Why Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Will Cost The GOP

[The Rabbi]

Things were getting too dull around here anyway. I mean, how many times can you bash Glocks or Open Carry?

From the WSJ:

Immigration Losers

A new study shows the heavy price the GOP paid for "get-tough" border politics.

BY RICHARD NADLER

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT Many conservatives believe that "enforcement first" of existing immigration law must precede any form of guest-worker or earned-legalization legislation to normalize the status of some 12 million undocumented workers. Iterations of this opinion fill the airwaves of talk radio, the speeches of Republican presidential contenders and the opinion pages of conservative publications.

The formula alleviates, or at least postpones, the antagonism between those who want to deport illegal workers, and those who want them to stay. The language of comprehensive immigration reform--a combination of strict border enforcement and a path to legalization--has been abandoned even by many who hope eventually to revive it.

This rhetorical consensus is unserious. Deportation advocates understand full well that existing civil penalties will not overcome the economic incentives that drive these immigrants and their employers. That is why Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the primary sponsor of the Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, added criminal penalties to the common frauds perpetrated by illegal workers and those who employ them.

The illegals themselves--the group most directly affected--understand "enforcement first" for what it really is: a step toward mass deportation. That is why thousands of undocumented Brazilians exited Riverside, N.J., when the town council sanctioned their landlords and employers.

To these two groups that reject "enforcement first" as a rhetorical euphemism, we may now add a third: Hispanic citizens who vote.

Undocumented Latinos constitute 3.8% of the American work force. But these 5.6 million workers are a mere fraction of the 17.3 million Latino citizens 18 years or older. Of these, 4.4 million are themselves foreign born.

How does "enforcement first" or "enforcement only" play among these voters? Polling has offered rationales for conflicting projections. Some contend that Hispanics' strong support for border security signals a negligible partisan impact; others, citing Latino endorsement of guest-worker and earned-legalization programs, predict electoral disaster for the party that abandons a comprehensive framework.

In my recent study for the Americas Majority Foundation entitled "Border Wars: The Impact of Immigration on the Latino Vote," I document not what Hispanics opined, but how they actually voted, given a clear choice between advocates of "enforcement first" and comprehensive immigration reform. The results, based on returns from 145 heavily Hispanic precincts and over 100,000 tabulated votes, indicate this: Immigration policies that induce mass fear among illegal residents will induce mass anger among the legal residents who share their heritage. The congressional election of 2006 provided a unique opportunity to gauge Hispanic voter behavior. In three congressional districts of the Southwest, two of them on the border, Republican candidates ran on an "enforcement-only" platform. In each case, this constituted a departure from previous congressional representation. And in each case, Hispanic support for the Republican candidate collapsed from 2004 levels.

Former Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona was an architect of comprehensive immigration reform. His retirement in 2006 precipitated a five-way primary in which Randy Graff prevailed with 42% of the vote. Mr. Graff, supported by the deportationist Minutemen Civil Defense Corps PAC, lost to Democrat Gabrielle Giffords, 42%-54%. Ms. Giffords aligned herself with the comprehensive reform positions of Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain. Among the heavily Hispanic precincts of Cochise County, Rep. Kolbe carried 43% of the vote in 2004. Mr. Graff's share of the vote in those precincts shrank to 18%.

In Texas, former Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla, chairman of the powerful House Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, was the paradigm of Republican Hispanic success--until he voted for Rep. Sensenbrenner's "enforcement-only" bill. In the heavily Hispanic counties of Dimmit, Presidio, Val Verde, Maverick and Zavala, Mr. Bonilla's support dropped to 30% in 2006 from 59% in 2004. He lost the district to Democrat Ciro Rodriguez, 46%-54%.

In 2004, Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth, the flamboyant incumbent of Arizona's Fifth District, defeated his Democratic rival 59%-38%. His 2006 book "By Any Means" described his conversion from advocacy of comprehensive immigration reform to a deportationist viewpoint. Campaigning on enforcement-only, Mr. Hayworth was defeated by his Democratic challenger, Tempe Mayor Harry Mitchell, 46%-50%. Mr. Hayworth's majority-white district provided a test of whether a deportationist platform would attract a strong backlash vote among non-Hispanic whites. It did not. In the Hispanic influenced, majority-white precincts of Maricopa County, Mr. Hayworth's vote share declined to 36% in 2006 from 48% in 2004.

