In New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, the questions about immigration arise repeatedly -- and Democratic presidential candidates say they know they are alienating some of their strongest supporters by calling for legalization of illegal aliens.Unfortunately - as with Adam Nagourney - he fails to provide examples of those questions and their answers. And, I don't think any of the GOP candidates have changed their fundamental positions, although the NYT says that Giuliani has changed his tone. As for Mitt Romney, his exact position is unclear because no "reporter" is willing to do their job, and so far no citizen journalists have managed to fill the gap.
While some of the top Republican candidates have begun to change their positions to appeal to conservative voters, Democratic candidates remain firmly behind legalization of most illegal aliens. Still, they are almost apologetic as they make their pitches.
"You can be in front of a very, very rabid Democratic crowd, and there will be a lot of people in the room who do not agree with what I just said," former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina said earlier this month in a speech at the University of New Hampshire as he defended his support for legalization. "The very same people ... are strongly against the war and strongly for universal health care. So there is nowhere close to unanimity among Democrats about this issue."Then, we get this stupid-or-sly bit:
Advisers to several candidates said privately that [Bill Richardson] is in a good position to attack the other candidates on their support of building more fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.If they're serious, they're nuts. A fence on the border is always going to be much less controversial than deportations and the like. Of course, perhaps they're just trying to bait him.
Immigration2007a · Mon, 04/23/2007 - 21:07 · Importance: 1