Republicans
It’s the Constitution, Governors! Why Playing Politics with the DOJ’s Lawsuit is a Bad Idea
originally posted by Mary Giovagnoli for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 12th
Republican and Democratic governors alike might need a tutorial on the concept of checks and balances, given the dismay they are expressing over the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona’s SB 1070. Democrats are purportedly worried that it will hurt their chances in tough state elections, while Republicans are calling the lawsuit hypocritical because the federal government is litigating instead of legislating immigration.
Let’s review. As the lawsuit very clearly and eloquently lays out, the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate immigration. The President and his executive branch carry out the laws (and are given the discretion regarding how to exercise them). And when the states pass laws that conflict with this scheme, the federal courts are the referee.
So when the executive branch determines that a state law fundamentally upsets this scheme—in other words, violates the Constitution—the government needs to act. Sorry that the timing stinks. Sorry that Congress hasn’t done its job. Sorry that this may not play out very well with some members of the public who don’t understand that maintaining checks and balances requires action. Sorry that this makes Arizona out to be the constitutional bully that its state legislature is trying so hard to be. But the federal government is defending its constitutional right to regulate immigration law.
You have to wonder if the critics have bothered to read United States v. Arizona, which unfolds like a primer on the structure of the federal/state relationship. The lawsuit is a crisp and detached analysis of federal constitutional obligations and responsibilities regarding immigration and a point by point analysis of the manner in which SB 1070 violates and undermines that scheme. Moreover, it makes the very compelling point that immigration is inherently a federal responsibility precisely because it engages many competing national interests:
In crafting federal immigration law and policy, Congress has necessarily taken into account multiple and often competing national interests. Assuring effective enforcement of the provisions against illegal migration and unlawful presence is a highly important interest, but is not the singular goal of the federal immigration laws. The laws also take into account other uniquely national interests, including facilitating trade and commerce, welcoming those foreign nationals who visit or immigrate lawfully and ensuring their fair and equitable treatment wherever they may reside, responding to humanitarian concerns at the global and individual levels; and otherwise ensuring that the e treatment of aliens present in our nation does not harm our foreign relations with the countries from which they come or jeopardize the treatment of U.S. citizens abroad.
The suit argues that by enacting S.B. 1070, Arizona “attempts to second guess federal policies and re-order federal priorities in the area of immigration enforcement and to directly regulate immigration and the conditions of an alien’s entry and presence in the Unites States despite the fact that these are federal domains.” The suit notes that Arizona explicitly acknowledges that the intent of the law is attrition through enforcement (code for make the laws so harsh that people leave the state) which means that it is not taking into account any of the other vital immigration priorities and, in the process, undermines the federal scheme enacted by Congress.
Of course, under this analysis, the federal government has to fight back. As Maryland governor Martin O’Malley noted:
The president doesn’t have control over some of the timing of things that happen. When those things arise, you can’t be too precious about what’s in it for your own personal political timing or even your party’s timing. When matters like this arise, I think the president has to take a principled stand.
Ironically, that principled stand essentially means defending Congress’s right to pass federal law, even when it can’t or won’t do it. Rather than criticizing the President for moving forward on a crucial constitutional issue, Democrats should be kicking themselves for failing to be brave enough to take the issue on. And Republicans should stop throwing firebombs and start working on immigration reform.
Photo by jamess.
Arizona Senators Decry DOJ Lawsuit Yet Refuse to Support Immigration Reform
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 7th
Yesterday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona, challenging the state’s immigration enforcement law (SB 1070). The DOJ lawsuit—which seeks to stop the law from going into effect on July 29th—argues that Arizona’s law is unconstitutional since it claims state authority over federal immigration policy. While political opposition in Arizona to DOJ’s legal challenge has come from both parties, some of the most laughable comments have come from Arizona’s Republican Senators who have used the lawsuit as yet another opportunity to claim that the Obama administration has failed to do anything on immigration. Only Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) has been willing to engage the Democrats on immigration at all this year and even still, Sen. Graham back peddled after health care reform was passed. To date, ZERO Republicans are willing to step forward and play ball on an actual immigration reform bill—which makes the political finger-pointing from those unwilling to meet the President halfway all the more infuriating.
Shortly after the DOJ filed their lawsuit yesterday, Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl were quick to issue the following statement decrying the federal government’s lack of action on immigration enforcement:
Moreover, the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law.
Attorney General Holder speaks of the ‘federal government’s responsibility’ to enforce immigration laws; but what are the people of Arizona left to do when the federal government fails in its responsibility?
The Obama Administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state. Until it does, the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility.
This, by the way, is coming from the same senators who led the Republican charge for comprehensive immigration reform back in 2006 and 2007. Back then, Sen. McCain said, and I quote, “I believe the only way to truly secure our border and protect our nation is through the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform.” But where is Sens. McCain or Kyl’s support for reform now, especially after President Obama opened the door to Republican support for a reform effort? And does questioning the government’s commitment to border security after the President requested $600 million in additional border security spending to fund 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, 160 additional ICE agents, and improved infrastructure along the Southwest Border really make sense?
The point is that the “federal government’s responsibility”—a government which Sens. McCain and Kyl are certainly a part of—to reform our broken immigration system is being thwarted by the same senators who complain that the government isn’t doing enough. Sure, it’s an election cycle at a time when “get tough” politics are popular and nevermind the fact that SB1070 doesn’t actually do anything to fight crime, but the glaring hypocrisy is a bit much. Meanwhile, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer—who claims Arizona is now under attack from the President in addition to violent Mexican drug cartels—is fundraising for legal funds to defend SB 1070 and vows to “oppose the President’s amnesty plan” (which she also refers to as a “path to citizenship”). Apparently, as an Arizona politician, you can have your cake and eat it too.
Photo by Politico Mafioso.
President Obama Urges Republicans to Help Bridge Bipartisan Divide on Immigration
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 1st
Today, President Obama delivered his first major immigration speech at American University urging Republicans to put bipartisan and election politics aside and help Democrats fix our broken immigration system once and for all. With an audience of law enforcement, elected officials, and evangelical, business, labor, and community leaders, the President provided a framework for understanding the depth and complexity of the immigration issue—laying out the fundamental problems with our immigration system while highlighting the critical role immigrants have and continue to play in strengthening America. The President then asked Republican leadership to join his Administration’s efforts to step up, take responsibility and pass an immigration reform bill.
In today’s speech, the President made it clear that this Administration is ready to move forward. Action is needed, but he needs Republicans support.
Our task then is to make our national laws actually work – to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And that means being honest about the problem, and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together.
The question now is whether we will have the courage and the political will to pass a bill through Congress, to finally get it done… I’m ready to move forward; the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward; and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem. Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes. That is the political and mathematical reality. The only way to reduce the risk that this effort will again falter because of politics is if members of both parties are willing to take responsibility for solving this problem once and for all.
I believe we can put politics aside and finally have an immigration system that’s accountable. I believe we can appeal not to people’s fears but to their hopes, to their highest ideals, because that’s who we are as Americans.
Today’s speech follows back to back White House meetings this week with immigration advocates, faith groups, labor leaders and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The speech also follows the President’s request for $600 million in additional border security spending to fund 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, 160 additional ICE agents, and improved infrastructure along the Southwest Border. Although the President mentioned Arizona’s harsh immigration law, he did not comment on Department of Justice’s forthcoming legal challenge. The President did, however, reiterate that fixing the border alone is not a long term solution to our immigration problems.
Although today’s speech contained no new policy initiatives or a congressional timetable for reform, the President certainly made the case for why immigration is such an important issue. Now that the stage is set for a renewed and heightened reform effort, immigration advocates are waiting for the President to turn his words into action and show the same leadership moving immigration reform legislation forward that he showed today.
Photo by Peter Souza.
Stirring the Pot: Republican Senators Preempt Imaginary Action on Immigration
originally posted by Mary Giovagnoli for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 25th
Political hype and hypocrisy was on display this week in Washington as eight senators sent an oddly worded letter to President Obama demanding that he refrain from circumventing the will of Congress on immigration. The letter, signed by Senators Grassley, Vitter, Inhofe, Isakson, Chamblis, Bunning, Cochran, and Hatch, is filled with moral outrage, alleging some kind of secret conspiracy to get around Congress by granting deferred action to everyone in the United States illegally. (Deferred action is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion to refrain from removing someone from the United States).
