Fox News Suddenly Loves Illegal Immigrants

[Channel72]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... immigrants

Fox News Suddenly Loves Illegal Immigrants

Since the election, there’s been a noticeable change in how Fox News has been covering the delicate issue of illegal immigration. It started with Sean Hannity. On his radio program on Nov. 8, Hannity told listeners that he now supports a path to citizenship for some people living in the U.S. illegally. “We’ve got to get rid of the immigration issue altogether,” Hannity said. “You control the border first. You create a pathway for those people that are here; you don’t say you’ve got to go. And that is a position I’ve evolved on.”

If the “I’ve evolved” language sounds familiar, it’s because that’s what President Obama said when he told the public in May that he’d changed his mind and was now supporting gay marriage. “I’ve evolved” is the way people in Washington signal that they realize they’re out of touch and are now trying to lead from behind.

For Hannity it’s a dramatic about-face. During the 2012 primary election, the GOP was the party of “self-deportation,” a term Mitt Romney coined. Romney was drawing on earlier comments by Hannity, who has called deportation the only solution for the 11 million-plus people living in the country illegally. Hannity described the Dream Act, which offers an opportunity of citizenship to young people who came to the U.S. before they were 16, finished high school, and have no criminal record, “an amnesty nightmare.” In his view at the time, even those illegal immigrants who served in the military didn’t deserve citizenship rights.

The day after Hannity announced his change of heart, Fox (NWSA) ran this news segment:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1958307516001/

The following week, Fox provided extensive and generally positive coverage of Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s speech at the Washington Ideas Forum. Rubio appealed to his party to come up with a sensible plan for the illegal aliens living in the U.S., saying, “It’s really hard to get people to listen to you on economic growth, on tax rates, on health care if they think you want to deport your grandmother.”

Appearing on Fox on Sunday, Arizona Senator John McCain added to the chorus. He called on the GOP to heed the lessons of the election, in which minorities provided the margin of victory for Obama in key states. “I think we have to have a bigger tent,” McCain said. “Obviously, we have to do immigration reform.”

McCain has a keen interest in keeping the discussion alive: Back in 2007, he and Senator Ted Kennedy brought an immigration-reform package to Congress. That bill, which was pushed by President George W. Bush and included a path to citizenship, was derailed in part by talking heads such as Hannity. Any attempts by McCain & Co. to get traction for a renewed effort at immigration reform would benefit from a friendly reception on Fox News. It looks like they’ve got it.

So, to answer the question "what will the GOP do next?" - it looks like Murdoch is already changing his narrative for 2016. But at least Sean Hannity has finally "evolved".

[xthetenth]

“It’s really hard to get people to listen to you on economic growth, on tax rates, on health care if they think you want to deport your grandmother.”

That is an amazing typo or misstatement. I'm not sure what to think because while it's good to see the Republicans have to catch up to progress, I really wouldn't mind seeing them get marginalized enough that they have to have a much harder look and come up with something actually appealing.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

It's a linguistic quirk of English. You just have to read it with the right inflection:

"It's really hard to get people to listen to [the proponent of policy] on economic growth, on tax rates, on health care if they think [the proponent of policy] want to deport [the listener's] grandmother."

[Gil Hamilton]

I think they took entirely the wrong lesson from what happened to Mitt Romney, but putting that aside, good luck. Illegal immigration is the GOPs bread and butter issue in border states. A lot of conservative politicians staked their claims on AZ SB1070, for example, and conservatives all over have tried to replicate it and tripping over each other to laud it. You know, that Jan Brewer and the brave Republicans of Arizona are finally doing what is right and necessary to stop the undocumented Mexican hordes pouring over the border and that it's about damn time that they are taking a principled stand against the Federal Government trying to impose their will over Arizonans by *choff choff* suggesting they may be doing something unconstitutional or wrong.

It's a bit late to go "Oh, shit, Hispanics vote!" and try to make nice when you just spent the last several years gleefully supporting laws that allowed Hispanics to be shaken down for documents on flimsy pretexts.

[Channel72]

I think they took entirely the wrong lesson from what happened to Mitt Romney, but putting that aside, good luck. Illegal immigration is the GOPs bread and butter issue in border states. A lot of conservative politicians staked their claims on AZ SB1070, for example, and conservatives all over have tried to replicate it and tripping over each other to laud it. You know, that Jan Brewer and the brave Republicans of Arizona are finally doing what is right and necessary to stop the undocumented Mexican hordes pouring over the border and that it's about damn time that they are taking a principled stand against the Federal Government trying to impose their will over Arizonans by *choff choff* suggesting they may be doing something unconstitutional or wrong.

It's a bit late to go "Oh, shit, Hispanics vote!" and try to make nice when you just spent the last several years gleefully supporting laws that allowed Hispanics to be shaken down for documents on flimsy pretexts.

