Demographics
New Report Demonstrates the Successful Integration of Immigrants into U.S. Society
originally posted by Walter Ewing for Immigration Impact [click here]
Sep 2nd
A common refrain among anti-immigrant activists is that today’s immigrants just aren’t “assimilating” into U.S. society like the immigrants of earlier eras. However, as a new report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) points out, the “illusion of non-assimilation is created by looking only at newcomers who have not had time yet to assimilate as fully as earlier arrivers.” When socioeconomic advancement is tracked over time, it becomes clear that “the longer immigrants are here, the more they advance and the better they are integrated into our society.” The report, entitled Assimilation Today, was co-authored by renowned demographer Dowell Myers (a professor in the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California) and by John Pitkin (president of Analysis and Forecasting, Inc., in Cambridge, Massachusetts).
The CAP report uses Census data to demonstrate the integration and upward mobility, over 18 years, of those immigrants who were “recently arrived” in the United States as of 1990 (this is, who came to the country between 1985 and 1989). For instance, since these long-term immigrants first came here, more and more of them have bought homes, become U.S. citizens, and earned higher incomes:
- Homeownership: Only 16 percent of immigrants who were “recently arrived” in the United States as of 1990 were homeowners. By 2008, 62 percent of these immigrants owned homes.
- U.S. Citizenship: Only 7 percent of immigrants who were recently arrived as of 1990 were U.S. citizens. By 2008, 56 percent of these immigrants were U.S. citizens.
- Income: Only 35 percent of immigrants who were recently arrived as of 1990 earned incomes above the “low-income” level. By 2008, 66 percent of these immigrants were earning incomes above the “low-income” level.
In other words, integration into U.S. society takes time, and always has. From the Italian, Polish, and Eastern European immigrants who came here at the end of the 19th century, to the Latin American and Asian immigrants who have come here more recently, the pace of integration in its many forms is best measured in terms of decades, not simply a few years. No group of newcomers climbs the socioeconomic ladder of an unfamiliar country overnight. As the CAP report concludes:
Claims that immigrants are stuck at the bottom of the ladder are due simply to the newness of immigrants and the lack of time for assimilation to occur. Given time, the evidence plainly shows that our immigrants today are growing ever more successful and becoming part and parcel of the fabric of our nation.
Photo by CityofElkCity.
The Immigration Debate Goes South: Politicians Make $600 Million Dollar Investment in their Political Futures
originally posted by Mary Giovagnoli for Immigration Impact [click here]
Aug 12th
Today, after months of political wagering from both Republicans and Democrats, the Senate unanimously passed a $600 million dollar bill marked for border security which is now headed to President Obama’s desk for signature. While the sequence of events leading to this most recent capitulation to the enforcement-first crowd is a little dizzying, the bill’s unanimous passage was partly a product of a bluff called on the Senate floor. Although the substance of the bill could have been much worse, the mere fact that the only major immigration legislation passed thus far in the 111th Congress was another border bill shows how far we are from treating immigration as a serious issue, rather than a political game.
To recap: On August 5, in the last few hours before adjourning for recess, the Senate passed a state aid package. Claiming to call the Republican’s bluff (meaning that as much as they want more border security, Senate Republicans aren’t ever going to give the Democrats a victory on an immigration bill), Senate Democrats brought their version of a $600 million border bill to the floor—“fully funded” through fee increases to business visa categories. Instead of objecting, Senator McCain asked that he and Sen. Kyl be included as cosponsors of the bill. Senator Sessions came down to the floor to say that the bill isn’t enough, but a good start. In a Senate marked by the lack of unanimous consent, no one objected to the bill and it passed by a voice vote. The bill went back to the House for a vote mandated by jurisdictional funding issues, then back to the Senate where it was again passed by unanimous consent today.
Bluff called.
But governing isn’t about bluffing. In all of this heady back and forth and politicking and angling for election in November, the substantive issues of what must be done to fix our broken immigration system are once more lost. The irony is that some of the provisions in this mega-million border bill have strong bipartisan support—enhancing communications systems and creating forward operating bases for Border Patrol have long been championed by border legislators of both parties. For example, the bill:
- Provides more money for drug enforcement actions to ATF actually addressing some of the real problems along the border and, if used wisely, could help reduce trafficking and the flow of drugs and money back and forth along the border.
- Lacks some of the more controversial and questionable proposals such as funding for the fence or Operation Stonegarden (providing federal money to local law enforcement to conduct immigration enforcement).
- Provides more money to the judiciary and immigration courts, which is a sensible acknowledgment that you can’t increase enforcement and ignore the added costs of doing business for the judicial and administrative branches.
But any good that might come of this is likely to be cancelled out by the political points that anti-immigration folks will score with these actions. Immigration activists have come out swinging, accusing the Democrats of knuckling under and ignoring the strong public support for a more comprehensive answer. Political operatives continue to insist that it was essential for Democrats to have a vote on enforcement. Senator Reid’s decision to call for an immediate vote on the bill suggests that the politicians didn’t think they can have this hanging over their heads until September. In short, politicians have made a $600 million dollar investment in their political futures.
And the game continues. President Obama, Sen. Schumer and Sen. Reid have all issued statements claiming that this border security bill is a good first step towards securing comprehensive immigration reform. Yet true to form, Sens. Kyl and McCain, eyeing the cards on the table, claimed the bill, although welcomed, still wasn’t enough. It’s hard to imagine that this will be the last call for emergency funds on the border, as Congress loves to tell its constituents that they are being made safer by money well-spent on border security. This is the real bluff that needs to be called—the one Congress keeps using on all of us.
Photo by sbisson.
The Wrong Side of History: Immigration, the GOP and the Next Generation of Voters
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Aug 9th
As anti-immigrant fervor continues to swirl in the headlines, it’s not difficult for readers to discern who’s stirring the pot. Over the weekend, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) became the latest GOPer to publically support the effort to end birthright citizenship—an effort that seeks to repeal the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Last month, immigration reformers-turned-hawks, Arizona Republican Senators McCain and Kyl as well as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), also jumped on the birthright bandwagon. Couple this recent effort with Arizona’s “show me your papers” law saga and months of punditry and restrictionist rhetoric on enforcement and you have a hostile GOP narrative of exclusion and anti-immigration hysteria—which as some point out, is a political recipe for disaster come election time.
In a recent editorial entitled, “Have Republicans Lost the White House for a Generation?,” author Dylan Loewe lays out the electoral consequences of the GOP’s efforts to alienate the fastest growing voting bloc in America:
What Kyl doesn’t seem to understand—and what Graham has clearly forgotten—is that the stakes on this issue are, politically, at least, far greater than most. It’s a fact that Karl Rove tried, but failed, to get his party to wise up to:
You can no longer win the presidency without the Hispanic vote.
Over the last ten years, 80 percent of the population growth in this country has been fueled by minorities, and most of that has come from Hispanics. George W. Bush was able to win reelection largely because his support for immigration reform earned him 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. But John McCain only won 31 percent of the Hispanic vote, which led him to lose Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Florida — and the White House.
That shift among Hispanics hasn’t dissipated, even as President Obama’s approval has waned among the larger population. His job approval is still at 57 percent among Hispanics, according to an AP/Univision poll taken in late July. Meanwhile, the Republican party has decided en masse to stand behind an anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic agenda that’s even further to the fringes than they’re used to. This will almost surely solidify the Hispanic vote behind the Democratic party for good.
Loewe goes on to run through the GOP electoral map for 2012 based on the 2008 Presidential Election, discounting states with large Hispanic populations—Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Florida. According to Loewe, even if they reclaimed North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and New Hampshire (all states Obama won in 2008), the GOP would still need Pennsylvania or Michigan—which they haven’t won in years. Factor in the rapid Hispanic growth in Arizona and Texas and the GOP is in a pot of boiling anti-immigrant water—a pot many of its leaders continue to stir.
