Thursday, October 20, 2011

On illegal immigration, old GOP vs. new GOP

Welcome again to O-pinion, the Observer's new place for argument.

I'm Peter St. Onge, associate editor of the editorial board, and I'll be bringing you perspective today from opinionated people everywhere, including us.

What are people talking about?

While the initial buzz about Tuesday night's Republican debate centered around the haymakers thrown by frontrunner Mitt Romney and former frontrunner Rick Perry, the opinion universe is now turning its attention to the topic that prompted the most heat.

That would be illegal immigration - a mainstay of GOP debates. But, say some political observers, the current batch of candidates have veered far to the right of what Republicans like Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush said about the issue.

The International Business Times has video of the two future presidents debating the issue back in 1980, and their gentility regarding illegal immigrants is striking.

The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf says this debate, however, was full of demagoguery and false choices.

Politico says Perry hit Romney because the Texas governor wants to deflect attention from his deficiencies on the issue.

Flashback: On Sunday, I wrote how President George W. Bush offered a reasonable proposal on immigration five years ago, but that it was soundly defeated. What we're left with are harsh state immigrations laws that hurting local economies with rotting crops and struggling businesses.

Tuesday's debate, combined with a White House reluctant to confront the issue, was another reminder of how far we are from a solution that would penalize illegal immigrants, yet offer them a path to citizenship that would benefit us all.

Closer to home

The Observer's editorial board explains why Herman Cain = anchovy pizza.

Check your pockets while The Raleigh News & Observer's Barry Saunders speculates why someone hasn't yet claimed a $10 million N.C. lottery prize.

The Greensboro News & Record, which followed Obama around their corner of North Carolina this week, says they hope he and Washington realize the folks he meets need more than a handshake.

Around the country

The Weekly Standard says the Obama administration's abandonment of a piece of its health care reform is more evidence that Obamacare is fundamentally dishonest.

A New York Time panel examines a question important to Charlotte: Have regulations hurt bank profits?

And finally...

The Hillary-Joe Biden switch won't die. The Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn is the latest to chime in, and he has a thoughtful analysis about why it might be a good idea.

His colleague, Steve Chapman, says nope.


Wiley Coyote said...


You've become nothing more than an echo...echo....echo....

These "O-pinion pieces" are being thrown out like shot from a scatter gun.

Aubrey Moore said...

Both the tone and the substance of the GOP debates should scare people of reason. I have no idea where they get the crowds that they play to, probably because I do not want to admit that I live in the midst of such unreasoned certainty. I have this fear that they will expand on the religious right's bad manners of asking, "Have you been saved", by adding something like, "and, have you joined the tea party?" I understand that the two questions are one to most of the people on the far right today.

Jason said...

Again with the dropping of the "Illegal" word, Peter. "Gentility towards immigrants". You should be saying "Illegal immigrants", but you are intentionally leaving the word out in order to stir up hostility.

This dishonesty in your editorials borders on demagoguery. Look in the mirror and you'll see a liar looking back at you.

Wiley Coyote said...


There is nothing at this time more dangerous to our country than Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

After Biden's tirade yesterday about rape and the GOP, either you watch only one channel or have your head stuck in the dirt.

Ghoul said...

I watched the entire debate, and illegal immigration was not the focus, Pete. Again making stuff up to suit your slant.

Reagan was totally against illegal immigration and worked with the Dem controlled Congress to solve the problem. He agreed to amnesty to get tougher enforcement along the border and the Dems back out of that agreement, another lie from them.

Hey Pete, I know you read these, so tell us when will the Observer cover the attempted kidnapping and rape of an 11 year old girl from a school bus stop? Is that something the people should know, or will you cover it up like the illegal alien child rapist I had to fight Ordonez to report on? And why did CMPD wait until after their "crime is down" presser to comment on it?

The Observer Editorial Board said...

Hi Jason

I thought it was clear from the headline and the content of the post that we were talking about illegal immigrants, but I've added "illegal" to the sentence referring to Reagan and Bush so that no one misunderstands. Thanks for the suggestion.

Ghoul, please reread the post. I never said immigration was the focus of the debate. I said it was the topic that generated the most heat between Romney and Perry.


Garth Vader said...


First I want to commend you on being (apparently) the only member of the Editorial Board who takes time to read and respond to comments posted to O-Pinion.

I would like for you to address the origins of the very obvious and coordinated blackout of the candidacy of Ron Paul in the Observer and in other mainstream media outlets. This blackout was confirmed and documented by the Pew Center, and is so pervasive that the Paul campaign is currently promoting their latest "moneybomb" using the catchphrase "Black THIS Out" (it has at last check raised 2.3 million dollars in 36 hours, getting donations from more individuals in one day than Rick Perry got in the entire third quarter).

On Monday Paul released a comprehensive and specific plan to immediately reduce federal spending by $1 trillion and to balance the budget within 2015, both goals that a vast majority of Republicans would welcome. Yet the Observer did not print a single word regarding the Paul plan, in contrast to its extensive stories on "9/9/9" which is a tax plan that only addresses revenue, rather than the actual spending cuts which - again - most rank and file Republicans support.

So please answer the simple question Peter: What is the origin of the Ron Paul blackout? Thanks.