Well, yeah - that's the usual reasoning: (1) the GOP's hardline anti-immigration stance (especially in Arizona) has forever tarnished their reputation among Hispanics and (2) even a total 180 on immigration won't help, because it will alienate their white, redneck, xenophobic base.

I'd love to toast to the death of the GOP, but I wouldn't underestimate them just yet. Firstly, the voting public has a pretty short memory, and Hispanics are no different in that regard from anyone else - if the GOP invests the time and money to market themselves as an Hispanic friendly party, it could very well pay off in a few election cycles. And as for the xenophobic white voters, what are they going to do? Vote Democrat? No - they'll just keep voting Republican anyway.

How quickly we forget that the Bush administration itself was pretty soft on immigration (and that over 40% of Latinos voted for Bush in 2004), despite the constant drumbeat of deportation coming from Foxnews/Limbaugh and company. Karl Rove always thought the Republican party should have a "big tent" strategy - which included reaching out to Hispanic voters by softening the Republican stance on immigration.

[Irbis]

I'd love to toast to the death of the GOP, but I wouldn't underestimate them just yet. Firstly, the voting public has a pretty short memory, and Hispanics are no different in that regard from anyone else - if the GOP invests the time and money to market themselves as an Hispanic friendly party, it could very well pay off in a few election cycles. And as for the xenophobic white voters, what are they going to do? Vote Democrat? No - they'll just keep voting Republican anyway.

How quickly we forget that the Bush administration itself was pretty soft on immigration (and that over 40% of Latinos voted for Bush in 2004), despite the constant drumbeat of deportation coming from Foxnews/Limbaugh and company. Karl Rove always thought the Republican party should have a "big tent" strategy - which included reaching out to Hispanic voters by softening the Republican stance on immigration.

Yeah, a lot of immigrants are very conservative/religious, and it's very possible that with slight change of strategy and lying about what they said before Republitards can capture their votes and win all 3 elections at the same time. If you can convince voters taxing rich to lower tax burden on poor and universal healthcare are bad, you can convince them of anything.

So, I would not discount possibility that with a bit of smart leadership they can have last laugh after all.

[Ahriman238]

I'd love to toast to the death of the GOP, but I wouldn't underestimate them just yet. Firstly, the voting public has a pretty short memory, and Hispanics are no different in that regard from anyone else - if the GOP invests the time and money to market themselves as an Hispanic friendly party, it could very well pay off in a few election cycles. And as for the xenophobic white voters, what are they going to do? Vote Democrat? No - they'll just keep voting Republican anyway.

How quickly we forget that the Bush administration itself was pretty soft on immigration (and that over 40% of Latinos voted for Bush in 2004), despite the constant drumbeat of deportation coming from Foxnews/Limbaugh and company. Karl Rove always thought the Republican party should have a "big tent" strategy - which included reaching out to Hispanic voters by softening the Republican stance on immigration.

Yeah, a lot of immigrants are very conservative/religious, and it's very possible that with slight change of strategy and lying about what they said before Republitards can capture their votes and win all 3 elections at the same time. If you can convince voters taxing rich to lower tax burden on poor and universal healthcare are bad, you can convince them of anything.

So, I would not discount possibility that with a bit of smart leadership they can have last laugh after all.

Don't be too sure. It took the Democrats decades after the Civil War to shake the stigma of being the pro-slavery, pro-secession party, and even then for a very long time it was considered the party of the south. Now it seems hard to imagine this was ever so. Parties can reinvent themselves, but it takes time.

[Irbis]

Don't be too sure. It took the Democrats decades after the Civil War to shake the stigma of being the pro-slavery, pro-secession party, and even then for a very long time it was considered the party of the south. Now it seems hard to imagine this was ever so. Parties can reinvent themselves, but it takes time.

How long it took for Tea Party to rise? Who remembers Reagan and Bush sr. would be Commie Taxer Traitors today? Who remembers Clinton's budget surplus and predicted 8 years of Al Gore?

Today you can organize and build new movement/quasi-party in years, not decades, provided there is support for it, and many members of minorities do like most of Republican talking points except immigration and the whole 'superiority of WASPs' thing.

[ryacko]

How long it took for Tea Party to rise? Who remembers Reagan and Bush sr. would be Commie Taxer Traitors today? Who remembers Clinton's budget surplus and predicted 8 years of Al Gore?

Today you can organize and build new movement/quasi-party in years, not decades, provided there is support for it, and many members of minorities do like most of Republican talking points except immigration and the whole 'superiority of WASPs' thing.

Clinton didn't actually have a budget surplus. True budget surpluses don't result in a rise in the national debt.

