Carolyn Lochhead, of the San Francisco Chronicle's Washington Bureau, offers "Political tide turning on illegal immigration". (As shown in the screengrab, their main news page gave it a just slightly longer title.)
At least for now, House Republican leaders have succeeded in their take-no-prisoners approach to immigration despite nationwide protests by Latinos last spring and White House warnings that they are endangering their party's future.
"Take-no-prisoners" is apparently the new version of "hard-liners". And, if Lochhead wanted to do some real analysis, she'd look into the real motivation behind those "warnings". And, she'd also discuss those protests in a bit more depth, perhaps letting her readers know that not only were around 98% of them "Latinos", but a large portion of the marchers were illegal aliens.
Then, we come to a favorite talking point of both corrupt Dems and corrupt Republicans:
Critics conceded a setback but argued that it would be temporary. They said enforcement alone won't stop illegal immigration but will alienate Latino voters, the nation's fastest-growing voter bloc. They said it will turn Republicans into a minority party, much as when former Gov. Pete Wilson won re-election in 1994 on an anti-immigrant platform that ultimately helped make California a Democratic-majority state.
"They" are so very wrong.
"There are very serious political implications to what they are doing today," said Cecilia Munoz, chief lobbyist for the National Council of La Raza. "If 40 percent of my community supported Bush in the 2004 elections, it's very hard to imagine in this environment that proportion of Latinos voting for candidates from a party which continues to insult them."
This is an example of Pete Wilsonism in action. The MSM is giving her a platform from which to race-bait and claim that enforcing our immigration laws is an "insult", and only part of the Republican party disagrees with her. The other part agrees with her and supports her efforts. Then, those same corrupt forces will use the MSM to replay back her remarks and claim that we're forced to choose between opening the borders and "insulting" "Hispanics". And, of course, the idea that the far-left, extremist-linked NCLR can claim all "Hispanics" as part of their "community" is laughably false as well as being an example of ethnic nationalism.
Shortly before quoting Frank Sharry and refering to the National Immigration Forum as "a pro-immigrant group", we finally come to the titular topic:
Still, national polls released this week found immigration far down on voters' concerns behind the war in Iraq, terrorism and the economy. Asked by New York Times/Bloomberg News pollsters to select their most pressing issue in the upcoming midterm elections, only 4 percent of registered voters chose immigration.
There's a link to the poll results here. She is correct about the 4 percent, but she avoids discussing three other questions they asked.
They ask whether Iraq, terrorism, and immigration are their most important or among their top three issues:
Iraq: most: 11% among top three: 75%
terrorism: most: 19% among top three: 70%
immigration: most: 9% among top three: 55%
I guess she didn't read that far into the poll. Or something.
Immigration · Sat, 09/23/2006 - 16:15 · Importance: 1