The letter has also been linked to warnings from the restrictionist group Numbers USA, who claim that the president intends to grant “amnesty” to 12 to 18 million illegal aliens, even though by DHS’s own estimate there are no more than 10.8 million people here illegally in the U.S. These two items feed off one another, helping to perpetuate an urban legend of massive proportions—that somehow, with the stroke of a pen, the president can grant “amnesty.” How do rumors like this get started? Take a look at the language of the senators’ letter to see just how easy it is to manipulate public perception.
The letter begins with a preamble of rumors and assertions, designed to sound knowledgeable and well-informed, yet actually saying nothing. The senators begin:
We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States.
There’s a push? By whom? Certainly advocates have been begging the Administration for some type of relief—everything from a moratorium on deportations, to deferred action to anything that can stem the tide of suffering caused by our broken immigration system. Senators Lugar and Durbin have specifically asked the Administration to consider deferred action for students who would be eligible under the DREAM Act. But that’s a far cry from the massive contingency plan suggested by this statement, in which all 10.8 million people would somehow remain forever in the U.S. Notice, however, that the letter is deliberately vague about the “push.” This lets the senators continue on, with growing moral conviction, to their next statement:
We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come.
So now, it’s a given that this event will happen and it is the Administration who’s pushing. But even more importantly, the Administration is apparently planning to include people who might be eligible for benefits—but not for years and years. What does that even mean? Possibly, they are suggesting that any such program would drag on for years? Whatever the meaning, it definitely is meant to sound like something fishy is going on.
Now the letter turns to a legal assertion, still couched in language that lets the senators sound like they have been informed of some great problem:
We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.
And just how did they come to understand this? Was it from the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina in which deferred action was granted to many individuals victimized by the storm? Or the Obama administration’s decision to grant deferred action to widows and orphans of U.S. citizens? While the numbers in both cases were far smaller, there have in fact been categorical determinations to use deferred action in the past. When does something become so unusual, emergent or humanitarian that the exercise of discretion through deferred action or parole becomes an important tool in the Executive branch’s ability to respond quickly to an actual humanitarian crisis? Many people would argue that we have reached a humanitarian crisis with immigration, brought on by Congress’s failure to act on this issue.
That’s why the next paragraph is particularly galling:
While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.
Hmm. So they agree our immigration laws need to be fixed? That is why every single senator who signed this letter voted against S. 2611, the comprehensive immigration reform bill that actually passed the Senate in 2006, as well as voting against cloture not once, but twice in 2007. These senators are so committed to fixing our immigration laws that they weren’t even willing to take on the issue in 2007, instead using the procedural tactic of cloture (the motion to close debate and prepare to take a vote) to kill immigration reform. Nor have any of these senators seriously engaged the President, Sen. Schumer or Sen. Menendez who have all opened the door to conversation with Republicans on immigration.
So the failure to pass legislation has led to a crisis, and yet they don’t want anyone attempting to fix the crisis if Congress doesn’t? And, if they object to the use of Executive branch authority, does it matter whether the issue involves legal or illegal immigration? Instead, this paragraph simply allows them to use the words “illegal population” attempting to make it sound like Congress is protecting the nation’s interests, not the President.
The idea that any administration—Republican or Democratic—would defer the removal of all 10.8 million people living in the in the U.S. illegally is extremely far-fetched. The resources and tools needed to make something like this happen just aren’t there, especially because any kind of mass program like the one envisioned in this letter would essentially require a registration and reviewing process to determine who was actually qualified to remain. Absent legislative action, the financial resources needed to carry out something of this scope would be difficult to procure.
None of that matters, however, if you aren’t really interested in resolving the problem. While it’s much easier to scare people than it is to sit down with the President and find a solution, the American people are smart enough to discern political posturing from actual leadership.
Photo by obo-bobolina.
A Lopsided Approach to Border Violence Doesn’t Solve Anything
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 7th
During a debate of the defense authorization bill this week, Republican members of Congress are expected to push for the deployment of even more troops to the border. This is in addition to the 1,200 National Guard troops President Obama already requested to address border violence and the flow of drugs and guns across the border last month. However, while advocating for the allocation of more money and manpower to “secure the border” may make for good campaigning in an election year, experts find that beefing up the border actually does little to curb border violence. In fact, these “get tough” border initiatives—more troops, fencing and operations that target non-violent border crossers—pull valuable resources away from solving violent crimes.
Despite the increase in border patrol agents over the last decade, the flow of drugs and guns across the border continues to grow. According to David Shirk, Director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego:
The border patrol has doubled in size to 20,000 agents—up 15% from previous year and more than double a decade ago. There are also more than 3,000 Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents, 300 National Guard troops (with 1,200 more on their way), and a significant surge in the number of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms personnel. However, border security advocates say that this is still not enough.
Indeed, the border-centric approach has encouraged drug trafficking organizations to evolve from relatively small scale, low-level operations in the 1980s into the highly sophisticated, heavily-armed criminal organizations that are today seriously undermining the Mexican state. The flow of drugs and immigrants continued practically unabated, despite these very costly investments in border security.
According to Jennifer Bernal of the Center for New American Security, rather than installing more fencing or deploying more troops, federal agencies should be coordinating with foreign governments:
Even as border patrolling has improved, the power of criminal organizations has grown. Crime rates in border cities are not skyrocketing as some claim, but high-profile incidents, such as striking murders and clashes with law enforcement, are on the rise. The most dangerous groups are the most sophisticated ones, and they know how to avoid enforcement hot spots.
Physical acts, such as installing fences or increasing patrols, will not do much to affect drug violence, or drug smuggling. What is needed along the border is a coordinated strategy among federal agencies and foreign governments—not incremental acts and feel-good deployments. Such a broad strategy would focus on reducing criminal groups’ ability to violently contest state authority, both by diminishing the sources of their proceeds (drugs) and their social base (through a mix of regional law enforcement and social programs).
Likewise, targeting non-violent border crossers with programs like Operation Streamline— a DHS program which mandates federal criminal prosecution and subsequent imprisonment of all persons caught crossing the border unlawfully—not only ties up the court system prosecuting non-violent immigration violators but diverts billions of dollars in the process—money and time that could be used to apprehend dangerous criminals. According to a report by Aarti Kholi of the Warren Institute at UC Berkeley:
Between 2002 and 2008, federal magistrate judges along the U.S.- Mexico border saw their misdemeanor immigration caseloads more than quadruple. Criminal prosecutions of petty immigration-related offenses increased by more than 330% in the border district courts, from 12,411 cases to 53,697.
Clearly, border violence is a serious issue facing the United States, but efforts to “secure the border” through bigger and longer fences, more boots on the ground and “get tough” initiatives make for better politics than they do policy. History has shown us that conflating non-violent border crossers and violent criminals doesn’t solve either problem. Until we start focusing on actual solutions that address drug cartels, gun smugglers and violent crime, history is doomed to repeat itself.
Photo by Auraelius.
When Does Border-First Become Border-Only?
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 4th
Yesterday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer met with President Obama to discuss immigration and border security. Gov. Brewer described the meeting as “cordial,” but neither the President nor the Governor discussed the Justice Department’s plan to move forward with a lawsuit against Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law—a law which President Obama has publicly criticized as “misguided.” They did, however, discuss specifics of the most recent round of border-first strategies (the President assured Brewer that he would send White House staff to Arizona in two weeks to further discuss beefing up the border). Although the President asked Gov. Brewer for help “in creating a bipartisan solution” to our immigration problems, Gov. Brewer was unwilling to play ball, which makes one wonder how far the President is willing to go on the border-first strategy without any promise of GOP support for comprehensive reform?
As he has in the past, the President advocated for a border security plan within the context of a larger immigration overhaul during his meeting yesterday. According to a White House press statement following the meeting:
As he did at the recent meeting with Senate Republicans, the President underscored that security measures alone won’t fix the broken borders, there needs to be comprehensive immigration reform that includes: lasting and dedicated resources by which to secure our borders and make our communities safer; holding unscrupulous employers accountable who hire workers illegally and exploit them and providing clear guidance for the many employers who want to play by the rules; and requiring those who have come here illegally to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and get right with the law.
The President also asked for Gov. Brewer’s help in garnering GOP support (i.e. Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl) for a comprehensive overhaul, but to no avail. Much like a wind-up toy, Gov. Brewer was unable to say anything other than “borders-first.”
When Brewer was asked whether she committed to building GOP support for a comprehensive overhaul, she replied, “No.”
While President Obama and Gov. Brewer agreed that “federal inaction on a comprehensive immigration overhaul is unacceptable,” she has done nothing to substantiate that notion. Meanwhile, Gov. Brewer admits that crime is down in Arizona (as well as other border towns), even though she has repeatedly claimed that her state is “under siege” from border crime. As the L.A. Times subtly points out, Gov. Brewer is a “Republican who is up for reelection.”
But the question remains, how much longer is President Obama willing to placate the supporters of a border-first strategy? Offering up more and more to the border-firsters, and gaining nothing in return for comprehensive immigration reform, may leave the President—and the country—with a border-only policy. Although border-first is what Gov. Brewer, Senator McCain, and Senator Kyl want, it isn’t what the public wants. According to a recent poll, “opinion research shows that rather than a newfound wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, most Americans support Arizona’s law as well as national comprehensive immigration reform,” which “is driven by a desire for action by Washington on a problem that has been left unattended for too long.” If President Obama is really worried about a “patchwork of different state immigration regulations around the country” instead of an immigration overhaul, why pour more money and resources into a border-only solution?
Photo by EdmondMeinfelder.
Judge Not: NJ Gov. Christie Ousts Lone Black Justice
Jun 3rd
New Jersey’s new governor is zealously spreading a conservative agenda across his state, all the way up to the courthouse door. Gov. Chris Christie has sparked outrage in his decision not to reappoint the one Black judge of the state Supreme Court, an unabashedly calculated move in a racially and politically polarized state.
Last month, he surprised critics by refusing to reappoint a key Democrat-affiliated justice, John E. Wallace, reportedly to restore partisan balance on the bench. Wallace, 68, was slated for mandatory retirement in 2012, but Christie’s decision not to reappoint him after one seven-year term—the first such move since the enactment of the state constitution in 1947—sends a strong message that the governor is seeking to remake the court in his image.
That image so far seems to be a reflection of a white conservative elite that Christie caters to with his attacks on unions and desire to downsize government.
Rutgers law professor Frank Askin told the AP, “I think it’s unfortunate that we no longer have an African-American on the court. I think it’s a vast step backward and an insult to African-Americans.”
In his jurisprudence, Wallace proved to be not a radical but a centrist. Yet his ouster has turned him into the fall guy for Christie’s play to the right. The nominee to replace Wallace is Anne M. Patterson, a 51 year-old white resident of Christie’s town, with a notable track record in corporate litigation and hefty GOP campaign contributions.
On Wednesday, the seven-member Judicial Advisory Panel, established under former Gov. John Corzine, decided they weren’t going to play that game. The entire panel resigned, calling Christie’s move “inconsistent with an independent judiciary.”
Yet Christie, who seems to relish ideological antagonism, may just be getting warmed up. The AP reports, “The governor will get three more Supreme Court picks during his first term, the next one coming in April when the court’s only Hispanic justice is up for reappointment.”
Not too hard to guess how that one will turn out.
Image: Creative Commons/Chuck Walker
1,200 National Guard Troops to the Border: A Bargaining Chip or More Political Pandering?
May 26th
Yesterday, President Obama met with Senate Republicans to discuss, among other things, moving forward with comprehensive immigration reform. But what came out of the meeting was a letter to Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, requesting 1,200 troops to be sent to the U.S.-Mexican border and a $500 million request for additional border personnel and technology as part of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill. While the President’s intentions to address the real sources of violence and crime along the border—that is, drug cartels and gun traffickers, not immigrants—is duly noted, the President is being perceived as piling enforcement on enforcement and pandering to Republicans with no real forward movement on reform.
