Ground Game

NRO’s Jim Geraghty says the Republican candidates’ answers at last night presidential debate bordered on xenophobia:

"Based on the tone and answers given tonight, you would think that the Republican Party seethes with a blistering resentment of immigrants, with only the briefest of pauses to distinguish between those who are illegal and legal.”

Let’s be honest here, the “tone and answers” last night are not some sort of anomaly in the greater immigration debate amongst conservatives. These are the responses, sincere or not, that the Republican candidates think they must give in order to appeal to their base voters.

As Tom Tancredo noted during the debate, “[A]ll I've heard is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo. It is great. I am so happy to hear it. It is a wonderful thing. It's a good message, yes. We want to secure the borders.

Anyone who doubts this just needs to go back and look at the congressional debate over immigration reform. Even John McCain, the Republican architect of a proposed comprehensive bill, has taken to apologizing for his support of a guest-worker program.

Or, consider the semantic impact of terms like “illegal alien,” as opposed to “illegal immigrant,” or, "guest worker."

There is, of course, a fair debate to be had over immigration and border security. It’s certainly not immoral to oppose illegal immigration on law enforcement grounds. But it’s intellectually dishonest to deny that sizable portions of the debate are in fact anti-immigrant and/or anti-Hispanic. The greater moral and political dilemma these candidates must weigh is whether any short-term electoral gains are worth sacrificing the long-term support of an increasingly empowered, and vocal, minority population. Because that, right or wrong, is exactly what’s happening.