GOP Seeks To Rally On Immigration Issue

Washington Post: Special Election In Massachusetts Could Be Indicative Of Democratic Weak Spot

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Jonathan Weisman.

---

When Republican Jim Ogonowski launched his long-shot bid for Congress, he prepared for an upbeat campaign in his Democratic, working-class district of Massachusetts, based on a winning resume: affable hay farmer, former Air Force lieutenant colonel, and brother of an American Airlines pilot whose hijacked plane slammed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

But by last month, although opinion polling showed that he was well liked, he was still running 10 points behind Democrat Niki Tsongas with just weeks to go before a special election. The campaign needed a way to go beyond biography, to persuade Northern Massachusetts to vote Republican. They found it in illegal immigration.

On Tuesday, Ogonowski still fell short, but Tsongas's 51 to 45 percent victory was a shocker in a district where both John F. Kerry and Al Gore took 57 percent of the vote, and where liberal Democratic Rep. Martin T. Meehan served comfortably for eight terms. The underwhelming victory of the wife of deceased former senator Paul Tsongas has rekindled Democratic concerns about an immigration issue they had hoped had been put to rest.

"This issue has real implications for the country. It captures all the American people's anger and frustration not only with immigration, but with the economy," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and an architect of the Democratic congressional victories of 2006. "It's self-evident. This is a big problem."

Republicans, sensing a major vulnerability, have been hammering Democrats, forcing Congress to face the question of illegal immigration on every bill they can find, from agriculture spending and housing assistance to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

House Democrats are so concerned that they have resumed talks on a new legislative push, even though the collapse of an immigration deal in the Senate this spring has left virtually no chance that a final bill can be passed in this Congress.

But even in the early stages of this renewed effort, negotiations have only underscored the party's problems. Some Democratic leaders want what they call a "mini bill," emphasizing border control, penalties on firms that employ illegal immigrants and stronger efforts to deny illegal immigrants government benefits. But Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), the point man on the bill, said he will never accept a measure that does not include a pathway to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented workers in the country.

"I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue, and if they continue down this path, they are going to lose a lot of seats," said Matt Wylie, a strategist for the Ogonowski campaign.

The issue has shifted since concerns about illegal immigrants triggered angry calls for border fences and deportation two years ago. Now, voter anger appears to revolve around the belief that illegal immigrants are unfairly consuming government benefits, a fear that stems more from economic ncertainty than culture clashes, Democratic and Republican pollsters say.

Those concerns are not everywhere. But they are glaring in some of the white, working-class districts in Kansas, Indiana, North Carolina and New Hampshire that gave the Democrats control of the House last year. And they were on clear display in Lowell, Mass.

"Immigration played into the economic issue," said Francis Talty, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell who followed the Tsongas-Ogonowski contest. "Do you want illegal immigrants to get in-state [university] tuition? Do you want them to get driver's licenses? Do you want their children to get benefits under SCHIP? It was the benefit side that has real resonance, not the deportation thing."

A new national poll for National Public Radio, conducted by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies, found that voters are more likely to side with Democrats than Republicans on war, taxes and spending, the economy, health care and health insurance for children, often by wide margins. On immigration, the Republicans hold a 49 to 44 percent lead.

But even that might be deceptively tight, said Glen Bolger, a partner with Public Opinion Strategies. In the poll, the GOP position was framed as getting control of the border, requiring illegal immigrants to reenter the country legally, stopping illegal immigrants from getting government benefits and sending illegal immigrants who are criminals packing. The Democratic position was, "It is impractical to expel 12 million people, but we need tougher controls at the borders, tougher penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants and we should bar illegal immigrants from getting most government benefits, while allowing the law-abiding immigrants to get on a long path to citizenship."

That Democratic message is much tougher than the one most voters are hearing, Bolger argued. "They're actually in worse shape than they think they are," he said.

Dustin Olson, Ogonowski's campaign manager, said the candidate did not intend to make government benefits for illegal immigrants a centerpiece of the campaign, but it came up unbidden, again and again.

Internal polling found that Ogonowski's tough stance was winning 60 percent to 30 percent over the positions articulated by Tsongas, said Rob Autry, another Public Opinion Strategies partner who served as Ogonowski's pollster. Ogonowski's position on taxes had a narrower, 13 percentage point lead. Every other issue "was dicey," he said.

Then, just two days before Tuesday's balloting, Tsongas said illegal immigrants should each be allowed to get a driver's license. The final radio ad of the Ogonowski insurgency intoned, "And now for something truly incredible. You already know Niki Tsongas supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, but today we learned Niki Tsongas would go even further. Tsongas told the Boston Herald she wants to give driver's licenes to illegal immigrants."

John Walsh, chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, said the final vote proved the limits of the immigration message. The district may be less Democratic than the presidential numbers make it appear, he cautioned. Republican gubernatorial candidates have carried it handily since 1990, until Deval L. Patrick, the current Democratic governor, won it with 51 percent of the vote, the same percentage Tsongas took.

If Ogonowski's internal polling showed him trailing by 10 points in September, his immigration blitz made up only five points, he said.

But in districts where Democrats do not have five points to give, those numbers loom large. "For the American people, and therefore all of us, it's emerged as the third rail of American politics," Emanuel said. "And anyone who doesn't realize that isn't with the American people."

[DinTN]

Eight Detained For Allegedly Stealing Qualcomm Supplies
http://www.kpbs.org/news/local;id=9979

ILLEGALS STEALING FROM FIRE VICTIMS!

San Diego Police officials say they detained eight undocumented immigrants today after the suspects allegedly stole emergency supplies for evacuees at Qualcomm Stadium. KPBS reporter Amita Sharma has more.
Authorities say evacuees at Qualcomm Stadium told police they noticed a group of people loading supplies onto a truck and driving away. San Diego Police Spokeswoman Monica Munoz says witnesses saw the group return three times to pick up supplies.
Munoz: What they were doing was taking those supplies and selling them so what we did was detain those individuals and spoke to them and they told us they were undocumented and what exactly they were doing so we turned them over to the Border Patrol.
Munoz says four of the eight people taken into custody were released. She said she did not know where the group resold the items, nor to whom.
(Amita Sharma, KPBS News.)

[ncoutrage]

Hillary has big problems, like Bill! Rudy''s okay, but I know of some new who is about to enter the scene.

I%u2019ve got exciting news about a new presidential candidate. I know for a fact that on November 1st, this new candidate for the President will be making his announcement ON THE INTERNET!!! You will receive information on where to tune in to catch his announcement.

If you''re not happy with any of the current Democrats or Republicans running for office, then this man might be the best thing since sliced bread!

[klingon69]

A minor misdemeanor. Even the chimp Bush has likened it to a minor traffic offense.
Posted by SgtRDS at 02:52 PM : Oct 23, 2007
FRor the first offense, a felony afterwards. How many illegals have been back multiple times?

[klingon69]

You want to do away with entitlement programs but what would you suggest we do with this old guy? I will admit that there are abuses in the system but you can''''t just throw the baby out with the bathwater. You righties claim to be Christians but I don''''t think you understand that concept either. Maybe you should ask yourself, WWJD.
Posted by geezer62 at 02:15 PM : Oct 23, 2007
We aren''t saying get rid of entitlements, just those going to the illegals. If he is a citizen, the extra savings should go to help our elderly and young.

[standlee5]

Drivers Licenses for illegal immigrants means voting rights in many places. How on earth do the Democrats have the authority to do that.

[standlee5]

"But Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), the point man on the bill, said he will never accept a measure that does not include a pathway to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented workers in the country."

Oh REALLY! Not even if it''s the will of the people. This is outrageous arrogance and activism on display. He is an official representative elected by the people and he refused to carry out he wilof the people instead demanding amnesty for illegals..

[starleo146]

Posted by mudrose at 09:47 AM : Oct 24, 2007


Muddy, What you say was clear, but why are they trying to get a bill granting immunity to these companies, if they are so in the clear? I appreciate your info. The info I posted was from John Dean, just putting it out there to understand the immunity thing, and surveillance problem, thanks.We need serious discussions on this and you gave a good answer to a serious discussion.

[starleo146]

Hi, buddy! Did you call your Senator today and tell him not to support S2205, the Dream Act that President Harry is trying to ram down our throats on Amnesty?

Posted by mudrose at 11:24 AM : Oct 24, 2007


Will they not ever give up on immigration what is this sneak attack about. What and who is pressing Harry Reid to bring up this suicidel approach to immigration and in his doing ,to keep it up, it will hurt his party to no end. What is it he doesn''t get anyway? Let someone else that can do the job as it should be done take over the majority leaders job. I am sick of his
stupid moves. This is California pressing this I can just feel it and Massachusetts. Stick a fork in it America, even most of California, and Massachusetts want illegals to go back, secure the borders and ports, and fine the companies that are undocumented workers. What is you do not understand?

[newamerican1]

For more information on why our borders are still open 6 years after 9/11, download a free PDF of The New American magazine (Oct. 15 issue):
http://www.thenewamerican.com/files/documents/MergerInTheMaking.pdf

It''s about 4 MB. Enjoy!

[mudrose-2009]

This is also a major National Security blunder by Bush not only allowing just anyone to come in across the border but as the climate heats up migration from the South will become acts of survival for many many many more.
Posted by pepperp1

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan, Carter. They are all guilty of it. Share the wealth peepee.

[pepperp1]

RNC GOP BULLLL, it is their boy George who wants open borders with his buddies in Mexico and amnesty for the illegal he has allowed to amass in this country under his rule it is he who demanded the legislation that was attempted to provide illegal and they employers with amnesty. It is Bush and his co conspirators in Congress who had complete control of this county for 6 years who did not strengthen the penalties or enforce the laws on the books. Prosecutions of illegals and companies who employ them under Bush dropped to an all time low. It is the Republican front runner Rudy who openly invited illegal to his city and vowed to protect them against our government which should be called what it was treasonous behavior. Dont let them lie to you again and again and again judge what they do not their propaganda, if you are uniformed just do a little research it wont take much.

This is also a major National Security blunder by Bush not only allowing just anyone to come in across the border but as the climate heats up migration from the South will become acts of survival for many many many more.

[pepperp1]

RNC GOP staple, find a group of people to hate and slander nothing like it to rally the rancid core and party faithful. The republicans were in total control, unfortunately, of this country for six years and did nothing but undermine the Immigration Judiciary not prosecute and under funded repeatedly boarder and port security allowing the illegal to bloom to 28 million possibly more. And now they expect you to believe that they are the party against illegal, A JOKE FOLKS a TALKING Point A group to attack fear and hate.

Just like during the same 6 years You did not receive a promised Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion or as promised a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. One wonders when you small amount of remaining party faithful become tired of your puppet strings being jerked to sick you on a group of people to fear and hate.

[getagrip54]

Anmericans generally embrace legal immigrants. However the tsunami of illegal immigrants we''re experiencing is perceived as a threat by almost all working class people.

The Republicans will carry a lot of baggage into the next election and need an issue or two to divert attention away from their mistakes ovet the last decade. Illegal immigration could be that issue.

[mudrose-2009]

Just ask McCain how important securing the border is to us. He still has not, nor will he ever, recover from getting in bed with democrats and Bush on the failed amnesty bill.

Posted by Signof4

Hi, buddy! Did you call your Senator today and tell him not to support S2205, the Dream Act that President Harry is trying to ram down our throats on Amnesty?

[signof4]

Just ask McCain how important securing the border is to us. He still has not, nor will he ever, recover from getting in bed with democrats and Bush on the failed amnesty bill.

[mudrose-2009]

Meanwhile, civil liability for these companies is also a realistic prospect. For example, in a San Francisco federal court, AT&T customers are seeking to protect their privacy with actions under laws like 18 U.S.C. 2520, which provides a civil remedy and hefty damages -- ranging up to $10,000 per day per violation. Since it is possible that, over five-plus years, there have been tens upon tens of thousands of such violations, the, if liable telecoms could be looking at hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of damages.
Posted by starleo146

Not gonna happen. These companies where acting under the request of their government. It''s been established that they will not be prosecuted. Also, the FISA court is not the last word. Congress over the years has tried to pass legislation that is unconstitutional. When it comes to survellience, the Constitution trumps FISA, meaning, the President listens to what the Constitution says not the courts. And just for the records, the Courts have backed up the President on precisely this point. FISA is not the last word. The Constitution is and the President has broad Executive rights in defense of the nation.

[starleo146]

But what about under the next Administration? The five-year statute of limitations will make them potentially criminally liable after Bush is gone -- at least, unless the Bush Administration gains for them retroactive and future immunity. In a new Administration, the telecoms may be viewed not as cooperative patriots, but rather as criminal co-conspirators.

Civil liability appears to be driving the immunity request

Meanwhile, civil liability for these companies is also a realistic prospect. For example, in a San Francisco federal court, AT&T customers are seeking to protect their privacy with actions under laws like 18 U.S.C. 2520, which provides a civil remedy and hefty damages -- ranging up to $10,000 per day per violation. Since it is possible that, over five-plus years, there have been tens upon tens of thousands of such violations, the, if liable telecoms could be looking at hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of damages.

[starleo146]

Many of the companies appear to be violating a number of federal criminal statutes -- such as 18 U.S.C. 2511, which requires a warrant for such surveillance and 18 U.S.C. 2702, which prohibits any "entity providing an electronic communication service to the public" from knowingly divulging "to any person or entity the contents of a communication" without a court order.

Currently, the telecoms are not likely to be particularly worried about being prosecuted by the very same government that instructed them to violate the law, and is leading the way in doing so itself.

[starleo146]

Ironically, in requesting this immunity, the Bush White House has refused to disclose exactly what type of activities Congress would be retroactively immunizing. Preliminary congressional inquiry has revealed that a massive amount of electronic surveillance of Americans has gone on under the Bush/Cheney Administration. For example, one of the telecom giants, Verizon, reported that between January 2005 and September 2007 they provided information on 94,000 occasions. These numbers suggest that Verizon was operating as merely another (and a secret) extension of the federal intelligence establishment.

[starleo146]

However, when the Bush Administration asked for the necessary fix to FISA, it also requested much more, including immunity under the existing laws for all the telecommunications companies that have been assisting the government in its illegal warrantless surveillance. Significantly, this practice -- justified by reference to the "war on terror" -- apparently started well before 9/11 under the Bush Administration.