California GOP gubernatorial candidates Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner have each penned their own opinion pieces in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times. After reading both pieces, my sense is that Meg Whitman is trying to position herself to be a bit more ‘moderate’ on the illegal immigration issue at least relative to Steve Poizner.
Regarding Meg Whitman’s piece, I thought that the first part was particularly interesting, most notably her expressed use of the words ‘divisive’ and ‘disrespectful’:
“Too often, the rhetoric surrounding this issue has been overly divisive and disrespectful to Latino American citizens. The country needs to have a thoughtful debate about how we stop the tide of illegal immigration that strains budgets and angers taxpayers. But the immigration debate must take place in a measured way that reflects our national aspirations toward tolerance, hope and opportunity.
As a Republican, I believe it’s important to both continue our rich tradition of protecting the rule of law while diligently reaching out to the millions of Latinos who share our values.
While I am a strong proponent of legal immigration, I am 100% opposed to granting amnesty to immigrants who entered the country illegally. It is the wrong policy for California, it is the wrong policy for America, and it is grossly unfair to those immigrants who have followed the law to obtain legal status.”
And I thought this portion about her expressed opposition to Proposition 187 was somewhat ironic given the prominence of former California Governor Pete Wilson in her campaign (remember that Wilson was a big proponent of this ballot initiative, which was eventually declared unconstitutional):
“I have been criticized for opposing Proposition 187, which was on the California ballot in 1994. It is true that I am opposed to cutting off public education and healthcare services to immigrant children. I do not believe that kids should be punished for the sins of their parents.”
As for Steve Poizner, I thought that this part was particularly telling:
“Above all, California has too many policies that reward illegal aliens and act like magnets, drawing them to and keeping them in our cities and communities. We have to change those policies.
Ten other states, including neighboring Arizona, have passed laws to cut taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants. We need such legislation too. In this time of fiscal crisis, we can’t afford to subsidize the presence of illegal aliens.
One taxpayer-funded benefit for illegal aliens that should be stopped is in-state tuition at our public colleges and universities. Today, California is one of just 10 states that allow illegal immigrants access to reduced college tuition at taxpayer expense.”
For Steve Poizner, the last paragraph made me immediately think, “Forget about it DREAM Activist students — this guy is not in your corner.” One of the reasons why California has in-state tuition for undocumented students is that many of these kids have been excelling in school despite the odds and did not have a choice in how they arrived here as small children. Furthermore, many of these young people no longer have connections to their homeland, as they have been living here in California for years.
And in my quick reading of both opinion pieces, I did notice that Poizner used the term ‘illegal alien‘ while Meg Whitman did not. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) has called this term, as well as ‘illegal immigrant’ dehumanizing. While I am not as offended by the term ‘illegal immigrant,’ I know that many in our community are, and if language is power and semantics make a difference, I think that both candidates would be wise to read the NAHJ statement on terminology.
In the end, I do think that Steve Poizner has dug himself a hole with the illegal immigration issue, and he is very unlikely to emerge from it as he is trailing so far behind in the polls. Even today’s LA Times has a pretty good piece explaining why more Californians are not taking the bait regarding illegal immigration, as many people have come to the realization that there are fewer immigrants coming to the country in this global economic downturn.
8 responses so far ↓
1 rwb // Mar 31, 2010 at 6:59 am
Ok………. let’s not use the term “illegal aliens”.
How about “scabs”.
have a nice day.
rwb
2 rwb // Mar 31, 2010 at 7:00 am
viva 187.
3 Reyfeo // Mar 31, 2010 at 6:33 pm
I think “illegal aliens” is okay…it identifies the problem. You’ll find on this website, Webby is more concerned with word etiquette then actual substance of solving this problem. It’s a “US be damn mentality…we need to save the illegal’s who do great here in school”…psst…my kid does well and no one’s rushing to give Dream Act tuition. So good for Meg and or Steve…one of them will win this thing and get on with what CA needed to do years ago…maybe with some good fortune they can get the state out of the financial abyss.
