December, 19 2011, 11:37am EDT
GOP Contenders Continue to Toe a "Militant Line" on Immigration
As the Republican presidential campaign moves into the homestretch before the first caucus and primaries of the 2012 campaign, it's increasingly clear that the candidate field is lacking a true moderate on immigration reform in the style of Ronald Reagan and George W.
WASHINGTON
As the Republican presidential campaign moves into the homestretch before the first caucus and primaries of the 2012 campaign, it's increasingly clear that the candidate field is lacking a true moderate on immigration reform in the style of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. For no discernible political or policy reason beyond misguided conventional wisdom, the candidate field remains tethered to a far right immigration stance that will limit the eventual nominee's appeal to Latino voters in the general election.
According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America's Voice, "Look at what the supposed immigration moderates in the field are saying. Newt Gingrich is proposing to send 7 to 9 million immigrants home, and Rick Perry is defending his supporter Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the Latino community's Bull Connor. It's clear that the Republican field is anchored to the hard line right of the immigration spectrum."
As Beth Reinhard captures in a new National Journal cover story, "Again and again, debate over illegal immigration has punctuated a campaign billed as a referendum on the economy. Acting like candidates for president of their local Minuteman chapter, the contenders for the GOP nomination have been competing to out-vigilante each other, rousing some ardent conservatives. But drill down into the polling, spend an afternoon in Perry, or consider Newt Gingrich's surge in the polls even after he proposed an immigration policy that rivals tarred as 'amnesty,' and it becomes clear that Republican voters' views are more nuanced. What's more, hard-line rhetoric in recent elections has alienated Latino voters at a time when their power to swing elections is only growing. Antithetical to its past and potentially poisonous to its future, the GOP's militant line risks long-term self-sabotage."
Here's our take on leading candidates and recent developments when it comes to the 2012 cycle and immigration:
- Newt Gingrich: The specifics of Gingrich's immigration policy proposal remain far less impressive than the fact that his comments have shifted the focus of immigration discussions in the campaign toward the relevant question - what candidates would do about the 11 million undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States. Gingrich's call for a "red card" proposal of legalization but no citizenship for a small group of undocumented immigrants remains an inadequate policy solution for regaining control over the broken immigration system. On CBS's "Face the Nation" this Sunday, Gingrich detailed the limits of his proposal: "Seven or eight or nine million would go home and get a guest worker permit and come back under the law. The last two million are people who have been here a very long time." In reality, there would be no way for them to come back under current law. The more Gingrich specifies his proposal, the more clear it is that he's no immigration moderate. In fact, it's only compared to candidates like Mitt Romney - who wants to deport all 11 million - that Gingrich seems reasonable on the issue.
- Ron Paul: As forecasters and pundits like Nate Silver of the New York Times note the distinct possibility that Ron Paul could win the Iowa caucuses, it's worth reminding that Paul is far from a classic pro-immigrant libertarian. Though he opposes mandatory E-Verify legislation, Paul supports repealing birthright citizenship, voted against the DREAM Act in 2010, and said this summer, "why do we pay more attention to the borders overseas and less attention to the borders here at home?" Notably, Paul also revealed that his opposition to "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants has a distinctly political element and stems from not wanting them to become voters: at an August debate, Paul said, "I don't think that we should give amnesty and they become voters."
- Rick Perry: After the U.S. Department of Justice announced its findings of its investigation of the notorious anti-Latino Sheriff Joe Arpaio last week, Perry used the occasion to criticize the Obama Administration and to stick up for Arpaio, who has endorsed Perry and stumped with the candidate on the campaign trail. Perry's hard-line positions on border security, his support of "papers, please" state immigration approaches like Arizona, and his opposition to the federal DREAM Act add up to a candidate who never has been a real moderate on the issue. However, in the earlier squabble over his "heartless" comment regarding in-state tuition, Perry alienated the hard-core anti-immigrant crowd to the point that he has wildly overcompensated and now feels compelled to tout his anti-immigrant bona fides at any cost. Now, Perry's embrace of the notorious Arpaio will undoubtedly alienate millions general election voters should Perry somehow emerge as the nominee. For example, in addition to his anti-Latino policing tactics, Arpaio's department is in hot water for failing to follow up on "more than 400 alleged sex crimes between 2005 and 2007."
- Mitt Romney: Romney has endorsed mass deportation as his immigration policy vision, spelling out his goal of evicting the entire undocumented population from the U.S. without exception. Witness his recent call for the entirety of the undocumented population to, "return home and get in the - in line at the back of the line with everybody else that wants to come here....So, from my view-- viewpoint, the key-- the key measure is this: No favoritism for permanent residency or citizenship for those that have come here illegally." However, the "line" that Romney is referring to simply doesn't exist; hence the need for comprehensive immigration reform in the first place. As Peter Wallsten assessed in the Washington Post, "Republicans are increasingly worried that their party's efforts to win a competitive slice of the fast-growing Hispanic vote in important presidential battleground states are being undermined by Mitt Romney's heated rhetoric on illegal immigration. Several leading GOP strategists say Romney's sharp-tongued attacks have gained wide attention in Hispanic media and are eroding the party's already fragile standing in that community." Romney remains in a dangerous place politically, as his attempts to pander to the small sliver of Republican primary voters who are adamantly hard-line on immigration continues to be at the expense of even minimal levels of appeal to Latino voters in a potential general election.
