ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

Chinese Immig. Daily

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 

Chinese Immig. Daily



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free
information!

Copyright
©1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:



< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

Dear Editor:
I disagree with your analysis of the recall election in your editorial in the 9/30 Immigration Daily issue. Perhaps because you focus all the time on immigration issues, you myopically wear immigration-colored glasses to see the world. This recall election is about the fiscal issues. It's about our $38 billion deficit. It's about jobs and job-creators leaving the state. It's about tripling of the car tax. About getting rid of the Indian gaming special interest and business-as-usual politics in Sacramento. To some extent, it's about SB.60 which gives illegals the driver licenses. However, it's the money issues that people on the street primarily talk about and why voters are so upset that they want to kick out Gray Davis. As Arnold says in his commercial, all the time here in the Golden State it's "tax, tax, tax!" and the people here have had enough. The candidates have barely talked in-depth about immigration issues in their debates and ads. Arnold does not give any plan of how he would deal with the illegal immigration issues except that he would urge the federal government to tighten up the border. Tom McClintock is a little stronger but nothing specific either. Bustamente, well, of course, Bustamente wants to make California as welcome a place as possible for illegal aliens. "If, Mr. Bustamante wins, Democrats will argue that pro-immigrant candidates can be vote winners, while Republicans will point to Mr. McClintock's strident anti-immigration views as the cause of the election loss of the Governorship of the country's largest State. " This is a statement out of left field on your part. If Arnold loses, the Republicans will blame McClintock for playing the spoiler part to take votes away from Arnold, just like Ross Perot did in '92 for Clinton against the first Bush. It's just basic math and has nothing to do with McClintock's anti-immigration views. Rather, people voting for Arnold have said all along that McClintock's stridently conservative views on social issues such as on abortion, guns, gay marriage, etc. doesn't play well here in California. However, anti-immigration is not one such reason. Why is it that the Indian gaming special interest has given so much money to the McClintock advertising campaign while the ultra-liberal LA Times praises arch-conservative McClintock in its latest issues?! It's because they know that by divide-and-conquering of the Republican vote, the Democrats can win, either a victory for Davis and Bustamente. Because Arnold leads by so much in the polls still (even after the latest "grope-gate" and bogus Hitler allegations), the Democrats are intent on keeping with this tactic. But again, it doesn't have anything to do with McClintock's anti-immigrant view.

Michael D.

Editor's Note: We look at current events clearly from an immigration perspective. Other media do an excellent job of covering other perspectives, especially political ones. We do not pretend to offer a comprehensive analysis from every point of view, as you have aptly noted we cover just the immigration-related points of view.



Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: