Most GOP candidates to the left of their party on immigration

[rob in cal]

Numbers USA, an immigration restriction organization, has given report cards to the potential GOP candidates, and Palin, Romney, Gingrich and Huckabee all got D's, due to their support for various levels of amnesty (Huckabee came out for the Dream Act), or their opposition to enforcement proposals, or birthright citizenship changes.  Paul, Pawlenty and Thune got C's, and Obama got an F.  The typical GOP congress member would probably get a B. 
     Immigration is usually an issue where the typical GOP elected official is more to the right than the Presidential nominees or contenders are.  In 2008 Senator Thompson was the most restrictionist, with views toward the center of the GOP congressional delegation.
     

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

To what effect does grades by one organization effect the entire Republican immigration spectrum? I'm just asking.

[tpfkaw]

NumbersUSA is not in any way a "centrist" organization within the GOP.  I doubt there are many GOPhers in Congress calling for an immediate halt to all immigration...

[redcommander]

How is Huntsman on the immigration issue?

[rob in cal]

My criteria for describing these candidates to the left of the party is the votes taken on the Dream Act, in which virtually all Republicans came out against even that small amnesty, and the vote for lowering legal immigration held in 1995 in which about two thirds to three quarters of the house republicans at the time voted for less legal immigration.   I would bet that if such a vote were taken now you'd find similar support for less immigration among the congressional GOP. Could be wrong, but its interesting that two of the republican point men on the issue, King and Galleghy who are on the immigration subcommittee, are both immigration restrictionists.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

My criteria for describing these candidates to the left of the party is the votes taken on the Dream Act, in which virtually all Republicans came out against even that small amnesty, and the vote for lowering legal immigration held in 1995 in which about two thirds to three quarters of the house republicans at the time voted for less legal immigration.   I would bet that if such a vote were taken now you'd find similar support for less immigration among the congressional GOP. Could be wrong, but its interesting that two of the republican point men on the issue, King and Galleghy who are on the immigration subcommittee, are both immigration restrictionists.

None of them voted for the DREAM Act. None of them-Huckabee, Romney, Palin, Gingrich- None of them are in Congress currently, nor do any of them hold Governorships.

[Torie]

Pubbie politicians know that the sooner illegals is off the table as an issue, the better off that they will be electorally. The Pubbie empire cannot afford  -  in even the medium term - a large scale deep seated Hispanic estrangement. They just can't. It's a numbers game. So they are walking a tight rope between their base, and their futures.

[The Economist]

Most Republicans know that a centrist immigration view point is better in the long run.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Numbers USA isn't perfect. There scoring has often drawn criticisms from even those who are pretty "restrictionist" to use the phrase in this thread.

On one of the pages for a House member with a mediocre score, a guy posted saying something to the effect of, "Rep. so and so has been fighting illegals since long before you guys even existing".


Yes, in both houses the movement towards a harder line on immigration issues and especially illegal immigration has become the rule. Especially since 2006 and 2007. I would agree that the average among Republican now is a B or a B- as compared to a C- just three or four years ago. Part of the reason for this has been the huge turnover in the GOP caucus. 60% I think of the GOP caucus was elected in 2004 or afterwards.

Pubbie politicians know that the sooner illegals is off the table as an issue, the better off that they will be electorally. The Pubbie empire cannot afford  -  in even the medium term - a large scale deep seated Hispanic estrangement. They just can't. It's a numbers game. So they are walking a tight rope between their base, and their futures.

They certainly don't have to check all the boxes on Roy Beck's site, but I think if we are reaching a point where to even basic border security has to be sacrificed to win, we have much bigger problems then the electability of the GOP. Plus I refuse to beleive that the majority of hard working hispanic citizens are in sync with the desires of La Raza. What is necessary for a Republican to do is to convince the hispanic community that he or she isn't where they are on immigration because they hate brown people. Once that is done, I think they are far more concerned with their own interests like with the economy and jobs topping their list just like everyone elses with education, etc etc also high on the list. And as such they would be more interested in these issues then immigration provided the Republican of course isn't Tom Tancredo

But I don't seriously think this issue will go away. It has been around for 30 plus years and I think we are beyond the naive stage of expecting one amnesty to solve the problem and be done with it. Especially when we have passed several over the last decades and they have only serve to worsen the problem.