Continue reading »]]>

Campaigning in Florida this month, GOP Presidential candidates continued to display a general lack of understanding of the state’s diversifying Latino population. While it’s well-documented that the Cuban-American population is currently a strong political force, the emerging story in Florida is that the state’s future voting population will become increasingly Latino, but less Cuban.

While it’s normal for political candidates to pander to today’s registered voters, they undermine the long-term electoral prospects of their party when they fail to recognize Florida’s changing demographics. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau reveal that increasing numbers of Florida’s children are non-Cuban Latinos. Overall, Latinos make up 26% of persons under age 18.

More striking, however—given Florida’s long association with Cuban immigration—is that the Cuban-origin portion of the Latino population is shrinking when you look at the youngest Floridians.

While Cubans are a majority of Florida Latinos over age 70, every Latino age group below 70 is becoming increasingly non-Cuban. Cubans are more than half (54%) of Florida Latinos aged 65 and over, but they are only 22% of Latino children in the state. Simply put, the Cuban population is getting older while a younger, non-Cuban Latino population continues to grow.

In fact, Cubans today are a minority of all Florida Latinos. The state’s Latino population is one of the most diverse in the nation: 29% Cuban, 20% Puerto Rican, 17% South American, 15% Mexican, 11% Central American, and 9% of other Latino origins.

Candidates and the party they represent are focusing on elections in Florida, not the future electorate. In doing so they are risking the long-term success of their party. The increasingly diverse Latino community in Florida is only going to be receptive to rhetoric and immigration policies that benefit all Latinos.

Photo by heacphotos.

Continue reading »]]>

As if Mitt Romney’s repeated promise to veto the DREAM Act wasn’t alienating enough, advocates warn that Romney’s continued relationship with famed anti-immigrant hawk Kris Kobach is killing future support from Latino voters, especially in key states like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Florida. Kobach, co-author of Arizona and Alabama’s extreme immigration enforcement laws, appeared in South Carolina Monday night to spin for the Romney campaign following the GOP debate.

Following Kobach’s endorsement of Gov. Mitt Romney last week, the Romney campaign issued a statement accepting Kobach’s endorsement and supporting his leadership on extreme immigration enforcement last in Arizona and South Carolina. Now, however, with Kobach actually appearing on Romney’s campaign trail, advocates say Kobach will damage Romney’s image among Latino voters.

Dee Dee Garcia Blase of the grassroots Republican Latino group Somos Republicans said “Romney committed political suicide” when he welcomed Kobach’s endorsement. Outspoken immigration advocate Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) called Kobach’s affiliation with the Romney campaign “appalling” and characterized Kobach as the “Dark Lord of the anti-immigration movement” on a teleconference. And earlier this month, Hispanic Leadership Fund’s Mario Lopez said Romney’s approach to immigration was hurting him as a candidate and the Republican party in general.

As previously reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Kris Kobach has built a long and varied career out of attacking immigrants—first in the Bush Administration targeting legal immigrants from Muslim and Arab countries and later as the architect of city ordinances and state laws targeting unauthorized, mostly Latino immigrants.

But the addition of Kobach to Romney’s campaign is just the latest in Romney’s hard line on immigration. Romney again indicated yesterday that he would veto the DREAM Act should it come up in Congress, arguing that “aiding those eligible under the DREAM Act”—a bill that puts undocumented students who were brought here by their parents on a path towards citizenship—“would only encourage more people to enter the country without documentation.”

Appearing tough on immigration may not hurt Romney during the GOP primary, but come general election time, many wonder how Romney plans to win the Latino vote. Matt Barreto of the University of Washington said that Romney will not win the presidency without at least 40% of the Latino vote, a vote Congressman Luis Gutierrez believes Romney will not receive given his current approach to immigration.

“There is no route to the White House that does not go through a Latino neighborhood. Any winner in either party needs a significant proportion of Latino voters. When you say you want millions of us to leave the country … we will vote against you.”

When it comes to immigration, American voters have established that they want solutions not smears. Politicians, however, continue to read from a different playbook written by a narrow group of voters and commentators.

Photo by Gage Skidmore.

Continue reading »]]>

Exhausted by the base immigration rhetoric prevalent in the GOP presidential debate, a group of concerned Iowans is seeking to reframe the issue in anticipation of the Iowa Caucuses next month. Last week, business, faith and city leaders in Iowa signed the Iowa Compact—a list of five principles meant to guide how people discuss immigration. Signatories of the compact, which is modeled after Utah and Indiana’s Compact, urged politicians “to stop playing politics on the issue” and said that state level fixes, like enforcement-only legislation, do “not address the root problem of immigration” but instead hurts economies and communities.

Similar to other compacts, the Iowa Compact includes five guiding principles: 1) Immigration is a federal issues; 2) Local law enforcement needs to focus on serious crimes and avoid policies with negative economic and humanitarian consequences; 3) Immigration policies should help families stay together: 4) Immigrants are beneficial to Iowa’s economy; and 5) Iowa needs to welcome immigrants.

And with the Republican primary caucuses less than a month away, Compact signatories hope GOP presidential candidates take notice. Lori Chesser, chairwoman of the Iowa Immigration Education Coalition, believes “there has not been enough thoughtful discussion in the debates” thus far. The mayor of Perry, Iowa, Jay Pattee, agrees:

During the Republican presidential primary season, the rhetoric on immigration has reached a new low. This type of debate is not only extreme and divisive, but it serves as a distraction from a genuine policy debate.

Other signatories, like those in the business and law enforcement community, also want to send the message that Congress’s inability to reform our broken immigration system is hurting state economies and what’s worse, has given rise to enforcement-only immigration laws which put law enforcement officers at odds with communities.

