Immigration politics

by David Safier

Someone who knows more about state politics than I said Dem candidates in tough districts are being advised to talk tough about immigration, or their R opponents will use the issue as a bludgeon to beat them over the head and defeat them in November.

That kind of advice makes me furious for two reasons.

First, if Ds pretend to be almost as "tough on immigration" as Rs, they'll end up tongue-tied trying to explain themselves. Ds will once again look spineless and gutless, giving ground on yet another issue while the Rs stand firm. Why the hell should anyone vote for candidates who won't stand up for what they believe in?

Second, if Ds turn into half-hearted Pearces and Arpaios, They're validating the venom these hatemongers spit out. They're saying it's OK to use illegal immigrants as whipping boys.

The people beating the anti-immigrant drum are perfectly willing to tear families apart and rip children out of their mothers' arms to further their extremist agenda.They want us to believe people who are in this country illegally are the equivalent of thieves and murders, while the fact is, most of these people have committed the crime of trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.

There is sane and insane immigration reform. Pearce, Arpaio and their like stand for police state insanity. They're mad dogs fizzing with rabies.

Are Dems supposed to validate these mad dogs by adopting their positions, or will Dems advocate sensible, humane solutions to the state's immigration problems?

Will Dems in tough districts end up adopting stands to the right of the stands Bush and McCain took when they were working for immigration reform, or will they stake out a reasonable position and condemn the Rs for their extreme, vile anti-immigrant agenda?

If Ds try to sound like Rs, why even bother to run?