Question: When did immigration all of a sudden become top

[LeftNYC]

priority? I woke up one morning and immigration talk was everywhere. Why was it not a concern, or a top concern in 2001,02,03,04, or 05 for that matter. To me, it seems like a diversionary tactic. Iraq is off the front page. NSA is still hanging in, sort of. Rove has disappered from major media coverage.

Just wondering how all this bluster happened?

[LuckyLib]

1. When George and the boys wanted you to keep your eye off the

ball, away from the criminal and immoral behavior going on in Washington and Iraq.

[LeftNYC]

4. Thats what I thought...There was no event like people smuggling in

chemical weapons over the border.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. They launched that draconian immigration House bill out of the blue

That started it. It was on purpose. It was/is all bullshit.

[meegbear]

3. When the repugs needed a crisis at home to forget Iraq ...

and get an issue for the elections, gay marriage is so passe and all.

[truebrit71]

5. To talk the seeple's mind off Iraq/Plamegate/NSA Spygate/Hookergate....

...or any one of the myriad rethuglican criminal acts currently NOT being covered by the MSM presstitutes....

[FSogol]

6. * needed a distraction to avoid the topics of

*'s failures in the Iraq War
*'s failures in the War on Terra
*'s failures to act and restore New Orleans
*'s complicity in the growing number of GOP corruption and scandals.

So why not appeal to the racist segment of his base and blame it all on Mexico?

[blm]

7. No mystery. BushInc calls their media allies and TELLS them what he needs

them to do to keep the working class busy arguing amongst themselves while they pass more tax breaks for the rich and eliminate more benefits for the workers and loosen more regulations for corporations.

The fascist agenda at work - the corporate media is their PR Dept. and has been since they bought up most control in the 80s and 90s.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Since BushCo was getting flack about nuking Iran, they had to come

up with something else prior to the election to motivate their base.

[Avalux]

9. Election year.

Republicans are trying desperately to keep their base and raise Bush's poll numbers - they thought this subject would do it. I like the Dem's strategy. By agreeing with Bush's recommendations, it gives the conservative right pause and makes them question why - Bush won't pick up any supporters if Dems agree with him, but he might lose more.

[Norquist Nemesis]

10. They decided it in late December/early January

By the end of January, you could tell it was not just rumor.

[BillZBubb]

11. Because it's the perfect wedge issue for the Repugs.

It has been in the works for some time. The Repugs waited until recently to trot it out so that it will peak around election time. They will be very hard line about it and that will pull in many Democrats who should know better.

Just look at DU, here we've got what appears to be a majority buying the right wing bullshit: They oppose "rewarding lawbreakers" with amnesty. It is really disgusting. And if it is so divisive here on a supposedly progressive board, imagine what it will do amongst the rank and file of the party.

If gasoline prices start to drop in September, and I predict they will, this issue will help the Repugs keep control of congress.

[jedr]

12. All of the above;

They can't afford to lose Rove and the energy companies rip off was too transparent not to mention Iraq. Stand by , it will only get worse!

[Raster]

13. when bushco* needed another sham issue to disguise more of their

incompetent AND EVIL doings. These asshats are masters of bait and switch. "Look over here. No, look over here. 'terra 'lert. Yo-hoo, oveeeerrr heeeerrree! Pay no attention to the thugs behind the curtain."

[Igel]

14. I have a slightly different take.

It was a repub issue, playing mostly to their base and a few independents. In Dec. and January the punditry wasn't waxing eloquent on the issue--it was definitely on the periphery, with a few excursions into the mainstream.

The House bill passed with little more interest. Advocates advocated, most people snoozed. The Senate version--with some changes, IIRC--was eventually slated for discussion and vote in April.

But, IMHO, one provision of the House will was mistakenly construed to be harsher than a court would take it (in all probability), and that riled a bunch of people: it's bad enough to make being here illegally a felony, but to make feeding one a felony, that was over the line. It would make many legal immigrants felons; and nobody liked the idea of being called a criminal. The riled up included many legal immigrants, many illegal immigrants, all sorts of social-justice folk, and the Catholic hierarchy in Los Angeles and elsewhere.

The early-April demonstrations made it a Big Topic of Discussion. Not the passage of the House bill. Not the RW punditry, or even the "LW" punditry.

The demonstrations plausibly got the Senate bill nixed, one way or the other. This raised the importance of the demonstrations. Advocates were jazzed, opponents aghast, and the media all went, "Wow! something we like to talk about and can be experts on without understanding long division!"

And then the 5/1/06 demonstrations happened, making the Big Topic into a Truly Big Deal.

The repubs lost control of the topic in early April, apart from possibly in the Senate and the conference committee that'll come about if a Senate bill finally passes. The immigrant activists and media ran with the story. Not meaning to sound snarky, but you have your interests, and they have theirs.