According to Perry, Iowa’s police chief Dan Brickman, “the lack of federal action on immigration reform has put his officers in an awkward spot at a time when they can’t afford to take on additional responsibilities or alienate their residents.” Nearly 40% of Perry’s population is Hispanic.

Martha Willits, chief executive of the Greater Des Moines Partnership, said foreign-born workers are crucial to Iowa’s economy since, according to the group, the state’s primary population growth comes from minorities.

We know from our business partners that work force is a critical issue, particularly finding workers with the right skills … We want to keep foreign-born students who are trained at our universities and intern in our businesses. But we can’t because of our makeshift laws. We need comprehensive reform.

Other signatories include the CEO of Banker’s Trust, the oldest and largest independently owned bank in Iowa, and the Iowa Nursery and Landscape Association, who relies on immigrants for workers.

Hopefully, communities across the U.S. will realize that immigrants are vital to their state’s economic prosperity and enact policies that welcome them, like in Dayton, Ohio, rather than bash them in debates and drive them from the state through anti-immigrant legislation.

Continue reading »]]>

Immigration is a hot issue in the GOP primary debates, complete with extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric and far-fetched policy proposals. Michele Bachman, for example, promised to deport every undocumented immigrant in the country—a costly and unworkable task. And she’s not the only one. Herman Cain recently “joked” that he would electrify the border fence as a deterrent for unauthorized crossers. But Republican presidential candidates have it wrong when it comes to anti-immigrant rhetoric and their base. Recent polls suggest that a majority of conservative voters actually favor a path to legal status for unauthorized immigrants. In fact, several polls found that the majority of Americans prefer a path to legalization for unauthorized immigrants currently in the U.S.

A recent poll conducted by the United Technologies and the National Journal Congressional Connection found that 39% of respondents (the largest group), when asked what the government should do about undocumented immigrants in the U.S., said that the United States should “deport some, but allow those who have been here for many years and have broken no other laws to stay here legally.” And when broken down along party lines, the majority of Republicans surveyed agreed.

While 33% of Republicans supported deporting all undocumented immigrants, 43% favored allowing “long-term illegal immigrants who have not broken any other law to remain.” 19% of Republicans wanted to allow all undocumented immigrants to be able to stay, compared to 32% of Democrats.

Another poll released by Pew Research Center also found Republican support for a path to legalization, albeit from a younger swath of voters. Pew’s poll found that 42% of Republicans under age 30 favored a path to citizenship if coupled with tougher enforcement measures.In contrast, 57% of older Republicans 65 years and older favored “border security and stricter enforcement alone” while 24% favored “a dual approach that would include a path to citizenship.”

And finally, a poll conducted by the Partnership for a New American Economy found that a plurality of Republicans likely to attend the Iowa caucuses support expanding legal immigration if it supports the creation of jobs. The poll found:

• 72% are open to allowing foreign-born students educated in the U.S. to enter the workforce after graduation
• 64% are open to streamlining the process for employers to hire the seasonal and permanent employees they need when Americans are not filling vacant jobs
• 66% are open to increasing opportunities for high-skilled legal immigrants to enter the U.S. workforce
• 71% are open to increasing opportunities for entrepreneurs from other countries to move to the U.S. to start a business here.

According to Republican strategist John Stineman, “there is clearly an appetite for working to solve problems with our legal immigration system and Iowa Republicans make the connection that doing so can help grow our economy.”

And that appetite isn’t just among conservative voters. Poll after poll demonstrates that the American public embraces the need for common sense solutions to our immigration problems as wells as the important role immigrants play in our economy. Perhaps it’s time for GOP Presidential candidates to drop the inflamed rhetoric and get on board with the rest of America.

Continue reading »]]>

Twenty five years ago this week, President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), an immigration reform bill which, despite a contentious debate, managed to pass a Republican Senate and a Democratic House. In fact, Reagan called the immigration bill one of the “most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory” but one that “further generations of Americans” would “be thankful for.” And Reagan wasn’t wrong. Despite criticisms from both restrictionists and advocates that IRCA failed to address future waves of immigration, the benefits of IRCA—as well as the bipartisan support needed to pass it—should give our current congressional leaders something to think about.

Signed in November 1986, IRCA required all persons to show authorization to work in the U.S., increased border enforcement, and created a legalization program for undocumented immigrants who met eligibility requirements. While critics complain that IRCA failed to prevent future waves of unauthorized immigration, they often forget the important things IRCA accomplished.

IRCA legalized approximately 3 million immigrants who met strict eligibility requirements, 1.3 million of whom legalized under the special agricultural legalization program. Obtaining legal status allowed unauthorized immigrants to improve their lives and contribute even more to the U.S. economy.

According to research by Rob Paral, between 1990 and 2006, the educational attainment of IRCA immigrants increased substantially, their poverty rates fell dramatically, and their home ownership rates improved tremendously.  Once legalized, their real wages rose and many of them moved into managerial positions.

The law also showed how legalization, enforcement, and visa reform must work together to create a better immigration system. Unfortunately, the visa reforms were limited to agricultural workers, so any new legislation would need to go further. The basic elements of balanced immigration reform, however, were included in IRCA.

One of the most important lessons from IRCA was the bipartisan cooperation needed to pass it. According to President Reagan:

[IRCA has] truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms.  Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship.

If Americans—Democrats and Republicans—could come together in 1986 to pass IRCA, surely Congressional leaders can join forces to pass necessary reforms again. Our immigration crisis is far too dire to not even try.

Photo by Gage Skidmore.