Kansas City Star (Editorial)
July 31, 2018
At his core, who is U.S. Rep. Kevin Yoder? The man’s impressive number of recent flip turns on immigration are so transparently powered by his desire to be re-elected that he’s managed to exasperate those on all sides.
Ann Coulter was so peeved she forgot his name for a minute and started calling him Jeff Yoder. Laura Ingraham accused him of “selling out the Trump agenda for his re-election in a close race.” Of course, he bought into that agenda again a minute later.
No wonder the Kansas congressman, who startles easily, reassured no one by promising he’d work with President Donald Trump to “fix” a bill that would keep federal dollars from funding stricter asylum rules.
Are we supposed to take that seriously? By tomorrow, he could be promising to fix his plan to fix the bill to fix the Trump administration’s overzealous attempt to discourage those fleeing violence.
Even public servants can have a change of heart, of course. Like other life forms, the politician can, should and sometimes must evolve, rethink, respond to new information. But Yoder’s multiple recent reversals — Build that wall! Asylum seekers need our help! Wait, or do they really? — only reveal the frenzy of a candidate under more pressure than he’s used to or can withstand.
He was a kid Democrat before he was a grown-up Republican and has said he would have registered with the GOP earlier than he did, in 2001, but forgot to do that. As the representative of a moderate district in an increasingly immoderate state and party, he’s had to proceed carefully all along, much as Democratic Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill has.
This latest burst of activity, however, is so careful it comes off as careless, swinging wildly from pole to pole in the days leading up to the Democratic primary that will decide which of the six Democrats running against him will challenge him in the fall.
They are an impressive bunch, and Yoder’s not wrong to worry about his re-election prospects.
He is wrong, however, to backtrack on as stand-up a position as standing up for asylum-seekers fleeing domestic or gang violence.
He was right the first time — or was it the second? Anyway, the time last week when he said that “as the son of a social worker, I have great compassion for those victims of domestic violence anywhere, especially as it concerns those nations that turn a blind eye to the crimes of domestic violence or refuse to protect those and in some cases force victims to be in these violent relationships.”
As had been the case until June, immigration officials “should at least be able to look at domestic violence issues or other circumstances on the asylum claim,” he said. “And while I understand there are some people in the committee who have sharply different opinions on this, for my part, I’ll be voting aye.”
He sounded so clear that day, almost as if he meant it. On that same day, he also supported amendments that would address a green card backlog for highly skilled legal immigrants, and that would let immigration officials go back to monitoring asylum-seekers, who do after all come here legally, instead of locking them up. The Trump administration ended that more humane and less expensive program last June.
Whatever you think about the immigration issue, Yoder wants you to know he agrees. But his election year positioning is as naked as his swim in the Sea of Galilee. And it’s just as ill-advised. By refusing to choose, he’s inviting the electoral outcome he so palpably fears.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment