« Five Tips For Campaiging By Video | Main | Blogs? What Are Blogs? »

How Blogs Shaped The Immigration Debate

It's always tough to gauge how much impact blogs have had on any given policy issue, but they clearly were a factor in last week's Senate setback for people who want to overhaul U.S. immigration law.

From The New York Times:

In the end, supporters conceded that they were outmaneuvered by opponents who boiled down their complaints to that single hot-button word, repeated often and viscerally on talk radio programs and blogs. "It's a lot easier to yell one word, 'amnesty,' and it takes a little more to explain, 'No, it's not, and if you don't do anything, you have a silent amnesty,'" said Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, a Democrat who backed the measure.

The blogs mustered enough clout in the debate over the past few weeks that the White House felt compelled to go online and counter criticisms of the bill. Two White House officials, Kerrie Rushton and Nicholas Thompson, blogged at RedState, and another official contacted The Corner. A diarist at the liberal blog Daily Kos took note of the interactions by a "panicked White House."

Rob Bluey of the Heritage Foundation, who blogged proliferously about the issue at both RedState and Bluey Blog, offered this analysis via e-mail: "This was a case of a grassroots revolt that took hold because American citizens could use blogs (not just RedState but also [HughHewitt.com] and Michelle Malkin, among others) to get news about the bill and organize opposition to it."

Posted by Danny | 10:27 AM

Comments

I supported the bill and from the begining (even before the beginning, when immigration was discussed) I thought it a mistake to avoid the amnesty word. It came to look like supporters where trying to hide something. Reagan called the 1986 Act an amnesty, why not call this one too. You then get beyond the names and down to whetehr or not the bill was good. instead, supporters were arguing all the time that it was not amnesty.

Room 237 | 06.11.07 12:31 PM

I'm glad to see that people like Bluey and Malkin didn't give up.

Matt Sanchez | 06.11.07 12:46 PM

'No, it's not, and if you don't do anything, you have a silent amnesty,'" said Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, a Democrat who backed the measure.

Ah yes, silent amnesty. That's rich, considering the we racists in the Southern border states have been screaming about this invasion for a long time. I guess the old saying about deaf ears has meaning after all.

Funny, they still don't hear us. Politicians will promise anything to get what they want, then not deliver on the promises. What would be any different about this Bill? Word, NOTHING!

Control the border, stop the flow of illegals, cut off the bennies and ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS, and they will auto-deport themselves. Mexicans, need to go home and fix Mexico and make IT a place where they can live. And stop having so many babies, people and nations are just as constrained by the laws of nature and a given areas carrying capacity.

Just my .02¢

Trader-DFW | 06.11.07 01:19 PM

What's interesting is this term, "silent amnesty" that keeps going around. It's rare that we can easily see talking points circulated - in this case including Napolitano and John Kyl both pitching that doing nothing is silent amnesty. I wonder what focus group came up with that phrase?

No - doing nothing gives us the opportunity to later punish lawbreakers, or at the very least, not reward lawbreakers.

Jim Durbin | 06.11.07 02:00 PM

This is completely true, and it was awesome (in the original sense, not the valley girl sense) to watch unfold.

And the next two things I predict from the rise of the non-neocon online right are:

1) slamming the door *hard* on bush when he tries to bring this back up

2) prepare to hear A LOT of these two words over the next year:

Ron Paul.

Zebra | 06.11.07 04:00 PM

Wow!!! Ya think?

Sue | 06.11.07 04:04 PM

The NYTs distorts, as usual. It was enforcement not amnesty that was the "hot-button word". Would you replace all the water-damaged carpet in your house BEFORE patching the hole in your roof?

I left the GOP over this. Told them I wouldn't come back to the party until AFTER the wall was built. No loopholes, no broken promises, no bait n switch. - put the burden of proof on them. They've had 20 years to fix this.

Fen | 06.11.07 05:43 PM

Enforcement Now!

It really is that simple. Amazingly, our elected politicians and the giant government bureaucracy we pay billions to operate, just wants to sit back and allow this 'silent amnesty' continue forever, as if it is inevitable.

Remind me again what we are paying these folks to do?

So the lesson to be learned from this is that if enough people break the law, our politicians will just change the law instead of enforcing it? What about the drug war? Haven't we been losing the drug war for decades now? If drug use is inevitable, let's legalize some of the drugs and not allow the 'silent legalization' to continue.

I agree that blogs had an unprecendented impact on this issue. Mainly by exposing how unprepared the Administration and Congress were to have to explain this bill to the voters. Instead of selling this bill on the merits, they went into attack mode, which backfired when faced with the instant feedback from the blogosphere.

jones | 06.11.07 09:05 PM

According to the NYT, the WhiteHouse has been posting defenses... on liberal sites. Not just KoolAid sites like RedState, but liberal sites. Does anyone have a single example of that?

Details at the link.

Covert WhiteHouse disinfo? | 06.11.07 10:46 PM

What really has put the bill down is that the architects of S. 1348 tried to jam a bill that made border security harder to enforce. It created 20 loopholes identified by Sen. Sessions and it included triggers that no president would trigger and funding that no Congress would fund.

It is a dishonest bill, and that's what we've discussed at great length at powerlineblog.com and other blogs and boards.

Notice, I haven't used "amnesty."

Another Skeptic | 06.11.07 11:16 PM

It's about lawmakers condoning illegal behavior. Everyone wants Paris Hilton to serve her 45 days in jail but our lawmakers are busy trying to figure out how to get us to stomach allowing 12-20 million to get away with far worse crimes - crossing an international border and then purchasing fake documents.

Go figure.

katablog.com | 06.11.07 11:37 PM

"The NYT distorts, as usual. It was enforcement not amnesty that was the 'hot-button word'."

Yup. Hit the nail on the head. ENFORCEMENT.

I'm very pro-immigration, but the flaunting of our laws is creating all kinds of secondary problems. If we just enforced the laws and raised the LEGAL immigration quotas we could have the best of both worlds.
While we're at it we should make H1-B a fast track to citizenship. H1-B holders have higher education and earning potential than other classes of migrant workers. Sending them home is plain stupid.

Laika's Last Woof | 06.12.07 12:59 AM

I voted for Bush twice and, given the same choices, would have to do so again. However, I am completely against him on the immigration issue and disgusted with his failure to protect our borders and the sovereignty of our country. Immigration laws now only permit a small number of Europeans (who built this country)to legally enter and settle here, while the floodgates have been thrown open and our laws ignored by our ELECTED politicians so that those who wish us harm, who want to bring in drugs, who refuse to speak English and have no wish to assimilate, can migrate here, send for their relatives and all can sign up ASAP for health care, welfare, etc. and in a few years get social security checks--regardless of whether or not they ever worked or paid into that program. ENOUGH!! Thank God, the American people are finally getting a voice and hopefully being heard. Those politicians who will be voting on this immigration bill have to be put on notice that their political careers are on the line.

Joan | 06.12.07 08:12 PM

Post a Comment