To expand on CW’s earlier post, it seems the border security vs. amnesty issue is complicating the Senate Races for some of the most vulnerable Democrats. According to The Hill, Cory Gardner and Mark Udall (incumbent) are trading jibes out in Colorado, with Gardner saying the humanitarian crisis points out the need for border security, while Udall backs the President’s 3.7 billion dollar supplemental appropriation request and blasts Republicans generally for failing to pass the pork-laden giveaway to unions and crony capitalists Democrats like to euphemize as “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Colorado Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, who is challenging Sen. Mark Udall (D), accused Obama of “failing to lead.”
“It’s obviously a humanitarian and immigration crisis, but this just shows we need to look at ways to secure our border,” Gardner said.
Of all the states in play this cycle, Colorado’s are perhaps most reliant on Hispanic voters, so both Gardner and Udall are in a tough spot on the issue.
Udall supported the president’s request for supplemental funding to deal with the border and immigrant crisis.
“House Republicans have refused to act so far on bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform or to embrace common-sense budgeting ideas I have championed to protect Colorado communities from the threat of catastrophic wildfire. The crisis on the border and the ongoing wildfire season underscore the need for Congress to set politics aside and ensure the federal government has the tools it needs to protect public safety and work toward solutions,” he said in a statement.
In addition both Mary Landrieu (incumbent of Louisiana) and Allison Ludergan Grimes (challenger in Kentucky) are not supporting the President’s plea without a plan for how we’ll spend the money. Both, naturally, also blast Republicans for not wanting to hop on the amnesty bus.
On the Team Red side, things are looking a bit more confused. Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles:
“To allow immigration officials to remove kids immediately, that really sounds heartless to many within the Hispanic community,” he said.
“From a policy perspective it’s bad, in terms of optics, it’s just terrible. From the Hispanic community, the rhetoric coming out from most Republicans is just awful. That’s their condition for supporting the supplemental?”
Yet an unnamed Republican source (I hate that…) is quoted in the same article as saying the border contretemps has assisted the R’s a it has moved the conversation back from amnesty to border security (in addition to boggling at the price, of course).
“Now we’re actually talking about border security, which is not something the Democrats want to talk about. I actually think the discussion on this whole thing has shifted in a way that is more politically beneficial to Republicans.”
As far as I am personally concerned, I recognize the impossibility of deporting more than 11 million people. It’d cost half a trillion bucks, for one thing, and for another we’d have to build a prison camp half the size of Deaf Smith County. Endless videos of refugees being loaded into railroad cars… No, that’s not going to happen, not in America. The people here simply won’t stand for it, it would start a revolution. Having said that, however, I also don’t see any value in rewarding the scofflaws with citizenship merely for having successfully broken the law. I have thought a great deal about this problem and I’ll post tomorrow or the next day– as soon as time permits me to write it down– what I think we ought to do. For the nonce, I say down with the Senate bill, and I hope the House R’s hold the line.