Notwithstanding the fact that many GOP strategists and other leaders are arguing against using immigration as a wedge issue, politicians eager for votes gravitate toward each new anti-immigrant message like moths to a flame. And it isn’t clear why. After all, Republicans and conservative Democrats continue to win on enforcement driven messaging such as the Senate’s $600 million dollar gift to border enforcement hawks. When Democrats hand the GOP a set of border talking points, you would think they would run with that. Instead, it’s on to the next issue—upping the stakes again and again.
Sooner or later that strategy is going to backfire. Immigration hawks within the GOP can spin their harsh rhetoric and enforcement-only solutions however they want, but at the end of the day, Latino voters will more than likely notice who’s responsible for blocking immigration reform, creating anti-immigrant legislation, and making the citizenship of many of their children an issue for debate.
Photo by jamelah.
Judge’s Decision Doesn’t Stop Arizona from Combating Border Violence
originally posted by Travis Packer for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 29th
Yesterday, Phoenix district court Judge Susan Bolton enjoined key provisions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB1070. The judge recognized that the federal government has primary authority over making and enforcing immigration law, and that while states have limited authority in this arena, they cannot interfere with federal enforcement or undermine federal priorities. The decision acknowledges the complex nature of immigration law and the harmful consequences of local police attempting to make immigration determinations. The judge also recognized the serious strain that the Arizona law would place on federal resources, which would detract from the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws in other states and target resources toward serious criminals.
Judge Bolton struck down the following provisions of SB 1070:
- Section 2(B): Required officers to check the immigration status of any person arrested, as well as check the immigration status if there was reasonable suspicion after a lawful stop or detention that the person was undocumented.
- Section 3: Made it a state misdemeanor for failure to carry an alien registration document, and made it a state crime to be unlawfully present in the United States.
- Part of Section 5: Made it a state misdemeanor for an unauthorized immigrant to apply for, solicit for, or perform work.
- Section 6 Amendment: Allowed officers to make warrantless arrests provided the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
The ruling left SB 1070, which goes into effect today, with the following provisions, among others, still intact:
- Section 2(G): An Arizona citizen may bring an action against any official or agency of Arizona that does not enforce federal immigration laws to the fullest extent, and pay a penalty of $1,000 to $5,000 for each day that the policy was in effect.
- Section 4: Makes it a felony to intentionally smuggle human beings for profit.
- Section 5: Makes it a misdemeanor to stop on a street and attempt to hire or pick up passengers for work at a different location if the vehicle blocks traffic. Also makes it a misdemeanor to be the person picked up in such a motor vehicle.
- Section 5: Makes it a misdemeanor for a person already in violation of a criminal offense to transport undocumented immigrants, conceal undocumented immigrants, or encourage undocumented immigrants to reside in the United States.
The provisions struck down by the judge do not prevent law enforcement from addressing the real threats to public safety in Arizona, like drug smuggling and violence. It’s about time the Governor returned focus and resources back to real remedies that will improve the lives of Arizonans instead of playing campaign politics with such an important issue.
Sadly, SB 1070 has always been more about politics than good policy. This was most evident immediately following Judge Bolton’s ruling when Arizona Governor Jan Brewer announced her plans to appeal the decision and simultaneously used the opportunity to solicit donations for her re-election campaign. Similarly, Senator John McCain seized on the political opportunity by issuing a joint statement with Senator John Kyl decrying the decision:
We are deeply disappointed in the court’s ruling today and disagree with the court’s opinion that the Arizona’s law will unduly ‘burden’ the enforcement of federal immigration law. “Instead of wasting tax payer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that the law would be burdensome, the Obama Administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the Federal government has failed to take responsibility.” “After this decision, it’s even more important to implement our Ten Point Border Security plan to protect Arizonans and our country.”
The reality is that we are spending more money on border security than ever before, and violent crimes rates in Arizona have been falling for years. Arizonans, like most Americans, are understandably frustrated by our broken immigration system, but usurping federal immigration authority and pushing “attrition through enforcement” legislation isn’t going to solve anything. In fact, it only stands to interfere with community policing and identifying the true threats. Until we have bipartisan support on a real solution like comprehensive immigration reform, we’re going to continue to enforce ourselves in circles.
Photo by Jeffrey Kaye.
The Numbers Are In: Polls Reveal Voters’ Desire to Fix Immigration
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 9th
In the media storm following the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration enforcement law (SB1070) this week, politicians, reporters and advocates are busy gauging voters’ reaction in the build up to midterm elections. A number of public opinion polls have recently surfaced, each with something slightly different to say about how most Americans feel about Arizona’s law, the DOJ lawsuit, and immigration in general. As any pollster can tell you, poll results depend entirely on the phrasing of the question. However, while it’s difficult to mine the nuances of each poll question, one thing remains clear—most Americans agree that our broken immigration system needs to be fixed. The question is, how do we move forward?
A new bipartisan poll conducted by Lake Research Partners and Public Opinion Strategies found that the majority of voters who support Arizona’s immigration law are also more likely to support comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). The poll asked the following question about a CIR proposal:
Under this proposal, the federal government would strengthen border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government, undergo criminal background checks, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship.
84% of the 1,100 registered voters polled who said they support Arizona’s law said they also support comprehensive reform, with 12% opposing and 4% undetermined.
A recent Gallup/USA Today poll, however, shows that Americans are closely divided on whether the U.S. government should halt the flow of undocumented immigrants or deal with the undocumented immigrants already here. 54% of the 1,014 adults, aged 18 and older, surveyed supported halting the flow while 45% wanted a plan to deal with the immigrants who are already here. The number of people supporting a comprehensive plan is up from 43% in May of 2006 while the number of those who want a halt is down from 52% in the same year.
Finally, a recent Rasmussen poll found that 61% of voters “favor passage of Arizona’s law” in their state. The same poll found that 56% of voters disagreed with the DOJ lawsuit while 28% agreed the DOJ should challenge the state law.
But no matter how your slice these varied poll results, one thing remains constant—voters are clearly concerned about immigration and many, regardless of their stance on Arizona’s law or the DOJ lawsuit, want to fix our broken immigration system. As America’s Voice points out, voters are clearly frustrated with the fact that Congress has failed to move on immigration. With the recent upswing in state immigration enforcement legislation, voters are sending policy-makers a very clear message: America needs solutions to our immigration problems now.
Photo by batega.
Immigrant Women: The Silent Victims of a Broken Immigration System
originally posted by Michele Waslin for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 2nd
Even though there are approximately 19 million foreign born women in the U.S.—accounting for 12.3% of the female population—we tend to hear very little about them. A closer look at the female immigrant population reveals many important facts—immigrant women are incredibly diverse in terms of country of origin, time in the U.S., citizenship rates, income, poverty, and labor market participation. This week, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) released a report, Reforming America’s Immigration Laws: A Woman’s Struggle by Kavitha Sreeharsha, a senior staff attorney at Legal Momentum’s Immigrant Women Program and a fact sheet detailing the demographic makeup of immigrant women in the U.S.
Immigrant women also experience the U.S. immigration system in a way that is distinct to men, and often leaves them at a disadvantage.
In Miami in February 2009, Rita Cote’s sister called 911 to seek police protection after a domestic violence incident. Ms. Cote’s sister had lawful immigration status but had a limited capacity to speak English. Law enforcement agents asked for identification for everyone at the scene. Ms. Cote urged the agents to first address the domestic violence issue but they insisted that Ms. Cote’s sister could only press charges by going to the police station. After Ms. Cote showed her passport to the officers the officers arrested her, and took her away. The domestic violence crime went unaddressed.
Stories such as this are far too common. According to Sreeharsha, lawmakers and others often overlook the specific immigration reforms necessary to ensure that women are treated equally and fairly. If not done right, CIR may inadvertently create new barriers to women and establish eligibility criteria that are beyond the reach of some immigrant women. For example, a CIR package must include a path to legalization that values the contributions of immigrant women as part-time and informal workers. Without immigration reforms, many immigrant women will continue to lack economic access, experience separation from their families, and be subjected to exploitation and criminal activity.
The report makes the following recommendations:
- Legalization must equitably value women’s work: Avenues for legalization that value work must recognize and ‘count’ the range of immigrant women’s work in the informal economy such as domestic work, child care, and home health care. Part-time and contract work, as well as work for multiple employers, must count toward legalization. Because many recent legalization proposals have required full-time employment or schooling, they fail to take into account the unique barriers faced by many undocumented women.
- Legalization fee structures must ensure incentives for immigrant families to apply for legal immigration status for all eligible family members. High fees may limit the number of applications a family can afford, resulting in applications only being filed by and for male heads-of-household. Fees must be on a sliding scale so that they are not cost-prohibitive for low-wage women workers.
- CIR must reduce family visa backlogs: Because women disproportionately immigrate through family-based channels, they are especially vulnerable to long backlogs, which heightens women’s dependency on partners and increasing the likelihood of exploitation by family members and employers. Measures to promote family reunification and reduce backlogs will thus particularly benefit immigrant women.
- Improve personal security and autonomy by expanding access to independent immigration status: When women attain legal status based upon a family relationship, other family members gain control over whether she ever attains legal status. This dynamic can jeopardize women’s autonomy and safety. Immigrant women’s economic and physical security is enhanced when they can independently obtain legal immigration status.
- Eliminate local law-enforcement partnerships such as 287(g) and Secure Communities: These partnerships result in undocumented immigrant women being drawn into the immigration-enforcement system as victims and witnesses of domestic violence and other crimes. Crime perpetrators, abusive spouses, and abusive and exploitative employers call DHS to report undocumented immigrant victims for deportation. This very effective power-and-control tactic silences crime victims and keeps them from seeking help.
- Reform the immigration detention system in order to not re-victimize vulnerable immigrant women detainees. Such reforms must include meaningful access to health services. All detainees should be screened and undergo a risk assessment that evaluates vulnerable immigrants such as crime victims, pregnant women, sole caretakers, and those with health conditions so that they can be allowed to seek alternatives to detention, humanitarian release, or release on their own recognizance.
Ultimately, the author concludes, only through a comprehensive immigration reform package—meaningful reform that values the contributions immigrant women make as mothers, wives and workers—can we reconcile these disparities.
SB 1070 “Gets Tough” on Arizona’s Housing Market
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 14th
With only six weeks until Arizona’s immigration enforcement law goes into effect, area housing analysts are already expecting the worst. According to the Arizona Republic, housing experts anticipate that SB 1070 will not only drive illegal immigrants out of the state, but legal residents and potential new homebuyers with them—“departures from a state where growth is the economic foundation.” The resulting exodus will likely spur more foreclosures and create more vacant homes and apartments, which as real-estate analysts point out, will scare off potential homebuyers who fear lower home values. With a budget deficit of $4.5 billion and an economy struggling to get back on its feet, a declining housing market is the last thing Arizonans need.
The Pew Hispanic estimates Arizona’s undocumented population at around 500,000 people—many of whom own homes and pay taxes. But according to Phoenix housing analyst, Mike Orr, many of these homeowning immigrants are expected to leave as a result of the new law:
Estimates are that there are several hundred thousand undocumented aliens residing in Arizona. If the law has the intended effect and these people do leave, then both population and demand for housing will probably decline.
Likewise, many of Arizona’s documented residents are also expected to leave the state thanks to SB 1070. According to the U.S. Census, Latinos make up roughly one-third of all Arizonans (29.7%)—many of whom feel targeted by the new law. According to Jay Butler, director of realty studies at Arizona State University:
The immigration law creates a difficult situation for both legal and illegal residents. Some illegal residents may have planned on leaving the Valley anyway because they can’t find jobs. But I have talked to young Hispanics who are residents and so are their parents and grandparents. And those Hispanics plan on moving to other states because they don’t want to be perceived as second-class citizens.
