are a liar. This administration is enforcing border security and immigration law more than any before it. Why must you lie as part of your argument? It is because you have no argument.

    And now they’re punishing Arizona for daring to challenge — and partially win — the Obama administration for taking their own border security seriously.

    The state was shown to have dramatically, if not entirely, overreached it’s authority. In no way did the state show that the Obama administration does not take border security seriously. You are a liar.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  14. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Laurence Bachmann: I got no problem with the Dream Act — as long as it’s part of a comprehensive immigration reform act. Let’s do it all at once, and screw this piecemeal approach.

    Plus, I got a few problems with the DREAM Act as put forward. For example, one provision I’d demand would be that no illegal alien would EVER be entitled to pay less tuition than an American citizen or legal resident — which the current DREAM Act would allow.

    Sound fair to you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  15. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @mantis: Again, you are a liar. This administration is enforcing border security and immigration law more than any before it. Why must you lie as part of your argument? It is because you have no argument.

    Please elaborate how “increased deportations” equals “increased border security.” And try not to convolute yourself too strenuously when you avoid mentioning how if border security was actually increased, there would be fewer illegal aliens to deport.

    And as much as you bluster and insult, the Obama administration’s argument in Arizona absolutely boiled down to “we won’t secure the borders, nobody can make us do it, and we won’t let anyone else do it.” Their argument was that border security is an exclusive power of the federal government, and they also have the right to selectively exercise that power, choosing whether or not to carry it out. I just put it in plain English.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  16. mantis says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Please elaborate how “increased deportations” equals “increased border security.”

    I don’t have to elaborate, because that’s not what I was saying. More agents on the border equals increased border security, as I noted. And by the way, the Arizona law has nothing to do with border security. It’s about immigration policy. Just ask the Supreme Court. Dumbass liar.

    And try not to convolute yourself too strenuously when you avoid mentioning how if border security was actually increased, there would be fewer illegal aliens to deport.

    Border security has increased. Perhaps if you pulled your head out of your ass, you would have less shit in your mouth.

    And as much as you bluster and insult, the Obama administration’s argument in Arizona absolutely boiled down to “we won’t secure the borders, nobody can make us do it, and we won’t let anyone else do it.”

    No, it did not, liar. Are you trying to make every sentence a lie? Not much of a laudable goal.

    Their argument was that border security is an exclusive power of the federal government

    Again, the law, the case, and the decision were about enforcing immigration policy, not border security. You don’t have a damn clue what you are talking about, do you? How does pulling over Mexican looking dudes in Phoenix secure the border? How stupid are you?

    I just put it in plain English.

    Is that what you call ignorant, obvious lies?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  17. Laurence Bachmann says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Great . The dream act is a start. And sure I want tuition to be equitable. But why isn’t there mention of Republicans favoring The Dream Act in the party platform? Just building more fence? Why does every republican condemn Todd Akins but then 5 days later pass a plank on abortion that allows no exceptions in the event of rape? You can’t say you disavow his position and then adopt it. And if it is tradition and religious values that determine your stand on gay marriage, fine. But why object to civil unions, unless you (republican conservatives) really do think they are second class citizens.

    This is an election you should win in a romp and it is not happening. Just think about it. I’m not trying to get in your face. Just point out how thing look to others.

    Again,

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  18. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @mantis: My, you’re so tense. Have you thought about switching to Decaf?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  19. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Laurence Bachmann: Great . The dream act is a start. And sure I want tuition to be equitable. But why isn’t there mention of Republicans favoring The Dream Act in the party platform?

    You don’t start offering compromises before you start negotiations. That’s just stupid.

    And if you wanna have a discussion, stick to one topic. I ain’t jumping around as you shotgun all your talking points all over the place.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  20. mantis says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Pathetic, Jay. Just pathetic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  21. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    And, astonishingly, NO ONE is able to defend Doug’s seeing no difference between legal immigrants and illegal ones. But everyone is pretty eager to ignore it.

    Let me put on my shocked face.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  22. al-Ameda says:

    Well then, who better to represent an angry Whites special interest group than Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan?

    Seriously though. Border patrol and security has been increased, Illegal immigration is at the lowest level in over 30 years, this administration had deported over half a million illegal immigrants, and the GOP would have you believe that illegal immigrants are streaming across our border by the millions as we speak.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  23. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    I got no problem with the Dream Act — as long as it’s part of a comprehensive immigration reform act. Let’s do it all at once, and screw this piecemeal approach.