America's Voice -- Harnessing the power of American voices and American values to win common sense immigration reform. The mission of America's Voice is to realize the promise of workable and humane comprehensive immigration reform. Our goal is to build the public support and create the political momentum for reforms that will transform a dysfunctional immigration system that does not work into a regulatory system that does.
LATEST NEWS
Billionaire Palantir Co-Founder Pushes Return of Public Hangings as Part of 'Masculine Leadership' Initiative
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," said one critic in response.
Dec 07, 2025
Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of data platform company Palantir, is calling for the return of public hangings as part of a broader push to restore what he describes as "masculine leadership" to the US.
In a statement posted on X Friday, Lonsdale said that he supported changing the so-called "three strikes" anti-crime law to ensure that anyone who is convicted of three violent crimes gets publicly executed, rather than simply sent to prison for life.
"If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law," he wrote. "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others."
Lonsdale then added that "our society needs balance," and said that "it's time to bring back masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable."
Lonsdale's views on public hangings being necessary to restore "masculine leadership" drew swift criticism.
Gil Durán, a journalist who documents the increasingly authoritarian politics of Silicon Valley in his newsletter "The Nerd Reich," argued in a Saturday post that Lonsdale's call for public hangings showed that US tech elites are "entering a more dangerous and desperate phase of radicalization."
"For months, Peter Thiel guru Curtis Yarvin has been squawking about the need for more severe measures to cement Trump's authoritarian rule," Durán explained. "Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist in a global tour. And now Lonsdale—a Thiel protégé—is fantasizing about a future in which he will have the power to unleash state violence at mass scale."
Taulby Edmondson, an adjunct professor of history, religion, and culture at Virginia Tech, wrote in a post on Bluesky that the rhetoric Lonsdale uses to justify the return of public hangings has even darker intonations than calls for state-backed violence.
"A point of nuance here: 'masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable' is how lynch mobs are described, not state-sanctioned executions," he observed.
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argued that Lonsdale's remarks were symbolic of a kind of performative masculinity that has infected US culture.
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," he wrote.
Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash warned Lonsdale that his call for public hangings could have unintended consequences for members of the Silicon Valley elite.
"Well, Joe, Mark Zuckerberg has sole control over Facebook, which directly enabled the Rohingya genocide," he wrote. "So let’s have the conversation."
And Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin noted that Lonsdale has been a major backer of the University of Austin, an unaccredited liberal arts college that has been pitched as an alternative to left-wing university education with the goal of preparing "thoughtful and ethical innovators, builders, leaders, public servants and citizens through open inquiry and civil discourse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Defends Boat Bombings as New Details Further Undermine Administration's Justifications
The boat targeted in the infamous September 2 "double-tap" strike was not even headed for the US, Adm. Frank Bradley revealed to lawmakers.
Dec 07, 2025
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday defended the Trump administration's policy of bombing suspected drug-trafficking vessels even as new details further undermined the administration's stated justifications for the policy.
According to the Guardian, Hegseth told a gathering at the Ronald Reagan presidential library that the boat bombings, which so far have killed at least 87 people, are necessary to protect Americans from illegal drugs being shipped to the US.
"If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you," Hegseth said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
However, leaked details about a classified briefing delivered to lawmakers last week by Adm. Frank Bradley about a September 2 boat strike cast new doubts on Hegseth's justifications.
CNN reported on Friday that Bradley told lawmakers that the boat taken out by the September 2 attack was not even headed toward the US, but was going "to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname," a small nation in the northeast of South America.
While Bradley acknowledged that the boat was not heading toward the US, he told lawmakers that the strike on it was justified because the drugs it was carrying could have theoretically wound up in the US at some point.
Additionally, NBC News reported on Saturday that Bradley told lawmakers that Hegseth had ordered all 11 men who were on the boat targeted by the September 2 strike to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted."
This is relevant because the US military launched a second strike during the September 2 operation to kill two men who had survived the initial strike on their vessel, which many legal experts consider to be either a war crime or an act of murder under domestic law.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, watched video of the September 2 double-tap attack last week, and he described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” Himes explained. “Now, there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in position to continue their mission in any way... People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows, if you don’t have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors.”
While there has been much discussion about the legality of the September 2 double-tap strike in recent days, some critics have warned that fixating on this particular aspect of the administration's policy risks taking the focus off the illegality of the boat-bombing campaign as a whole.
Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said on Friday that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been "illegal under both domestic and international law."
"All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life," she said. "Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of 'Domestic Terrorism' Groups Who Express 'Anti-American Sentiment'
"Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target," warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.
Dec 07, 2025
A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential "domestic terrorism" organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an "exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7" that will incorporate "a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities."
The memo identifies the "domestic terrorism threat" as organizations that use "violence or the threat of violence" to advance political goals such as "opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality."
Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious," he wrote. "But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7."
Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new "war on terrorism," but "only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


