Blogging Against Senator Sam Brownback Since March 2005
Brownback hates gays, is militantly anti-abortion and abhors government spending. What else could a GOP primary voter be afraid of? Brown people. Immigration has the potential to sink Brownback’s nascent presidential campaign just as quick as you can say “amnesty”. A recent comment on a post about Brownback and immigration at the popular conservative blog RedState illustrates the type of challenge that Brownback faces:
Ten million new Latino citizens will have immense consequences. Their presence here in the United States itself is hugely consequential, inasmuch as their (many) children born here are automatic U.S. citizens, forever. In 1965, the U.S. was nearly 90 percent white. Today the figure approaches 70 percent — and more chillingly, the figure for small children, 60 percent. Those small children are the U.S. population of tomorrow and, Leon, it doesn’t stop there. 50 percent, 40 percent, 30 percent, 20 percent, 10 percent status are all coming for U.S. whites.
This isn’t immigration; it’s genocide.
Mr. Brownback has committed no unpardonable sin by making a serious mistake on the immigration bill, but he needs clearly to understand that it was a serious mistake. I do not think that he does understand this.
It is important to note that this GOP activist has not written Brownback off. He allows for the chance of redemption if Brownback flips his logic on immigration and starts attacking immigrants. Not that Brownback is likely to do that, but it shows how far his other conservative credentials go in swaying the mind of a GOP primary voter.
Brownback will have a problem with immigration, no doubt about it. Even though he later voted for a fence, his vote for the McCain-Kennedy Bill will hurt him with the extreme conservative niche that he is trying to leverage. How much it hurts him will depend upon two factors.
One part of overcoming this will be focusing on the fence that Brownback voted for and talking up “enforcement” and militarizing the border. He has to convince those GOP primary voters who aren’t complete racists that he would enforce the border before doing anything else. Lots of tough talk will be necessary, and a particular air of disdain for people who break the law will certainly be required.
The other part of overcoming his vote for the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill will be uniquely Brownback. He will try and convince the devout Christians in Iowa that compassion is due to all people, whether they are here legally or not. He will argue against breaking up families and say that a path to legal residence, as outlined in the McCain-Kennedy bill, is the the Christian way of dealing with the immigration conundrum. The catholic church for the most part already uses those talking points. The real question is how well evangelical Christians who watch Fox News will take to the idea of compassion.
While Brownback may argue that his vote on immigration is in line with his faith, it certainly is not in line with his party’s base. Therein lies the problem. The more moderate GOP primary voters that might agree with his stance on immigration are likely to be turned off by his extremist stance on other issues. The opposite is also true. Hard core conservatives will like his stances on gays, abortion and government spending, but may be unwilling to compromise on immigration.
How do you think Brownback will deal with the issue of Immigration?
[powered by WordPress.]
Blogging Against Senator Sam Brownback Since March 2005
I am a student of political science at the University of Kansas. Contact me with any questions, comments or tips.
21 queries. 0.327 seconds
December 21st, 2006 at 3:08 pm
How typical of you Nate. What stance could Brownback possibly take on immigration that you would not criticize? If he were staunchly anti-immigration, you would label him as a racist. As he currently stands on immigration, you label him as soft.
As I’ve pointed out before, your tactics of criticizing Brownback, but not offering any alternative or ideas of your own, is illogical and inherently weak. We get it: you hate Brownback.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Joe,
No where on the post did I criticize him as being soft. I merely was commenting on his immigration problem with the GOP base. Do you disagree that Brownback will face problems explaining his vote? Personally I think the McCain-Kennedy bill was a good compromise, and I commend Brownback for voting for it.
On the other hand, the fence bill is just plain dumb. We don’t have the extra cash at the federal level to be tossing money into a bottomless pit. At least not while we are dropping a couple billion a week in Iraq.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Given that Brownback has adopted two non-white children, he’s not very likely to align himself — at least not openly — with those who find the prospect of an America with a non-white majority “chilling.”
December 22nd, 2006 at 3:06 pm
I don’t think many redneck Americans are too concerned with immigrants from China or Guatemala. Most of the current concern is with Mexicans and Middle Easterners.
December 23rd, 2006 at 12:17 am
What the RS commentor doesn’t seem to understand is that if Hispanics procreate more than whites, it is not genocide. Whites are not and will not be exterminated by gas chambers and firing squads.
And for people that push this “free markets” idea, they seem to love the idea of regulating the ethnic make-up of this country.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:34 am
“The more moderate GOP primary voters that might agree with his stance on immigration are likely to be turned off by his extremist stance on other issues.”
Since when has opening the borders to unretsricted, unlimited immigration - to anyone who can get here legally or illegally by plane, train, ferryboat, cargo container, or camel - ever been considered a “moderate” position on immigration? Those are Brownback’s views, and they are perfectly in line with his peculiar brand of religious fanaticism. I find it alotogether hilarious that you lump all of us opposed to the invasion of America into one giant group of “hardcore conservatives.” We are an extremely diverse group, most rational, a handful racist.
It’s funny: with one breath leftist nuts say that America is a “nation of immigrants” who have “always assimilated” to become “perfect Americans” and who will do us “no harm.” With the next breath they’re saying that we have to rearrange all the cultural practices, laws, and furniture to adopt to the “new reality” of a “diverse nation.” Well, which is it? Immigration has economic consequences. It has political consequences. It has cultural consequences. Americans have a right to question that without being called “racists, nativists, xenophobes, and bigots.”
February 14th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Joe on 12/22 plays the “redneck” card. I have 3 masters’ degrees, and I’m from MA–is that the usual redneck stereotype? Yet any thinking person knows that a nation is defined by its borders. That is the latin root of the word ‘define,’ de=concerning, -fin, limits. The Roman Empire fell because it let too many Goths in too fast. Immigration is fine, at a regulated, legal pace as it was for most of the history of our country. This is Brownback’s Achilles’ heel for most conservatives.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Joe H.–Apparently my dose of sarcasm (and only one MS degree; PhD on the way) was lost on you.