    Translation: “When it’s a Republican item, I support it. When it’s a Democratic idea, I do not.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  24. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @al-Ameda: Immigration is down largely because there ain’t no jobs. Most people would agree that “we’ll slow down illegal immigration by keeping the economy in the toilet, so they won’t want to come here” is NOT a really good strategy.

    Your stats? They’re being seriously questioned and challenged.

    And not one of you effing wusses can answer a single challenge: why do liberals slander legal immigrants by lumping them in with the illegal ones? And in this case, I’m including Doug for doing just that as well.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  25. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @al-Ameda: Every single proposed Republican immigration measure has been shot down with the “only as part of a comprehensive immigration reform” argument. You don’t like it here? Then you should have been complaining about it when your side was using it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  26. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    And if no one is going to even acknowledge Doug’s flagrant dishonesty in lumping together legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, I see no point in watching you all yell “SQUIRREL!” over and over.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  27. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:
    Again, because the truth is interesting (to reality-based people, but not to the GOP):

    Seriously though. Border patrol and security has been increased, Illegal immigration is at the lowest level in over 30 years, this administration had deported over half a million illegal immigrants, and the GOP would have you believe that illegal immigrants are streaming across our border by the millions as we speak.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  28. Laurence Bachmann says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Okay let’s stick to immigration–I wasn’t suggesting you negotiate with Hispanics to get their support. I was suggesting you APPEAL to them. You do that by moderating your position. You can’t only talk about deportation and fences and expect them to vote for you. You have to MODERATE–ie bend. Some type of Dream Act is the bare minimum and the inevitable solution. Accept reality.

    Like it or not the kids of illegal immigrants born here are citizens. Do you really want to be the party that separates thousands of families? If you think Akin is a problem try getting women and Hispanics to sign off on that. when Rick Perry isn’t pure enough for conservatives on this issue you have lost all perspective.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  29. Vast Variety says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: The problem with illegal immigration is that there is such a thing as illegal immigration. Why on earth would we want to stop people from becoming Americans? Unless your 100% descendant from a Native American then you are the child of an immigrant.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  30. An Interested Party says:

    And not one of you effing wusses can answer a single challenge…

    Awwwww…it’s so cute when armchair warriors try to talk tough…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  31. David M says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Why would anyone care that Doug is discussing immigration. You claim to want comprehensive immigration reform, seems to me that you just admitted to discussing legal and illegal immigration at the same time, without being clear which was which. The horror!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  32. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @David M: Why would anyone care that Doug is discussing immigration.

    Note to Doug: I am now officially more important around here than you are to at this one reader. My conquest of this blog continues apace.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  33. superdestroyer says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    So the only alternative for anyone who claims that they want smaller government is open borders, unlimited immigration, and the toleration of stolen identities. If the government is going to force everyone to have a social security number and to pay taxes, the government should have a program to ensure that the social security number is used only by the person who was given that number by the government.

    Why are progressives so pro-Identity theft? What do progressives want 300 million third world immigrants to move to the U.S.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. superdestroyer says:

    @Laurence Bachmann:

    The Reagan Administration passed an amnesty with the promise of better border security. However, the Reagan Administraiton lied because cheap labor was more important than immigration control. However, California is now lost to the Republican forever and the U.S. is on a guild path to becomes a third world country with a small number of Ivy League educated patrons and a massive number of third world immigrant peons.

    The real question is how do progressives have single payer healthcare and the social welfare system of Scandanavia with the populations of Mexico, Nigeria, and China?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. Kayla Sonergoran says:

    The one view I agree with Republicans on is immigration. For the life of me I don’t get why we let PC affect our common sense about protecting our country and maintaining our heritage (and for the record I am black, not white). I’ve seen so many people denied jobs for not speaking Spanish. We need to protect Americans first and it is NOT asking much to require those who come here to learn English or get out of here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  36. swbarnes2 says:

    While the hard line provisions themselves will be popular with the GOP base, one has to question the wisdom of things like this considering the problems that the GOP is having with Latino voters. This hardly seems designed to ameliorate that problem at all.

    Well, duh, it wasn’t designed to do that at all. You know perfectly well what it was designed to do. Why can’t you just conclude with the obvious conclusion? You don’t have to add yet another claim of bewilderment and ignorance of conservative thinking and Republican tactics. It doens’t make the piece any more informative, and it doens’t make you look any smarter, either.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0