BTW, where do you stand on the murdered rancher in So AZ…IF he was of Latino decent murdered by an Illegal Alien would you still be fighting for them? Doubt you’ll take this as an issue as it doesn’t play well into your pro-Amnesty rhetoric. Figures.
4 Anna // Apr 4, 2010 at 10:23 am
Interesting blog post about Movements
http://www.alisavaldesrodriguez.com/
whose movement?
Four years ago, when literally millions of Americans took to the streets to support the human and civil rights of immigrants and, by association in the public mind, Latinos, the news media scarcely covered the marches – even though they’d drawn larger crowds than any other marches in the history of the nation, including the oft-dramatized “halmark” culture-changing protests over the Vietnam War.
Fast forward four years, to the Tea Party Convention, which boasted all of 600 registrants and one “we-tahd” hand-scribbler from Wasila, and the contrast in news media coverage is astonishing. The news media – including progressive talk radio and blogs – have been crowing about the big Tea Party “movement” for days now. USA Today has taken a poll about a Tea Party candidate’s viability in presidential elections….
5 irma // Apr 5, 2010 at 10:28 am
So Reyfeo, you are the parent of a 4 year old child and another child in high school? I have often wondered whether any or all of your personal history is true.
Why are you so selfish? The Dream act is a good idea and would benefit just a few undocumented, deserving immigrants. In contrast, the educational opportunities for American citizens are countless. If your kid is doing as well as you say – they certainly don’t need access to resources set aside by the Dream Act.
6 Reyfeo // Apr 5, 2010 at 4:03 pm
You assume wrongly I appreciate giving my $$ away (even if by taxation) to other people… I don’t know about you, but I’ve worked hard for my money and prefer to tithe and give away to charities on my own…for you and your left wing nuts to believe in your minds I need you and or the Fed Gov’t, through the Dream Act, to give away to people on my behalf, especially those who could care less for me or my children, is why you have no sense of reality.
7 sokrrls // Apr 7, 2010 at 10:37 am
Reyfeo… you are extremely narrow-minded. If immigration was such a big deal then you would attack the real problem… globalization. I am sure you were cheering for NAFTA to go through, which further hindered the poor in North America. People wouldn’t have to migrate if America wasn’t exploiting their countries… one of the reasons we are in a financial crisis is because of the wealthy, not the poor. Clinton and Bush lowered taxes, but the greatest decrease was for the extremely wealthy. Lowering taxes only hurt the country, especially when they are funding needless wars. And I am glad you’ve worked hard for your money, but there are people in this country who have worked extremely hard and don’t get to reap the rewards (regardless of ethnicity). And the fact that 5% of the nations population owns almost 2/3 of the nations wealth is proof of that… What’s amazing to me is that you bring up an incident in which one rancher was killed, I’m guessing, by an undocumented immigrant (or why else would you bring it up?). Take the number of people that have been killed by undocumented immigrants and the number of undocumented immigrants that have been killed by government officials and/or citizens, and you’ll se a very staggering disproportion. You have no real base for your arguments. You are blinded by half truths and prejudice.
8 Reyfeo // Apr 9, 2010 at 4:23 am
You must not be from this country…your answer is to blame the rich? Was your life so bad that now you feel compelled to take on the rich? This is America, not freaking Venezuela where you make it your job to obliterate the well to do for the sake of your sorry excuse for not making your own life better! Get a clue, the well off as well as the POOR, have a right to live here without being overburden by taxes and or the need to feed the rest of the cabrones who decided to quit High School, never go to some trade school or make it better for their pregnant girl friends and children, whom they abandoned. I think it’s un-American for you to think that someone else who did things right owes you something for being a total failure!
And I didn’t say “UNDOCUMENTED” lady, I Said “ILLEGAL ALIEN”!! Also, if one Illegal Alien kills one American, that’s one too many Americans killed, PERIOD! You assume wrongly with your bull shi$t statistical “disproportion” jargon that I care that only 1 out of 100 or 200 are the real problem and the “Undocumented” are here peacefully! They are here ILLEGALLY, please get a clue!! Sugar coat it all you want, but they are law breakers.
Leave a Comment