Real-estate experts are using Arizona’s 2007 employer-sanction law—which made it illegal to knowingly hire an undocumented immigrants in the state—as a point of comparison. According to a report from the Department of Homeland Security, “more than 100,000 illegal immigrants left Arizona in 2008, more than any other state. Metro Phoenix foreclosures and apartment vacancies both jumped that year.”
Unfortunately, a declining housing market is just one of the many negative fiscal impacts of SB 1070. While the cost of implementation alone could reach the hundreds of millions of dollars, the legal fees resulting from lawsuits could also soar into the millions—not to mention the economic boycotts and loss in economic activity (to the tune of $26.4 billion) if all undocumented immigrants were removed from the state.
“The immigration law just piles onto our problems,” said Brett Barry, a Phoenix real-estate agent with HomeSmart. “We are already struggling to find the jobs and keep the schools open to entice new residents.”
As other states consider similar legislation, legislators should also consider the economic consequences. Clearly the problems within our broken immigration system should not be overlooked, but nor should the critical roles immigrants—both documented and undocumented—play in the economic stability of our nation as workers, entrepreneurs, consumers and homeowners.
Photo by Casey Serin.
Census Confirms Tea Party’s Worst Nightmare
originally posted by Jamilah King for RaceWire [click here]
Jun 11th
The latest Census figures show that the country’s white population could become a minority as soon as…next year.
No big news, right? We’ve been that hearing for years. But these latest numbers show that massive geographic shifts are taking place in areas of the country not traditionally thought of as ethnically diverse, like the South and middle America.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Census reported that babies of color accounted for more than 48 percent of the total amount of children born between July of 2008 and 2009. Even though a tough economy and harsher immigration policies have slowed the number of babies of color being born in recent years, they’re still more of them arriving in the world than whites. Among Latinos, there were roughly nine births for every one death, while whites had a one-to-one ratio. Similarly, whites are having fewer children and, by marrying more interracially, are having more multiracial kids.
While people of color have already been majorities in states like Texas and California, other states, like North Carolina, are quickly entering the fray. In Charlotte and surrounding Mecklenburg County, whites are just more than 50 percent of the population. Thirty years ago it was slightly more than 70 percent. And as proof, there’s a statue of Ghandi in front of the town courthouse.
As Kai Wright pointed out in his commentary awhile back, some white folks are already on the defensive about the demographic changes.
Conflating Immigration and Climate Change: When Wedge Issues Collide
originally posted by Wendy Sefsaf for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 2nd
Today in Politico, hard right, conservative Gary Bauer continues the restrictionist tradition of blaming immigrants for everything from pot holes to climate change. In his editorial, Bauer cites a 2008 report by the restrictionist group Center for Immigration Studies and seeks to link climate change legislation and immigration reform legislation (and a half dozen other ideas for which he advocates) to make the wholly unclear point the immigrants are once again to blame for our environmental problems.
Bauer cites a 2008 CIS report which identified immigrants as the cause of global warming:
Immigrants would ultimately produce less CO2 if they just remained in their “less-consuming, less-industrialized, and less CO2 emitting” home countries.
Bauer then goes on to write:
As a conservative, I maintain a healthy skepticism of the theory of man-made global warming. I also believe that more people enjoying the fruits of modernity and economic development is a good thing — as long as those people arrived legally and obey the law.
In other words, he doesn’t believe in global warming, but we should stop immigration because immigrants are a huge contributor to the factors that cause it. Besides being a ridiculous argument, Bauer seems to contradict himself—wouldn’t immigrants still be the cause of global warming even if they came here legally?
As the IPC previously stated:
When it comes to the environment, immigrants are not the problem—the US lifestyle , our systems of production and consumption and the policies that shape them are. We need real, rational solutions and leadership on environmental issues, not scapegoats. CIS assumes that we are in a lifeboat with limited resources , and with too many people, we’ll all sink. Yet when it comes to the global warming crisis , we’ll all sink or swim together.
The number of strange correlations Bauer attempts to draw in this piece is confounding. One thing, however, is clear: Bauer and CIS’s intent isn’t environmentalism. They’re only politicizing and exploiting the issue—and highlighting shoddy research—in order to continue a crusade to tar immigrants (and liberals).
The only thing Bauer and his friends at CIS are doing when it comes to these two critical issues is attempting to distract attention from the real solutions to immigration and the global warming crisis. We do need a better, more regulated approach to immigration and the environment, but wishing away immigrants and blaming them for climate change does nothing to that end.
Photo by \<.
Riding the Anti-Immigration Wave: The Short- and Long-Term Political Implications
May 25th
Despite the mounting pressure (boycotts, legal challenges, protests) to repeal Arizona’s enforcement law (SB 1070), polls indicate that the majority of Americans support the law by almost two to one—and, at last count, as many as 17 other states are considering similar legislation. However, while it may seem advantageous for some in the GOP to use this anti-immigrant wave as political momentum for re-election, the long-term political impact may be larger and more harmful than they realize. Can the Republican Party (once the ‘Party of No,” then the “Party of Hell No” and now the “Party of Papers Please?”) really afford to further alienate the fastest-growing U.S. voting bloc—Latinos?
In a recent New York Times letter, the author draws a comparison between the Arizona’s enforcement law (SB 1070) and California’s 1994 anti-immigrant Proposition 187 (which was later found to be unconstitutional). Then Governor Pete Wilson supported Prop 187, which denied children of undocumented immigrants state-funded education and health programs. The author points out that California has voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1992, and that Republicans won California in six of the previous seven presidential contests prior to 1992, and five of the seven most recent gubernatorial races. Coincidence?
“There are a lot of similarities between what’s happening in Arizona and what happened in California in 1994,” said Sergio Bendixen, a political pollster and consultant specializing in the Hispanic vote. “That made California a deep blue state,” or Democratic, “and Republicans are making the same mistake now trying to benefit on anti-immigration.”
It doesn’t take a political scientist or a pollster to understand what happens when you alienate such a large and growing swathe of the American electorate. Latinos—who not surprisingly oppose Arizona’s law (70% opposing, 27% supporting)—made up 7.4% of the electorate in 2008, which has roughly double in the last 20 years, and is expected to continue to grow.
The letter continues:
There is widespread resentment among Latinos that they will be singled out as a result of this law, despite the insistence of Arizona officials that racial profiling is impermissible … Previous and earlier surveys by Mr. Bendixen, the pollster, show that almost two in three Latino voters have either a family member or friend who is an undocumented worker …He says Hispanics resent the suggestion that immigrants are more prone to criminality, an allegation that is contradicted by the vast majority of academic studies and statistics.
Recent evidence of the Latino vote can be seen in places like Colorado, where Democratic incumbent Michael Bennet pulled ahead of GOP hopeful Jane Norton. According to Public Policy Polling, the shift is due to Hispanic voters:
Bennet went from leading Norton by 12 points with Hispanic voters to a 21 point advantage. That large shift in a Democratic direction among Hispanics mirrors what we saw in our Arizona Senate polling last month- Rodney Glassman went from trailing John McCain by 17 points with them in September to now holding a 17 point lead.
While Latinos’ cultural conservatism may overlap with Republicans’, it’s not likely that Latinos will forget 1) the Tea Party/Republican anti-immigrant rhetoric surrounding SB 1070; and 2) SB 1070 itself as well as ensuing copycat legislation. So, even though Republicans candidates who endorse SB 1070 (and similar legislation) might garner electoral support in the short-term, riding the anti-immigrant wave will more than likely drown them, and some in the Republican Party, out in the long-term.
Photo by Phil Gibbs.
