From Politico:
A tough, Arizona-style anti-immigration bill in the Indiana state Legislature has put Gov. Mitch Daniels — who is mum on whether he backs it — on a collision course with tea party activists who see it as a big priority and could have national implications for the Indiana governor in a GOP presidential primary.
Daniels, who’s mulling a White House run in 2012 and won rave reviews for his CPAC speech last weekend, has yet to take a stand on legislation introduced by State Sen. Mike Delph that died under Democratic-controlled Legislatures in each of the last several years — but faces greatly improved odds of passing this time around.
The latest version of the measure creates tough enforcement provisions, requiring cops to ask for proof of immigration status if they have “reasonable” suspicion about someone they’ve stopped for an unrelated issue — like blowing a traffic light. It also creates strict penalties for employers of illegals.
And this year, the Indiana House of Representatives came under GOP control after a 2010 election shift — upping the chances that the legislation will pass and that Daniels, who’s made his reputation as a fiscal conservative, will end up having to take a stand on the thorny social issue.
Already, tea party activists — who are expected to be influential in the Republican primary process — are demanding Daniels show his cards and come out in support of the bill.
That doesn’t look likely:
Murphy noted that the governor’s office conducted a cost impact study on the bill and fixed it with a roughly $5 million price tag for enforcement — something he said he sees as an indication that Daniels’ team is leaning against it. He also noted the governor has historically had strong relations with the growing Hispanic population, adding, “He speaks Spanish as a second language.”
A lot of Republicans running in 2012 are going to face problems with the Tea Party on immigration. The Tea Party groups didn’t address immigration (except maybe those in Arizona), just as they avoided all issues other than spending and size of government, and that was a smart move at the time. But as an outpouring of populist nationalism, they are almost coterminous with immigration hawks, and woe to any open-borders Republican seeking their help. This is why Dick Armey and Grover Norquist, both strong open-borders guys, don’t even utter the word “immigration” to Tea Party folks, lest they have tomatoes thrown at them.
Jeff Flake, for instance, may face rough sledding because of his C- grade from Numbers USA, making him one of the worst House Republicans on immigration. (He has the same grade as Gabby Giffords, who’s one of the better House Democrats.) And this is why Orrin Hatch (a grade of D+) is trying to help himself by introducing tough legislation (which he unveiled last week at the Heritage Foundation).
The same goes for presidential candidates. Numbers USA’s presidential grade card is mostly incomplete, since it’s so early, but while the grades themselves may not tell us much objectively, they’re useful in comparing presidential hopefuls with each other. The possible candidates with the strongest stances are Pawlenty and Thune, while Barbour and Gingrich are the worst (can we call him Amnesty Haley yet?).
When the going gets tough, the tough stick their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"the governor’s office conducted a cost impact study on the bill and fixed it with a roughly $5 million price tag for enforcement"
The Indiana state budget for the year 2010-11 is $28.8 billion, so obviously spending $5 million (that's 0.02% of the budget) to have law enforcement actually enforce the law would drive the state to fiscal ruin!
Never mind the fact that the governors office did not bother to do a cost impact study on the price tag of illegal immigrants.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe parenthetical inclusion of Arizona is an amusing touch, given the results of the primary there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy is illegal immigration supposedly a SoCon-only issue? How much money is being spent on welfare, education, health care, etc. for illegals and their families not even counting that someone else is unemployed for every illegal who is employed, so many of them are also getting welfare, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"When the going gets tough, the tough stick their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing."
Yeah, I'm beginning to think that Mitch Daniels isn't the man of steel he pretends to be. He wants to be President? He needs to stand up and say what he believes, rather than try to finesse it by calling for a "truce." How's he going to stand up to America's adversaries if he's afraid of offending anyone for reasons of electoral politics?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI, for one, have always been a bit skeptical of that Man of Steel persona.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“He speaks Spanish as a second language.”
He's concerned about his Hispanic constituency? Evidently not about his tax-paying constituency.
Will he be comfortable speaking English as a second language?
Not sure what I mean? Look at the signs, notices, documents etc. in Quebec: French is on top, over English, first, every time.
If he's not sure what he wants to do about immigration he's toast, and the sooner he knows this the better for all the other candidates.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseImmigration is not a social issue. It is a fiscal issue, a national sovereignty issue, and a national security issue. The State of California is going broke policing, educating, and providing health care for illegal immigrants and their children. We can't afford to continue leaving the border unguarded.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlways good to be skeptical of a Man of Steel persona -- just check out Dzhugashvili.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe most ridiculous explanation for not enforcing laws against illegal immigrants is the "cost" argument.
I live in AZ, and the exodus of illegal immigrants has been staggering as a result of SB 107. It has potentially saved the state billions, and the law hasn't even been enforced yet!
$5 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what it costs Indiana to provide medical care, education, food stamps to illegal immigrants, not to mention the cost in rampant crime.
Here's a dirty secret, the reason why the media is so scared with tough action on the border is because it's so popular, even with Democrats (especially blue collar ones). If Republicans want to get in the good graces of Reagan Democrats in the Rust-Belt, take a tough line on illegal immigration and watch them swoon.
This is pretty simple, if Daniels vetoes it, he doesn't get through the Republican Presidential primary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDaniels seems to want a "truce" on tax cuts and the right to work. But he's a fiscal conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo hang on...you mean to say that we have to deal with immigration even though the fiscal situation is the most pressing thing, ever, in the history of the universe? You mean some issues don't go away like magic just because bigger ones happen to be looming at the same time? You mean that the left will keep fighting on this issue no matter how much we "de-emphasize" it? You mean we can't just cry "ceasefire" and make liberals drop the issue altogether while we work on the budget?
I wonder if those things hold for other "social" issues as well? If so, I wonder whether the whole "truce" idea isn't the stupidest thing I've ever heard?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven in a state as small as Indiana, $5 million is chump change. This is a common tactic of Daniels over the years -saying a bill is too costly to implement. If he really was behind the bill he would find the $5 million. Indiana in particular (esp in RV country) has suffered from a large influx of illegal immigration. Many factory and construction jobs went to illegals during the last boom cycle.
Evidently, our Govenor is getting grief from business owners around the state and doesn't intend to sign the bill into law.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's summarize:
1. Daniels and Barbour are too soft on immigration, so they're out
2. Huckabee is too big government, he's out
3. Mitt Romney has RomneyCare, he's out
4. Ron Paul is too anti-war, he's out
5. Daniels is too soft on social issues, he's out twice
It seems that every single issue for Republicans these days has only one right answer ordained by God himself and if you answer it even a little bit wrong, you're out of Eden forever. No wonder Tim Pawlenty never says anything interesting, and John Thune never seems to say anything at all-- they don't want to get thrown out of the garden.
At this rate, Herman Cain is just going to walk away with the nomination...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"It seems that every single issue for Republicans these days has only one right answer"
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? It would be a peculiar political party if every single issue had a multitude of right answers. How many right answers are there among the Democrats?
The base of the Republican party is fiscally and socially conservative and strong on national defense. It is adamantly against illegal immigration. (The American people generally share those positions) I don't think it's extreme or irrational to wonder why the GOP's presidential nominee can't reflect those views.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseContrary to Politico's spin, our importation of a second underclass is not a "social issue." It's an issue of low-end labor economics, and the devastation -- of schools, healthcare provision, law enforcement and local and state budgets -- that results from this perverse, upside-down labor market approach.
If and when this issue ever gets presented properly, it will become wildly popular with not only native-born whites but also native-born working class people of all races and even legal Mexican immigrants.
Again, the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with race or nationality. It's all about the insanity of adding to an already huge surplus of unskilled low-end labor in an advanced information economy.
Those who oppose this madness need to always, always turn the focus back to the labor market issue, and negate the red herring "social" angle by proposing that we immediately move to a points-based immigration system that privileges people with advanced skills in STEM fields-- and keeps out people with no skills and no education whatsoever. Mexican biotechnologists? Fine, bring 'em in. Mexican illiterate 6th-grade dropouts? Turn 'em back.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Is that supposed to be a bad thing? It would be a peculiar political party if every single issue had a multitude of right answers. How many right answers are there among the Democrats?"
The only party where there's only one right answer to every question is the Communist Party...
Fair enough, it is pretty hard to imagine a seriously anti-abortion Democrat getting the nomination, but on the other hand many Democrats are very pro-gun rights and they're never punished for it. What's more, Obama is far to the right of his party when it comes to, for example, extending the drone war in Pakistan (he is to the right of Rand Paul on that too), or expanding our other "secret" drone war in Yemen, and there is not a chance in hell that he will face a serious challenge from the left in 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoesn't matter--when Mitch Daniels told Christian Conservatives (social conservatives to the Godless) to call a "truce" he was scuppered.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis strictly fiscal conservatism may play in Iowa and New Hampshire but here in South Carolina-"God's Country" he will lose and if you lose SC you lose the nomination.
>"Obama is far to the right of his party when it comes to, for example, extending the drone war in Pakistan"
Nobody in Obama's party gives a (some word I can't say here) about the drone war in Pakistan, so that means nothing. If Obama took a conservative position on some issue the base of his party cares about, you'd have a point. But he does not take such positions. No Democratic President does that.
>"many Democrats are very pro-gun rights"
And none of those Democrats ever win their parties nomination for president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fiscal analysis for this bill is a woefully inadequate analysis. See External Link
. The cost range submitted by the State Police, with no rationale provided, quotes a figure between $1 and $5 million. While other minor state expenses are justified in some manner (AG hiring new employees, e.g.) no explanation is given to the ISP figure. No baseline information is provided, such as the estimated number of illegal immigrants currently residing in Indiana or an estimate of the number of traffic violations, based on current figures on the general population, that might be drawn on the legal population. I hope the governor uses real analysis in his cost/benefit (no benefit, such as reduced direct aid, is noted either).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse