New York Times
By Alexander Burnes
February 12, 2016
The
Republican presidential race has erupted in an incendiary new round of
attacks over immigration, laying the groundwork in South Carolina for a
monthslong fight that
is likely to amplify hard-line talk about border security and migrants
before a national audience.
With
Donald J. Trump leading the way, the candidates have offered
contentious proposals to build a wall on the Mexican border, block
Muslims from entering the United States
and turn away even 5-year-old refugees from Syria.
Party
leaders had hoped some of the most provocative speech would have
subsided by now as the race moved past Iowa, a state known for its
fiercely hawkish immigration
politics, and as more conventional candidates, like former Gov. Jeb
Bush and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, turned their attention toward
the general election.
Instead,
the battle lines over immigration have only deepened, as Mr. Trump has
maintained his upper hand in the race and the primary campaign has moved
into South Carolina
and a series of Southern states that vote over the next month.
The
theme of what conservatives call “amnesty” has divided the candidates
into two groups: One, including Mr. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas,
favors strict immigration
policies that would never grant legal status to undocumented
immigrants. The other, including Mr. Rubio and Mr. Bush, who are both
trailing in the polls, has endorsed a crackdown on illegal immigration
without ruling out legal status for people in the country
illegally at some distant point in the future.
Here
in South Carolina, Mr. Cruz is airing a television ad attacking Mr.
Rubio for his involvement in an attempted overhaul of the immigration
system and branding him
as having worked “with liberal Chuck Schumer to give illegals amnesty.”
A “super PAC” supporting Mr. Cruz has sent campaign mail to voters here
and in Nevada showing Mr. Rubio’s face alongside those of Mr. Schumer,
Democrat of New York, and Senator Harry Reid,
Democrat of Nevada, and accusing Mr. Rubio of supporting “amnesty.”
Kellyanne
Conway, a strategist for the pro-Cruz group, Keep the Promise, said
support for legalizing undocumented immigrants was a “complete
deal-breaker, an unpardonable
sin, among the base.”
But
Mr. Cruz, who won the Republican caucuses in Iowa in part on the
strength of his immigration message, is also facing newly harsh
criticism of his own record. A conservative
advocacy group, the American Future Fund, is running commercials that
say he “proposed mass legalization of illegal immigrants,” as part of a
larger attack on Mr. Cruz’s national security credentials.
Mr.
Trump, who has called for a ban on Muslim immigration and for a special
“deportation force” to expel undocumented immigrants, released an ad
criticizing Mr. Cruz as
untrustworthy on the issue. Mr. Trump later pulled the ad, but on
Friday put out a different one highlighting the endorsement of Jamiel
Shaw Sr., a man whose son was killed in California by a person the
commercial describes as an “illegal immigrant gang member
who just got out of prison.”
Heading
into the debate on Saturday in Greenville, Mr. Rubio, who once
championed an immigration bill that would have allowed undocumented
workers to obtain legal status,
insistently accused Mr. Cruz of being insincere in his support for
punitive immigration restrictions.
At
a campaign stop Thursday in Myrtle Beach, Mr. Rubio twice tied Mr. Cruz
to more lenient positions on immigration that are unpopular here. When
immigration was up for
debate in Washington, Mr. Rubio said, “Ted was a passionate
spokesperson on behalf of legalizing people that are in this country
illegally.”
Even
Mr. Bush, who has taken a more empathetic view of illegal immigration —
he has called it an “act of love” for people seeking economic
opportunity — has circulated
materials at campaign events that stress his stern approach to border
security.
“The first priority must be to Secure the Border,” the leaflets say, with the final three words in bold type.
Douglas
Holtz-Eakin, a former economic adviser to Senator John McCain’s 2008
campaign, said immigration had become a symbolic litmus test on the
right, locking the candidates
into a protracted struggle, with potentially grave consequences for the
fall campaign.
“It’s
an authenticity fight — who’s the authentic conservative?” said Mr.
Holtz-Eakin, who advocated a bipartisan immigration deal in 2013. “The
difference is, immigration
is a real issue, it’s a large issue, and you can’t escape that.”
Should
Republicans enter the fall with a platform based on severe immigration
restrictions, it would be the third consecutive presidential race in
which the party has
tacked to the right on the subject before facing an increasingly
diverse national electorate, especially in swing states like Nevada,
Florida and Virginia, where there are sizable Latino and Asian-American
communities.
After
the 2008 and 2012 elections, Republican leaders publicly called for the
party to soften its platform on immigration. In the wake of Mitt
Romney’s defeat by President
Obama, a report commissioned by the Republican National Committee
concluded that supporting immigration reform was essential to the
party’s viability in national elections.
The
gulf between the parties has opened even wider since then: As
Republicans have taken a down-the-line conservative stance on
immigration, Democrats have lurched still
further to the left, and have criticized even the application of
existing immigration laws.
In
the Democratic debate on Thursday night, both Hillary Clinton and
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont criticized Mr. Obama for deportation
raids recently conducted by
his administration.
But
the stakes appear to be higher for the Republicans as they grapple with
the perception that their party is hostile to immigrants and nonwhite
voters.
Proponents
of immigration reform have sought to raise the alarm about the
trajectory of the Republican race. FWD.us, an organization that supports
immigration reform,
and is funded in part by the Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, cited
private polling to warn late last fall that support for large-scale
deportation would be “disastrous” in a general election.
“Any
candidate who in the general supports mass deportation risks negatively
impacting the brand of his or her party for generations to come,” the
group said in a memo
circulated to allies in both parties.
In
South Carolina, support for bipartisan immigration reform has not
always proved politically toxic. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican
who supports Mr. Bush, won re-election
easily in 2014 after backing the same immigration compromise Mr. Rubio
supported.
But voters here are plainly looking to the candidates for reassurance.
At
a campaign stop Thursday in which Mr. Rubio criticized Mr. Cruz’s
immigration views from the right, Judy Phillips of North Myrtle Beach
said some of her concerns about
Mr. Rubio’s record had been put to rest.
Ms.
Phillips, who runs a small furniture business, said it had been
important to hear Mr. Rubio’s plans from him directly, after the barrage
of immigration-themed ads
that she had seen attacking him.
“They keep running that ad about Schumer and him,” Ms. Phillips said. “I think that’s a damaging ad.”
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment