How will the illegal immigration issue affect our candidate

in the general election? Dems seem to be pursuing the "amnesty agenda". How will that play in the midwest and the south? After hearing the criticism of the Gov. of New York for wanting to give illegals driver licenses, I have to seriously wonder if this isn't a "poisonous issue" for our candidate - whoever that might be. I would like to hear input about this concern. Thanks.

The Latino community is the largest and fastest growing non-majority community in the United States...Plus it's the right thing to do...I'm not for "crazy" open borders but I am opposed to creating punitive laws that will keep eligble folks from becoming citizens...

cost some Democrats their race if they are PRO-amnesty.

Republicans will spew and pander and turn red in the face, maybe pop a blood clot, and will alienate even more of the electorate.

Just like in 06.

I think the Democrats have to be very, very careful on this. If they appear too lenient on illegal aliens, it could potentially cost them the election--worst case scenario. Where it's true that the Latino community is the fastest growing, that shouldn't be the deciding factor. Americans of all stripes, including many Democrats, are sick and tired of their government doing what ever they want to against the wishes of the people and at the public's expense. Iraq is an example. People feel that they've been had. And they have. But here we have a situation where we correctly hear that social security has a limited life span, yet illegal aliens may receive some of it. Our health care system is about to go bust, yet we're expected to pay for the health care of illegal aliens. Our education system is failing to keep pace with much of the rest of the industrialized world, yet we're expected to teach our courses in Spanish and English and increase the size of our classrooms. The influx of illegal aliens is a strain on many different aspects of our communities, yet such a large number of them are here illegally. What is the message to our young people if we reward people who break the law?

I personally am not sure where I come down on this issue, but I don't think a blanket amnesty is a good idea. Too many legal Americans are finding it too hard to make ends meet. However, shipping all illegals back to wherever they came from is unrealistic. I think there should be a way for them to earn citizenship, but it has to be a well-thought out plan and it has to be presented in a way where we aren't left feeling like our government is, once again, screwing us. We have to be convinced that they are really earning their way and they have to be given options of doing it our way or being deported. It sounds rough and callous, but any other way will leave a majority of Americans feeling screwed, and we don't want that to happen, especially if we win this election. We want America to feel this victory in their gut.

I agree. I live in Virginia, and although we are not a border state, the illegal's issue is affecting our service environment quite a bit. Virginia CAN go dem - if the message is right. Having worked for the Democratic Party for more years than I care to remember, I have serious reservations about the Democratic push for illegal benefits. I know this state, and I know that the current push by dems will not go over here. Yes, it is a deal-breaker! If this is true in Virginia, then I have to think it will be equally so in other "borderline" southern and midwestern states. I wish I had the answer, but I don't. I just know that we HAVE to win in 2008 - this country cannot afford 4 more years of a republican regime.

There are a lot of states in the same situation as you describe Virgina. If the Democrats are trying to capture additional states that were lost in 2004, this issue could keep those states beyond our grasp. And rest assured that the Republicans will play this up for everything they can squeeze out of it. Come election day they'll have the country believing that the Democrats will be giving away the entire store to foreign criminals. Democrats better use their heads on this one. Arguing that immigrants breaking the law should be rewarded is not only a tough sell; it's an impossible sell. It's a very tough issue, but the candidates have to have positions on this.

so I do not think it will tar the party. I am sure Reps and Senators will try to listen to their constituents on it. As for the Presidential race, I don't expect you will see the issue hotly debated there.

I am a little disappointed at the response to this post. To me, this is an extremely important issue. I find it difficult to believe that DUers think - obviously from the lack of response - that this is not important. Do DEMS NOT want to win in 2008?

though perhaps not as much as the Repubs. During the primaries all of our candidates have, AFAIK, taken pro-immigrant positions. It contrasts with the uniformly anti-immigrant message one hears from the Repub candidates and is probably meant to appeal to Hispanic voters (though some of our candidates may genuinely believe in it or have other reasons for taking this approach).

My guess is that once the primaries are over and we have a candidate, that person will lower the rhetoric about immigration and take a more centrist position. It seems to me that anti-immigration sentiment is about the only issue that Repubs can campaign on with any credibility. They do genuinely believe it and is is quite popular.

It will be interesting to see how the Democratic eventually plays the illegal immigration issue. It seems that in European countries conservative parties campaign against immigration, while the liberal parties either try to deemphasize the issue or campaign for acceptance of a multiethnic society. In Germany, France and Switzerland conservatives have used this strategy successfully. This should send a signal to our party for 2008.

Among our politicians it seems that the liberal wing, Kennedy et al, supported "legalization/path to citizenship" strategy during the immigration debate, while our more centrist politicians are perhaps more in tune with the mood of the country.

Drivers licenses for illegal immigrants will piss of white people who vote Republican anyway. The GOP then has to walk a fine line between pandering to white people and losing the hispanic vote overwhelmingly which is growing extremely fast.

much hesitation alienating the Hispanic vote. With the exception of McCain, all their candidates stick to the party line of bashing immigrants and promoting border walls and patrols and denial of services to any who are already here.

While the repubs will always claim to be open to Hispanic voters, just as they claim the same with regard to African American voters, the pandering to whites who feel threatened by people of color seems to be winning the day with their presidential candidates. Whoever gets their nomination will probably anti-illegal immigration fervor to "fire up the troops".

And so he could pander to both hispanics and the anti-immigration crowd. IMO, another reason why the GOP nominee will have a serious uphill battle in 2008.

ago and created a larger problem. Anyone living in areas infested with illegals is fed up and will vote for anyone who says they'll fix the problem. Period - regardless of party.

Dems better wake up and smell the coffee and come up with a better answer to this issue than just legalize them all and start over again.

For a very SMALL segment of the electorate, not many of whom are likely to vote for a Democrat in any event. In a reasonable world, it wouldn't affect the Democratic candidate at all, but the media loves them some pumping up of obscure issues if there's someone suitably frothing at the mouth to spew on the teevee about how the Demoncrats are selling out the country or something.

Republicanizing the issue might be useful: "Some people say we need to start shooting anyone crossing the border, but I stand for a more moderate, sensible approach."