Following the meeting, President Obama was widely criticized from all sides. Immigration advocates and Senate Democrats were quick to jump on the President for kowtowing to Republicans without getting much in return while border-frenzied Republicans and restrictionists remarked that the President wasn’t doing enough.
According to Frank Sharry of America’s Voice, President Obama is letting Republicans control the conversation:
Giving in … on immigration sure has the same feel as when the administration caved and excluded unauthorized immigrants from the health care exchange following Rep. Joe Wilson’s [R-S.C.] rude outburst last year. It has the feel of the president’s recent embrace of offshore drilling, just weeks before the BP disaster struck … Give them what they want and hope they’ll play nice.
Similarly, Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) criticized the “Obama administration’s militarization of the border” as “submission to the political forces brought by the Republican Party.”
Meanwhile, Senator John McCain (whose recent 180 on immigration reform is chalked up to his senate battle with restrictionist J.D. Hayworth) complained that 1,200 troops were “simply not enough. We need 6,000.” In 2006, President Bush sent 6,000 National Guard members to the border to “step up security while the Border Patrol expanded its ranks,” but they were later withdrawn.
While President Obama acknowledged that an immigration overhaul is needed to fully address border issues, there wasn’t any movement on the reform front. Enforcement alone has never been a solution to our immigration problems. Throwing more money at the problem as the sole means of solving it is not only fiscally irresponsible, but also ineffective. Over the last two decades, the United States has spent billions of dollars on border enforcement while the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has roughly tripled from 1990 to 2008, from 3.5 million to 11.9 million.
So, if the President is using border enforcement as a bargaining chip for reform, just what exactly is he getting in return? Without a solid push from the White House or Republican sign-on, the President seems to be sending the message that “borders first” is his number one immigration priority. After years of failed “borders first” strategies, many Americans—especially Latino voters—are wondering just when the federal government is going to take that crucial second step.
Photo by The National Guard.
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.
2010 Congressional Primaries, Immigration and an Appetite for Change
May 19th
As the dust is settling from yesterday’s primary elections, many politicians and pundits will try to interpret what the American public is thinking. The reactions and responses are likely to span the ideological and political scales. Whether Democrats aren’t Democratic enough, or Republicans aren’t Republican enough, or seats held by one party should be replaced by the other, one thing is clear: Americans are frustrated with their current leaders and want new representation.
Immigrant advocates will be asking themselves what role immigration played in the primaries. The fact is that the immigration issue probably played a small role, if any, in Tuesday’s elections. Quite frankly, Members don’t have much of a record on the issue for voters to base their votes on because Congress has been too scared to take on the issue and see what their constituents say about it. But the sentiments behind the immigration debate echo what we saw in the polls—the public has grown tired with inaction.
Americans are fed up—regardless of what party they affiliate with. They see the country going to hell in a hand basket and no one is doing anything about it. Other than health care, it is hard to name a single other legislative initiative from the past year. The extended and vicious health care debate deflated many hopes of Congress working together to solve any of the other real problems experienced by Americans. Rather than working together, members from both parties—as well as pundits—seem to take any opportunity to stake out their ground and distance themselves from those deemed their opposition. From oil spills to financial regulation to Supreme Court nominations, the conversation is one of political positioning rather than problem-solving.
Immigration is no different. Americans agree that the immigration system is broken and something must be done about it. For the last several years Congress has failed come up with a solution, despite the evidence that this is an important issue to their constituencies. The 2006 and 2007 battles over comprehensive immigration reform were nasty and divisive. Because Congress hasn’t acted and the problem isn’t resolving itself, some states and localities have taken action—some out of a genuine desire to fix the problem, and others to score political points. The newly passed law in Arizona and the various copycats are evidence that the states are not backing down.
Whether Republican or Democrat or Independent, Americans are frustrated with Washington’s unwillingness and inability to advance a real conversation on immigration reform. Like many of the other issues facing us today, immigration is very complex and requires an honest, thoughtful debate rather than name-calling, playing politics, and demagoguery. Let’s hope that yesterday’s elections sent the message that Americans want real action.
Photo by Marc Dietrich.