I posted earlier about Hillary Clinton’s moving to the right of the Bush Administration on immigration. But, Michelle Malkin noted this three weeks ago. She argues that this issue transcends party lines and could siphon off voters who don’t feel that border security is being taken seriously by the Republican party.
Unlike the Wall Street Journal editorial board, she seems to understand that the overwhelming support among Americans of all backgrounds for stricter immigration enforcement is grounded not in knee-jerk “nativism,” but in rational self-preservation. It isn’t just bigots who want secure borders. It’s families like the parents and widows who formed 9/11 For A Secure America, many of whom are lifelong Republicans fed up with the pro-amnesty antics of the Bush White House. It’s families of victims of illegal immigration, whom both the Beltway and media have ignored.
I myself would never vote for Hillary. But the Republican establishment takes for granted at its peril the significant number of party faithful who may be sorely tempted to do so if the Bush betrayal at the border continues.
I am content to let Hillary talk about it all she wants, if it forces potential Republican candidates to focus on it. We need immigration reform–especially tighter border controls. And as Michelle points out, this issue isn’t about racism but about protecting this country. And if Hillary’s taking a decisive stand on this issue doesn’t get Republicans talking about it, then they’ll more than likely get what they deserve come 2008.