poll
Colorlines.com Survey: A People of Color Majority? Meh, So What?
0Demographers have been telling us for the past several years that Census Bureau data indicate people of color will make up the majority of the population in the United States by mid-century (it’s what many people oxymoronically describe as our “majority-minority” future). The latest population numbers, for example, point out that for the first time in our nation’s history, white, non-Hispanic people are a minority of infants and toddlers. The bulk of new births have been, as expected, largely among Latinos.
This demographic shift can stir a broad range of reactions–pessimism, optimism and ambivalence about our country’s future. And new research by Colorlines.com’s publisher, the Applied Research Center, indicates that which reaction you have depends greatly upon who you are, with political ideology unsurprisingly being the most reliable predictor.
Notably, however, in a national survey of about 2,400 adults, gleaned from SurveyMonkey’s millions of users in late spring, we found that the majority of people have no feelings one way or the other about the changing face of the U.S. Rather, the people who are most inclined to contribute their voices to the collective narrative on our national identity are those who are most pessimistic about it.
It is perhaps human nature: Those with grievances speak the loudest and most often. So even though the Optimistic Olivia’s and Hopeful Harold’s in our survey outnumber the Fearful Fred’s and Racist Rebecca’s, those worried about demographic changes were much more likely to describe and justify their fears. The finding suggests that a small group of vocally concerned people have skewed the national climate. The proliferation of anti-immigration bills in state legislatures this year is perhaps one way in which that tilt impacts our political system.
Our survey found that ideology is the greatest predictor of an individual’s perspective on the multi-racial future of the U.S. Regardless of the respondent’s race/ethnicity, class background, age or education, a conservative person was far more likely to be “concerned” that the coming demographic changes will be “bad for our country in the long run” than a moderate or liberal person. More than a third, or 36.6 percent, of conservatives said they were concerned, compared to 18.5 percent of moderates and 11.9 percent of liberals.
The converse is also true: a liberal person is far more likely to be “hopeful” that the coming demographic changes will be “good for our country in the long run” than moderates or conservatives. The numbers are virtually mirror images: 36.5 percent of liberals said they were hopeful, compared to 20.5 percent of moderates and just 11.1 percent of conservatives.
But that doesn’t mean that political ideology is the only factor that affects perspectives on the question. Nor does it mean that either conservative or liberal sentiment is a majority perspective. In fact, the first key finding of our survey is that, despite the increasing influence of conservatives’ anxiety in moving anti-immigrant legislation, the majority of the population–54.8 percent of our respondents–is neither concerned nor hopeful (or have “no opinion”) about the projected demographic changes.
The majority of the population isn’t particularly taking sides in this debate. Some are shrugging their shoulders in ambivalence, or are too jaded or disconnected to really care. As one extremely liberal white male from Texas told us, “Does it really matter? Who cares what the majority race is? Not like we’ve been running something amazing anyway.” Or in the words of a moderate Catholic white male in Connecticut: “I will be dead in 10 years or so–I think the next generation has to deal with this garbage!”
Some think class or dollars and cents are far more consequential. One 19-year-old Latino New Yorker wrote in the optional comment section for this survey question, “It doesn’t matter. Race doesn’t equate to social status or class or economic wealth.”
This may be hard to believe or accept for people at the poles of the debate about the present and future racial demographics of the nation, but the majority of the population, at least for now, don’t really care all that much. And that majority ambivalence, for lack of a better term, generally cuts across the races. Only among Asian Americans did we find a majority of respondents either concerned or hopeful, and still a solid plurality of 44.2 percent were ambivalent.
The racial distribution at the two poles, on the other hand, is not at all uniform.
The worriers in our sample of approximately 1,500 whites nationwide were slightly more common (24.5 percent of the total) than the hopefuls (19.7 percent). The proportions amongst Latinos and blacks were similar to each other, but completely different from whites. Just under 12 percent in each of those two groups were “concerned,” while about a third of each group was “hopeful.” That contrasts sharply with Asian Americans, who had about equal percentages of concerned versus hopeful respondents (more on that finding in a moment).
What other factors beyond political ideology impacted respondent’s perspectives? Holding all other factors constant, being white made a respondent a bit more likely to be concerned. For example, here’s a comment from a “slightly liberal” 58-year-old white man from Maine:
“Concerned mostly if the new majority doesn’t speak english (thus turning our english speaking country into a spanish speaking country). I feel that we make too many concessions for the spanish speaking population. When calling agencies, I find no other language choices except spanish & english & oftentimes, english is the 2nd choice. We do not coddle the vietnamese, sudanese, chinese or japanese–why the special treatment for spanish speakers?”
Meanwhile, being Latino or black had an even stronger independent impact in the other direction, making a respondent less likely to be concerned.
Age had a smaller impact than race (people aged 50 and above were more likely to be concerned than younger folks), while education exerted an influence somewhere between the two. Our survey didn’t find any statistically significant gender or class independent effects on respondents’ perspectives about the future people of color majority.
The education effect was strongest for whites and for African Americans. Those with a college degree in both racial groups were significantly less likely to be concerned. One fifty-something, black, female Southern California resident with a graduate degree wrote that the changing demographics are “good in respect of the US having to become more global & having to interact & deal with the world even more so in the future.”
But black respondents in particular who self-identified as coming from “low-income” backgrounds or who did not have a college degree were much more likely to be concerned than African Americans with higher education. While nearly one in five blacks without a college degree expressed concern about the coming non-white majority, fewer than 2 percent of those with a college degree said the same; that’s the lowest level among any racial or ethnic group.
One likely explanation for the striking difference in opinion among African Americans is the perceived competition for jobs between blacks and Latinos in the low-wage labor market. This is an issue the Applied Research Center plans to study further in a series of focus groups we’re conducting with young people on their thoughts and experiences with race. But the story of black-brown antipathy is likely overstated in the news media, at least in the sense that lower-educated blacks in our survey were still “concerned” at a comparable rate to college-educated whites (18.8 percent vs. 20.4 percent).
Asian Americans of various education levels also exhibited notably high rates of concern compared to other racial and ethnic groups. We cannot, however, say with confidence that holding all other factors constant, being Asian American makes a person more likely to be concerned about the coming people of color majority–that finding just barely missed the threshold for statistical significance. Instead, it appears that the elevated level of Asian American concern stems from the fact that there’s a higher rate of self-identified conservatives in this group compared to Latinos and blacks. That being said, one young, female New York-based respondent, who identified herself as slightly liberal, noted,
“The only concern I have is that they will not be educated in English or receive the education they need and employers will begin hiring them for lower than minimum wage and this will effect the work force and employment rates for the country as a whole.”
It’s also worth noting that almost as many Asians Americans in our sample responded that they were hopeful as placed themselves in the concerned corner.
Still, the data on heightened concern in the community further underscores the need for more funding for and increased attention to the in-depth study of “Asian Americans.” After 15 years of studying race and ethnicity in American politics, that umbrella term has become more and more meaningless to me, given the uniquely wide range of backgrounds the term is supposed to encompass. It purports to describe everyone from South Asian immigrants with uniquely high education levels to Cambodian Americans with uniquely low education. A team of Asian-American scholars based in California will be releasing a potential treasure trove of data this fall, and the Applied Research Center and Colorlines.com will be keeping tabs on those and other developments. Unfortunately, in our own sample from this national survey, Asian American respondents were less likely to express themselves in the optional comment section, so we have less in-depth information about their views than we’d like.
Which brings me to our second key finding from this survey: The “hopefuls” were far less likely to discuss their optimism when offered a chance as the “concerned” folk were to express their pessimism. In fact, those who are “concerned” that a people of color majority could be “bad for our country in the long run” were about twice as likely to voice that concern as the people who were “hopeful.” That’s even though the hopefuls outnumber the pessimists.
If you’re among the optimists, the lesson is clear: Start speaking up more, because the naysayers are not bashful. And they’re working to codify their fears into law.
“America is about being a melting pot of cultures,” wrote a 21-year old liberal white New Yorker. “We should not be hopeful to have it be a mostly white society. We should strive to find common ground in a highly diverse society,” she concludes. But are other “hopefuls” like her striving in passive aspiration only? Or will increasing numbers of them be willing to take an active role in making our multi-racial society as inclusive and fair as it can and should be? The answer will determine our future.
+++
We asked 2,400 people the following question:
As you may know, the U.S. Census Bureau expects racial minorities / people of color to make up a majority of the U.S. population in the next thirty to forty years. Do you feel concerned or hopeful about that?
Response options included:
-Very concerned this could be bad for our country in the long run;
-Somewhat concerned this could be bad for our country in the long run;
-Neither concerned nor hopeful;
-Hopeful that this could be good for our country in the long run;
-Very hopeful that this could be good for our country in the long run;
-Don’t know / no opinion
Colorlines.com Poll: What Explains Racial Disparities?
0“In the United States, people who work hard generally succeed in life.”
You could argue that those 12 simple words sum up the theory of American life since the nation’s founding, and studies show wide agreement across demographics with this statement–even if the realities in most of our communities are far different. In a society and culture unparalleled in its ability to dramatically celebrate personal success stories–whether they be in business, entertainment, sports or education–support is firm for the abstract principle that hard work equals success.
But the data on racial, ethnic, and class-based disparities in fact suggest a more complex explanation for who makes it in America. Unemployment among African Americans is nearly twice that of the national rate. The wealth gap between whites and blacks and Latinos is larger than ever. In education, job advancement and even personal health, people of color lag behind whites on a wide range of measures. Unless our nation’s egalitarian creed–that all human beings are created equal–is a lie, the vast majority of the poor and working-class and huge swaths of communities of color clearly have not had equal access to the American Dream.
So what do Americans believe explain those disparities? In a national survey conducted by Colorlines.com’s publisher, the Applied Research Center, we found that a widespread agreement with the abstract ideal of an American Dream doesn’t extend to a consensus about what causes different levels of success or failure between races. The majority of all races point to multiple causes, and large majorities include class an explanation. But while whites were more likely to blame individual initiative alone, African Americans in particular were more likely to point to race as at least part of the problem.
The survey, conducted in mid May, included almost 2,400 adult respondents drawn from a national sample of volunteers from SurveyMonkey’s millions of users.
[A brief note of methodology for those who care: Respondents did not know the content of the survey beforehand, nor did they know it was being conducted for Colorlines.com. People of all ages and races were included, and we received responses from Puerto Rico and 49 states (where you at, Idaho?). To improve the national reliability of our findings, we weighted the responses according to the latest Census data on race/ethnicity and state populations. Unfortunately, we didn't have enough American Indians in our sample to provide reliable results for that important group.]
When asked about the abstract idea above–”In the United States, people who work hard generally succeed in life”–overwhelming majorities said they either “strongly agree” or “agree.” At least two-thirds of each of the four largest races and ethnicities in the country registered support for the statement, while no more than 16 percent in any group said they “strongly disagree” or “disagree.”
But what happens when you ask Americans the extent to which they agree with a related statement that unpacks the implications of the hard work-equals-success idea?
“In the United States, people who have not succeeded in life generally failed to work hard enough and/or failed to take advantage of opportunities to better themselves.”
Well, support for that statement drops precipitously in comparison to the first. Between 34 percent and 43 percent of Americans still agree, depending on their race/ethnicity, but in no group does that statement garner a majority.
So we can conclude that while most people reflexively agree that hard work leads to success in this country, that doesn’t necessarily mean they believe that “failure,” or lack of success, means a person is lazy. And that’s a good thing for those of us who believe in racial justice, right? It suggests that an explicit re-framing of the conversation about the American Dream to focus on those who are not achieving success could fall on empathetic ears.
That’s assuming, of course, that people view the “failures” of people of other races and ethnicities as equal to their own. Unfortunately we can’t draw that conclusion from our survey.
We asked our survey respondents about three potential factors in creating those disparities: individual initiative (or lack thereof), race and class. (On the latter two, we asked respondents specifically about both discrimination as a cause and about differences in resources/opportunities as another possible cause). Opinions vary across racial groups as to which of these three factors best explain, either exclusively or in some combination, the racial disparities in our country.
When it comes to people who believe individual initiative is the one and only explanation for racial disparities in our society, whites agree at almost double the rate of any other group. Take this 47-year old, self-described conservative woman from Georgia, who wrote in an optional comment section on this question in our survey, “I personally know several wealthy black individuals as well as several wealthy white individuals. The common theme is hard work.”
The woman described her upbringing as upper middle-class. But our results showed that class background had a statistically insignificant effect on agreement or disagreement with the idea that individual initiative is the sole determinant of success. [That's more methodology talk. Translation: Class background didn't have any real impact on respondents' answer to this question.] It’s not surprising however that, holding all other factors constant, conservative ideology was the most reliable predictor for agreement with this idea. A “slightly conservative” white working-class woman from Pennsylvania wrote, “I am sick of people who don’t want to get off their asses and do something for themselves without it being handed to them……black, white, Asian, latino…we are all guilty of the ‘entitlement mentality.’ ”
But while conservative ideology was the best predictor of agreement, whiteness still exhibited its own statistically significant, independent effect. Meanwhile, a majority of white respondents pointed to individual initiative as at least part of the explanation for disparities in achievement. Fewer than half of all people of color groups said the same, including less than 40 percent of blacks agreed.
A majority of people of color, however, believe that racial disparities can be explained at least in part by racial factors. In contrast, only 37 percent of whites think race-based factors are part of the cause.
The data show that even controlling for other factors, clearly African Americans are more likely to see race as part of the explanation. That means that while white liberals were certainly more likely than white conservatives to believe racial disparities were caused by race-based discrimination or lack of resources, they were less likely to believe so when compared to black liberals. Take for example, a 31-year old black male from Nevada, who believed all three types of factors played a role. “It began with minorities not being given the rights to pursue and obtain what was readily available to whites. And that has evolved into a system that still discriminates and limits minorities. And now a wide range of minorities don’t feel they will ever be treated equally or be on a “level playing field” with whites, so work ethic and initiative–if they exist at all–are extremely low and flawed.”
Interestingly, when it comes to class as a factor, our national survey generated similar findings to those we’ve seen in our ongoing focus group research on the racial attitudes of Millennials. A minority of all racial groups believe that class is more important than race or ethnicity in determining racial disparities in achievement. About 18 to 19 percent of whites and Latinos and 14 percent of blacks and Asian Americans felt class exclusively provided the best explanation for the racial and ethnic disparities in our society. “Finally a question that gets close to the problem,” wrote a 65-year old white liberal male from New York. “It is money and purely money that succeeds and allows for educational advancement.”
If we expand the analysis to those who simply included class-based factors as one of multiple important explanations for achievement disparities, we find super majorities of blacks and Latinos and high majorities of other groups. In fact, class was the only one of the three factors suggested for driving disparities that garnered majorities of all four racial and ethnic groups–whites, Latinos, blacks and Asian Americans.
“Generally speaking success requires some luxuries that are not plausible for lower income families. Higher education, time (lower wage means more hours and less pay),” wrote a 28-year old, moderate Puerto Rican woman from Georgia. “Poor people of all races have more in common with each other than with better off people of their own races,” wrote a liberal, white 58-year old woman from Nevada with a high school education.
So ultimately, what can we conclude from this data?
As I said before, there’s cross-racial consensus that hard work generally leads to success in this country and that lack of success doesn’t mean an individual didn’t work hard. But we have very different explanations for the most glaring failure of our entire society–the persistent racial disparities in achievement and well-being across so many issue areas.
Collectively, we shrug our shoulders at the persistence of what need not be unbridgeable gaps of understanding. But there’s one more piece of data that’s encouraging. Young people (ages 18 to 25) are only about 65 percent as likely as older Americans to view individual initiative as the exclusive explanation for success. Like Blacks and Latinos, they are also more likely to select more than just one type of explanation. Nuance is not our enemy, and with proactive efforts, it can be our collective future consensus, as well.
Pollsters Still Underestimating the Latino Vote
0
An interesting post-election thread is the issue of why so many polls underestimated voter turnout, specifically in races where the Democratic candidate won. The starkest example comes from the state of Nevada where the Democratic candidate for Senate, Harry Reid, beat his Republican challenger, Sharron Angle, by 5 points. Polls published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal had Angle leading by 4 points just days before—a 9 point gap. The New York Times’ Nate Silver had Angle ahead by 2.3 points, with Reid eventually winning by 5.6 points—nearly an 8 point gap. Why the disparity?
The Las Vegas Review-Journal writes today that its own polls “wound up having about as much predictive power as the Old Farmer’s Almanac in forecasting the winter snowfall.” Nate Silver wrote in the New York Times that “It’s fairly unusual, however, to have the consensus of polls off by 7 or 8 points in an extremely competitive Senate or gubernatorial general election.” Silver then went on to speculate why numbers were so off in the Silver State:
“I speculated, for instance, that the fact that Mr. Reid is the sort of candidate whom one votes for unenthusiastically might have skewed the turnout models…There is another theory, however, which was proposed to me last night by Matt Barreto of the polling firm Latino Decisions…that Latino voters—somewhat against the conventional wisdom—were relatively engaged by this election and for the most part were going to vote Democratic. Mr. Barreto also found that Latino voters who prefer to speak Spanish—about 40 percent of Latino voters in California meet this description, he told me—are particularly likely to vote Democratic. Pollsters who don’t conduct bilingual interviewing at all, or who make it cumbersome for the respondent to take the poll in Spanish, may be missing these voters.”
LatinoDecisions, the polling group which focuses on states in which the Latino vote will play an important role in elections, and who brought this to Nate Silver’s attention, writes in great detail about the challenge and ongoing undercount of minority voters on their blog:
“The problem of faulty exit poll data for Latinos is not new, yet very few in the media have expertise in polling Latinos and analyzing Latino vote data, and as a result are not in a position to assess on election night the veracity of the Latino results…the National Exit Pool surveys, systematically underestimate Latino and African-American Democratic vote share by over-representing higher income, higher education, and more socially integrated minority voters than their share of the electorate warrants.”
The Las Vegas Review Journal is beginning to agree and in taking a look at its own polling wrote:
“R-J critics think they know exactly where the breakdown occurred: Its pollster, relying on old-fashioned random dialing to land lines, doesn’t account for voters who only have cell phones, and undercounts Hispanic voters who may be reluctant to participate in surveys. Both groups are heavily Democratic.”
And they note the bottom line problem:
“They’re not drawing a population that looks like the electorate,” said Dave Damore, a UNLV political scientist who studies public opinion data.
At the end of the day, pollsters and the politicians who depend on them are at great political peril if they willfully ignore huge gaps in their poll samples. Undercounting Latinos, cell phone users, or any other group that has clearly emerged as undercounted and who are continuing to grow in size and importance each election day, is clearly political and reputation suicide.
Photo by barackobamadotcom.
Is the Latino Vote Up for Grabs? Midterm Polling and the Future of the Latino Vote
0
Last night, GOP candidates won a number of key Senate, House and gubernatorial races as well as a majority in the House of Representatives. The night, however, wasn’t a total wash for the Democratic Party who managed to hold onto a majority in the Senate. Headlining the Senate races, Nevada Senator Harry Reid held onto his seat against Tea Party flag bearer Sharron Angle, whose seemingly endless stream of anti-immigrant campaign attack ads went from bad to worse. In a state where roughly 1 in 4 residents is Latino, many are chalking up Sen. Reid’s victory to the power of the Latino vote. Early polling seems to indicate that the Latino vote helped secure several key races for Democrats out west (in CA, CO, NV), but not across the board necessarily. Although trending Democratic, the Latino vote was not enough to win gubernatorial races in New Mexico or Nevada. So what gives? What does it take to successfully court the Latino vote?
LatinoDecisions, an independent survey research firm, released early polling data today which credits the Latino vote for several key Democratic victories. According to the poll:
- In Nevada, Democratic Senator Harry Reid defeated Sharron Angle with 90% of the Latino vote.
- In California, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer defeated Carly Fiorina with 86% of the Latino vote, as did Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown who defeated Meg Whitman with 86% of the Latino vote.
- In Colorado, Democratic Senate candidate Michael Bennet defeated Ken Buck with 81% of the Latino vote, while Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper defeated Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo with 77% of the Latino vote.
The early polling also reveals that the Latino vote is not monolithic, nor does it secure a victory or trend strictly Democratic. Florida Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban exiles, defeated Kendrick Meek with 62% of the Latino vote. Likewise, plenty of Democratic candidates had the Latino vote, but lost their elections. And while it might be easy to say that candidates who use extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric (Meg Whitman in California, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Tom Tancredo in Colorado) lost elections because they alienated the Latino vote, look at Republican Gov. Jan Brewer who signed Arizona’s SB1070 and yet still won her seat in Arizona without winning the Latino vote (Democrat Terry Goddard captured 85% of the Latino vote).
That being said, political parties must remain cognizant of their narrative on immigration and Latino issues—after all, Latinos comprised 7.9% (or 11.6 million) of all registered voters in the U.S. at last count and continue to grow as an essential voting bloc in winning presidential elections. The rhetoric of some notorious Republican immigration hardliners doesn’t square with the Republican Party’s more tempered stance on immigration in their recent pre-election Pledge to America—hardly the same narrative. In fact, part of the Republican Party’s challenge in courting the Latino vote is quelling the fringe right on immigration.
So while securing the Latino vote won’t guarantee you electoral victories, courting it certainly can’t hurt. For both parties, courting the Latino vote must not only involve reining in the fringe and turning down the fear-mongering, but some honest to God passes at immigration reform. Without actual efforts to address the immigration issue, Democrats and Republicans are likely lose Latinos—kind of like saying you’ll call, but never following through. And one of these days, they might not get another date.
Photo by blueacid.
Polls Show Latinos and Republicans Still Drifting Apart
0
As Congress’ attention to lawmaking wanes in place of politicking and mid-term elections, a string of new polls are emerging that further depict the strained relationship between Latinos and Republicans. The GOP strategy of alienating the fastest growing demographic through harsh rhetoric and the blockage of immigration reform is starting to reap results. Much like polls that emerged after the failure of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, Latinos are steadily edging away from the GOP.
One example comes from the Los Angeles Times, whose recent poll shows that California Latinos strongly approve of Obama’s performance and have a high voting enthusiasm. According to the L.A. Times/USC Poll conducted this month, Latinos clearly support the Democratic candidates over their opponents in the state’s Senate race, particularly when it comes to the issue of immigration (24 points higher). Latinos also favor the Democratic candidate for Governor and believe he will be better on the issue of immigration than his opponent (23 points higher).
According to Latino Decisions:
Latinos are becoming increasingly frustrated with the Republican Party, following three weeks of data from the Latino Decisions weekly national tracking poll of Latino registered voters, though Democrats have not yet surged ahead in the 2010 congressional vote. 65% of Latinos now say they are less excited about the Republican Party as compared to one year ago, up from 60% who were less excited as of August 30th. Further, when it comes to immigration, 74% of Latinos say the Republican Party is either ignoring or blocking immigration reform, up from 70% as of August 30th.
According to America’s Voice, “Latino voters will punish Republicans who oppose immigration reform.” They cite LatinoMetrics polls which show that since the end of 2009, immigration has catapulted to the top issue of personal concern among 1 in 4 Latinos—tied with jobs and the economy. Also when asked, “With which political party do you most closely identify?” only 13% said “Republican.” The same poll also asked, “How do you think the immigration issue would impact how you feel about politicians and the parties they represent?” 68% said they would support candidates who favor immigration reform, while only 19% said they would be willing to support a candidate who opposed immigration reform.
Immigrants’ rights groups are already working to capitalize on this growing schism, particularly in hotly contested races. For example today, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Mi Familia Vota Civic Participation Campaign, and America’s Voice are launching Spanish-language radio ads in nine media markets across the country. The ads point to the Republican Party’s obstructionism on immigration reform, cite the GOP’s successful effort to block a vote on the DREAM Act last week, and encourage voters to support the candidates who “support our families, and make our dreams come true.”
Despite repeated warnings from GOP leaders, many in their party continue to ignore the Latino vote, and it looks like they are doing so at their own peril.
Photo by automata.
Jobs Available, Unemployment Remains High
0
Despite a stagnant economy and unemployment rate, Mark Whitehouse at the Wall Street Journal reports that some companies are still struggling to hire workers. As Whitehouse explains:
Since the economy bottomed out in mid-2009, the number of job openings has risen more than twice as fast as actual hires, a gap that didn’t appear until much later in the last recovery. The disparity is most notable in manufacturing, which has had among the biggest increases in openings. But it is also appearing in other areas, such as business services, education and health care.
Many of the employment sectors left unfilled are traditionally filled by foreign born workers, who are not in competition with native born U.S. citizens. At the site of the infamous Postville immigration raid, the newly reformed company, Agri Star, is struggling to both hire workers and to make a profit. The reality remains that part of the solution to our struggling economy must be comprehensive immigration reform which allows for legalization of the many workers who can fill these jobs, and programs that account for future flow of immigrants to fill other employment gaps.
Slate columnist Daniel Gross theorizes that the gap between unemployment and hiring may be caused by employers who simply are not offering workers enough benefits. Gross explains that:
In the past few decades, workers have generally lost ground against employers in negotiating terms of employment. Defined-benefit pension plans have been replaced by 401(K)s, and then employers sometimes cut the matching contributions. A smaller percentage of private-sector jobs today come with health insurance, while many workers who have insurance have to pay more for it.