You can build a movement overnight, Occupy as a prime example, but it takes time for it to be organized is a bit longer. It takes time for a leadership to form, and for an agenda to be established.

[Block]

How long it took for Tea Party to rise? Who remembers Reagan and Bush sr. would be Commie Taxer Traitors today? Who remembers Clinton's budget surplus and predicted 8 years of Al Gore?

Today you can organize and build new movement/quasi-party in years, not decades, provided there is support for it, and many members of minorities do like most of Republican talking points except immigration and the whole 'superiority of WASPs' thing.

Clinton didn't actually have a budget surplus. True budget surpluses don't result in a rise in the national debt.

Actually he did. They voluntarily took on some debt during the last couple of years to give people the ability to continue to buy bonds. The Fed was actually writing papers on how it was going to have to find a new way to create safe fixed term investment chances for people near retirement.

[ArmorPierce]

Problem is that by catering to the hispanic vote republicans give up on pandering to their poor racist demograph on social views who probably vote against their own interests because the same party panders to their social beliefs. Question is whether the gain in hispanic votes offset the loss in racist white vote.

[ryacko]

How long it took for Tea Party to rise? Who remembers Reagan and Bush sr. would be Commie Taxer Traitors today? Who remembers Clinton's budget surplus and predicted 8 years of Al Gore?

Today you can organize and build new movement/quasi-party in years, not decades, provided there is support for it, and many members of minorities do like most of Republican talking points except immigration and the whole 'superiority of WASPs' thing.

Clinton didn't actually have a budget surplus. True budget surpluses don't result in a rise in the national debt.

Actually he did. They voluntarily took on some debt during the last couple of years to give people the ability to continue to buy bonds. The Fed was actually writing papers on how it was going to have to find a new way to create safe fixed term investment chances for people near retirement.

If you actually looked at the link I gave, it shows the national debt rising each and every year between 1992 and 2000.

[Block]

and if you paid attention to what I said you'd understand that the increase in debt was NOT due to a budget deficit.

[General Mung Beans]

Problem is that by catering to the hispanic vote republicans give up on pandering to their poor racist demograph on social views who probably vote against their own interests because the same party panders to their social beliefs. Question is whether the gain in hispanic votes offset the loss in racist white vote.

Well its not like the racist whites have any where else to turn to really-third parties being either one-election wonders or otherwise negligible.

[Coop D'etat]

Problem is that by catering to the hispanic vote republicans give up on pandering to their poor racist demograph on social views who probably vote against their own interests because the same party panders to their social beliefs. Question is whether the gain in hispanic votes offset the loss in racist white vote.

Well its not like the racist whites have any where else to turn to really-third parties being either one-election wonders or otherwise negligible.

The danger is that racism no longer becomes an elector issue I'd say. Then the racists, having no one to vote for on that matter, either stay home or vote on another matter, which might be against the Republican party.


Same reasons the GOP would have problems dumping social conservatism. Without that the Bible vote stays home just like they did before Nixon started courting them and Regean seeled the deal. That's a significant bloc for the Republicans that could very well lose interest in electoral politics and return to the social and political isolation they used to prefer before things like "Moral Majority."

In American politics the danger isn't your base voting for the other guy. Its that your base stops caring if you or the other guy is in office.

[Channel72]

I really don't think racism (or at least, anti-immigration sentiment) plays as strong a role in modern politics as religious fundamentalism. The religious right mobilized the "Bible vote" via evangelical organizations like Moral Majority, with a message of "family values, family-friendly media, no abortion, no homosexuality, etc." This movement played a large role in getting Reagan elected, and even though Moral Majority no longer exists, it's descendent organizations have continued to the present day to support GOP candidates via the same family-values message. And while there's no doubt a significant overlap between the "Bible vote" and the "fuck-immigrants vote", it's obvious that the Bible vote is a lot more influential and important. So, I really don't see that the GOP will have too much of a problem holding onto their conservative/religious base even if they start aggressively reaching out to Hispanics.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Also, I think generally being misguided and ignorant plays a larger role than actual, explicit racism. Most of the Republicans I know have anti-immigration sentiment due to what they perceive as real concerns about jobs and economic impact. They may be wrong, but it's not like they are saying, "YEAH! Fuck those dirty Mexicans!", they are saying, "DEY TOOK EER JEERBS!". You could argue there is some implicit racism in this argument, I suppose, but I really don't think it is the motivating factor for at least the majority of Republicans. Not to say there aren't racists in the country, but I think it is a stretch to say that all the anti-immigration folks are racist.

EDIT: I also personally have heard anti-immigration folks using the argument that "They should just come here LEGALLY!" I think they also don't realize the very real socio-economic factors involved in illegal immigration, instead just latching onto the word "illegal" and associating it with criminals.