Last week, I said that Mike Huckabee is in a position to run an isolationist, nativist, populist race for President. I pointed out that, at least on the issue of immigration, one of the things that could get in the way of his doing that was his religious beliefs, which we consistent with his view on immigration.
Last year, in a lunch with reporters, he said that not only was he an open to comprehensive immigration reform, but that he thought opposition to it was based in racism and xenophobia, among other factors:
[Huckabee] said he believes opposition to comprehensive immigration reform is ‘irrational in many cases.’ And he did not discount the causative factor of racism. "If I were to say that some of it is driven by just sheer racism, I think I would be telling you the truth. I’ve had conversations with people that and it became very evident that what they really didn’t like was that people didn’t look like them, didn’t talk like them, didn’t celebrate ht [sic] holidays like they do, and they just had a problem with it.
But now it seems that Governor Reverend Huckabee wants the votes of racists and nativists. The Washington Times reports that he is now supportive of ending birthright citizenship.
" ‘I would support changing that. I think there is reason to revisit that, just because a person, through sheer chance of geography, happened to be physically here at the point of birth, doesn’t necessarily constitute citizenship,’ he said. ‘I think that’s a very reasonable thing to do, to revisit that.’ "
There is a powerful coalition of Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter supporters out there…
8 Comments
fredo · August 22, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Has the eye found a new bogeyman even scarier than Mitt?
Ah yes, the secular-progressive wing of the party strikes again. And it sounds strikingly similar to the race-baiters that liberals and Dems have been pushing on us for years.
Seeking to improve upon the current law granting citizenship to “anchor babies” is not a part of “comprehensive immigration reform” (as any liberalization of current law would be termed), but rather an indication of personal malice. Rather, it is an indication of the desire to court “racists” and “nativists” (as anyone who believes in any sort of increased enforcement must be deemed). One doesn’t have to read far between the lines to see “racist” and “xenophobe” are labels being tossed into the same sentence with the governor himself, and not by accident. After all, he’s a Christian AND a southerner AND thinks 500,000 new illegals a year and 12-20 Million illegals in the US in the midst of the GWOT (where open borders are an invitation to strike) is a problem. Yeah, he must be a racist.
You’re doing Jesse proud, Soren. Keep up the good work.
eye · August 22, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Secular-progressive? Since when is the Southern Baptist Convention and Richard Land secular?
What about the Catholic Church?
Those are real secular.
And you seemed to miss my point that he characterized this kind of positioning as racist just a year ago. And the analytic point that he is (1) flip-flopping and (2) giving up on his (religiously grounded) principles to pander for votes.
fredo · August 22, 2007 at 1:14 PM
No, eye, you’re missing my point: brandishing the “racism” argument against anyone who disagrees with your chosen policy preference is playing to the lowest common denominator.
You know, as well as I do, that while Huckabee has toughened his immigration talk, particularly around border security (as with Rudy), he’s a long way from the Tancredo position on immigration. His opposition to “anchor baby” citizenship is supported by many, many people who see the current practice as exacerbating the problem of illegal immigration. But that opposition does not equate to the Tancredo position of seeking to deport all the illegals currently here, or, at a minimum, make employment enforcement so strict as to “starve” the remaining illegals into leaving.
Of course, you don’t seem interested in allowing for such differences, as you’ve conflated the Huckabee/Hunter/Tancredo/Paul camps and thrown the words “xenophobe” and “racism” in for good measure.
eye · August 22, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Fredo, Lost the first argument so you switched subjects?
I never said that Huckabee’s position was the same as Tancredo’s or equated them. I did say that if he adopted more aggressive language on immigration, he has the opportunity to suck up those supporters and energy. Especially once Tancredo, Paul, Hunter, etc. drop out.
Each of these is running on a kind of nativist and anti-globalist agenda, with different emphases. Tancredo wants to pull out of NAFTA, which is crazy left-quackery. And Hunter wants to stop trade. And Huckabee’s anti-“Wall Street” rhetoric is convertible into that.
And, for the record, I do think that Tancredo is a xenophobe and a racist. And the party will be better with him gone.
fredo · August 22, 2007 at 3:32 PM
Um…looks like one argument to me. If you’re not attempting to conflate Huckabee with Tancredo/Hunter/Paul and place all of those parties under the cloud of “racism” (admittedly as to Tancredo), then you must not be communicating clearly. Your words seem to indicate as much:
“now it seems that Governor Reverend Huckabee wants the votes of racists and nativists…
There is a powerful coalition of Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter supporters out there…”
eye · August 22, 2007 at 4:32 PM
You are stretching dude.
As I said, my point is that Huckabee went from one position to another seemingly in contradiction to his previous one.
That position speaks to a substantial opening on the anti-globalist right. As I have noted on several occassions on this this blog, if he put that coalition together, starting with the supporters of the people above, there’s the beginnings of a powerful operation.
The Right’s Field » Huckabee Would Abolish Birthright Citizenship · August 22, 2007 at 12:31 PM
[…] Soren Dayton observes that Mike Huckabee seems to have flip-flopped on immigration. Whereas at one time Huckabee endorsed comprehensive immigration reform and said that opposition to such reform was “driven by just sheer racism,” now he has indicated that he would abolish a core American principle: birthright citizenship: ” ‘I would support changing that. I think there is reason to revisit that, just because a person, through sheer chance of geography, happened to be physically here at the point of birth, doesn’t necessarily constitute citizenship,’ he said. ‘I think that’s a very reasonable thing to do, to revisit that.’ “ […]
eyeon08.com » Romney’s IA immigration piece and his strange cynicism · November 30, 2007 at 7:28 PM
[…] It is undeniable that Mitt Romney flip-flopped on a whole bunch of things. And a number of people are comfortable with that. What I find so cynical about Romney is that he attacks people for formerly holding positions that he formerly held. Again, "flip-flopping for me, but not for thee." Thompson, especially, no longer holds the views that he was advocating back in the day. Huckabee has shifted to the right, something that I have blasted him on. […]
Comments are closed.