Without question, the myriad economic issues we are to face in the next decade are complex, but passing comprehensive immigration reform would at the very least start to solve some of them. While Congress has been slow to realize this, the majority of the American public (including 61% of Democrats and Independents and 59% of Republicans) wants comprehensive immigration reform, now. Despite public support, Mark Penn summarizes the political problems facing immigration legislation:
This is an issue that can only be solved through a centrist effort that would bring together moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats into a grand bargain on all of the major issues. The left and the right would vote down any likely compromise, but there probably would be enough votes in the center to get it done in a common sense, non-partisan way. But that’s the rub – there is no political mechanism in today’s polarized environment for bringing together the kind of cross-caucus coalition necessary to pass a bill. And perhaps this illustrates exactly why the voters are so sour on Congress – they now perceive it as an institution that can’t overcome partisan divides to find solutions to today’s growing and intractable problems outside of the red/blue framework.
Both sides of Congress appear so afraid to lose before the November elections that a near-term solution looks unlikely. Maybe after that, they can put aside politics and pass an immigration bill that is good for citizens, immigrants, and the U.S. economy alike.
Photo by Kandyjaxx
Poll Numbers Reveal that Most Border Residents Feel Safe
0
Passage of the $600 million border bill through the House of Representatives today is a clear indication that Congress is still more interested in throwing money at our broken immigration system rather than rolling up their sleeves and fixing it. Politicians, including President Obama, continue to respond to reports of border violence by upping the budget of DHS without hard facts, relying on media reports that the safety of U.S. citizens is at stake along the U.S.- Mexico border .
Yet, in stunning contrast today, the Border Network for Human Rights released the results of a poll conducted July 14-15 among residents who live along the U.S.–Mexico border. The poll revealed that among the 1,222 border residents surveyed, the overwhelmingly majority felt safe—in the communities such as Douglas, Nogales and Yuma, Arizona; El Centro and San Diego, California; Las Cruces, New Mexico, and four Texas border cities including Brownsville, El Paso, Laredo and McAllen.
Results from the poll shatter the national perception of border community safety. The report notes:
The overwhelming majority of respondents said they felt safe living in their border communities (67.1 percent), they felt their neighborhood was as safe as most neighborhoods in the United States (69.7 percent), and they felt safe going about their daily activities (walking and driving in their neighborhood: 87.5 percent; and allowing a child to play in a neighborhood park: 51.8 percent). Only 7.8 percent of respondents said they did not feel safe walking or driving in their neighborhood.
In Douglas, Ariz., 76.8 percent of respondents said they felt safe as they walked and drove in their neighborhood during their regular daily activities; in Nogales, they were 90 percent; and in Yuma, they were 94.5 percent.
The report ends with a set of policy recommendations which do not call for an end to all border enforcement, but rather a beginning for smarter enforcement policies—including a closer look at “the cost-effectiveness of border enforcement policies.” This review, in addition to getting a true sense of how those residents on the border actually feel about their safety and security, would be a good starting place for Congress. This poll reflects a side to the immigration debate that is being drowned out by the sensational rhetoric of a small but loud group of politicians running for reelection.
Photo by mkrigsman.
Obama Slipping Among Latinos
0![]()
A new poll by Univision and the Associated Press suggests that Obama and Democrats might have to fight, at least a little, for the Latino vote come November.
While 57 percent still approve of the job Obama is doing, according to the AP-Univision poll, that’s down from the close to 70 percent that Gallup pollsters recorded in January. The reasons are simple: the economy and immigration reform.
Of the 1,500 Latinos polled in English and Spanish by the AP and Univision, 45 percent said they or a family member had lost a job since last September, compared to 30 percent for the overall population. Naturally, that’s put a terrible strain on families. Close to half of the Latinos polled said they worry about being able to pay their bills now.
On immigration, the poll found a split between English and Spanish speakers. Among those speaking English, about 40 percent approved of Obama’s work on their key issues before Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, SB 1070, was signed into law. The figure rose to 52 percent in the weeks after as Obama voiced opposition to the legislation.
This is in line with what Gallup pollsters uncovered last month.
Obama’s big dip among Latinos was in February, after his State of the Union silence on immigration reform, and in May, as he was being criticized for not doing more about Arizona’s new law. But the large drop in support happened among Latinos who are mainly Spanish speakers.
Obama’s lost 21 points in his approval rating among Spanish-speaking Latinos since January– compared to 5 points for English-speaking Latinos.
It’s probably time for Obama to take a cue from California gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman and start working on those Spanish ads.