Eureka! More on Immigration Rhetoric in NYT

This week, the New York Times published a story on the potential effects of immigration rhetoric, particularly the vitriolic denunciations of "illegal aliens," on presidential campaigns in 2008:

The Republicans have railed against “amnesty” and “sanctuary cities.” They have promised to build a fence on the Mexican border to keep “illegals” out.

“The ratcheting up of the language to win the Iowa caucuses may seem like the thing to do, but we’ll pay a price,” said John Weaver, a Republican strategist who worked for Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign.

The article also includes a poll that says Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire tend to view illegal immigration as a more severe problem than do Democrats, while an ABC poll shows 54 percent of Americans say illegal immigrants do more harm than good. However, catering to a fear of illegal immigrants may prove disastrous for Republicans, Michael Luo writes:

Those calling for Republicans to moderate their language point to past losses, like Pat Buchanan’s runs for the presidency in 1992 and 1996, which were heavy on anti-immigrant talk. More recently, they said, J. D. Hayworth, a hard-line incumbent Republican representative in Arizona, lost his race in 2006, as did Randy Graf, a member of the border-enforcing Minuteman group, who also ran in Arizona.

“In the past it’s always been fool’s gold,” said Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative organization, who worked on behalf of the bipartisan immigration bill in the Senate.

As I've written before, Republicans aren't the only ones in Mississippi with their pans in the river. On a national level, it will be interesting to see how much candidates pander to loudly voiced protests against illegal immigrants, and how successful they are in co-opting a language built around fear.