In these three races, Republicans' vote share in heavily Latino precincts dropped 22 percentage points.

What does this mean nationwide? Republicans' presidential Hispanic vote share increased to 40% in 2004 from 21% in 1996. In 2004, Latinos comprised 6% of the electorate, but 8.1% of the voter-qualified citizenry. With the partisan margin shrinking, the incentive for major Hispanic registration efforts by either party was scant.

That changed in 2006, when the GOP's Hispanic vote share declined by 10%. And, as we have seen, the drop was twice as precipitous where Republicans disavowed comprehensive immigration reform. With the huge wedge in vote share that "enforcement-only" opened, the cost-effectiveness of voter-registration efforts improved dramatically--for Democrats.

In recent years, Democratic Party operatives have conducted registration drives in urban communities that boosted African-American turnout to 65% from 23%. Republicans, should their national ticket adopt "enforcement-only," can expect Democrats to wage similar Hispanic campaigns in the most hotly contested political real estate of 2008. Such standard political operations will more than erase Republican majorities in New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida and Iowa, and may endanger the GOP electoral hold on Arizona as well.

That is the short-term fallout Republicans may suffer from "enforcement-only." But the election of 2008 marks the beginning of the political attrition, not its end.

One-half of U.S. population growth this decade occurred among Latinos. Were the border hermetically sealed today, the children of Latino citizens will yet vote. Moreover, there are currently 3.1 million American-born minors with one or both parents who are illegal aliens. These young Americans share the same citizenship status as those seeking their parents' removal. It is folly to believe they will not remember who sought to deport their parents when they eventually go to the polls. The pending catastrophe is not inevitable. Republicans have campaigned effectively among Hispanics on the basis of entrepreneurship, school choice, tax cuts and right-to-life. And, as the 2006 re-election of Republicans Heather Wilson and Steve Pearce of New Mexico and Jeff Flake of Arizona demonstrated, the GOP agenda can include national security as well. In 2006, Latinos helped re-elect candidates who advocated the border fence, electronic surveillance, expedited deportation of violent criminals, and biometric worker identification.

The next proposal for comprehensive immigration reform can contain all of this. To retain their Hispanic gains, Republicans need to repudiate only the immoral, uneconomical goal of mass deportation.

Mr. Nadler is the president of Americas Majority Foundation, a Midwest public-policy think tank.

[molonlabetn]

I'm sure that any type of criminal would seek to vote for the party who rewarded their behavior instead of punishing it.

[Guest GT_Rat]

How many illegal immigrants are voting on illegally obtained Social Security cards?

[The Rabbi]

How many illegal immigrants are voting on illegally obtained Social Security cards?

Probably right about at zero.

In my experience illegals want to avoid contact with officialdom as much as possible.

[The Rabbi]

I'm sure that any type of criminal would seek to vote for the party who rewarded their behavior instead of punishing it.

Ah. So all Hispanics are criminals now....

[molonlabetn]

Ah. So all Hispanics are criminals now....

Ah, we have reached a new low...

You know what I meant.

[The Rabbi]

Ah, we have reached a new low...

You know what I meant.

No, I dont.

The article reports that Hispanics voted against politicians running on "law and order" platforms as opposed to those who offered or supported comprehensive solutions.

Your comment to the article was about criminals. I can only assume you mean that those Hispanic voters, 99% of them U.S. citizens, are criminals.

[Guest tjbert47]

It's about illegal immigrants not immigration !!!

Tom in TN

[towerclimber37]

well, Rabbi, in case you don't know what he means..

try reading this and I'm pretty sure you'll figure it out.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/06/illegal_aliens_4.php

and YES, if you're an illegal alien, you're breaking the law. period.

we've been over this. the average illegal alien of any stripe breaks 4 laws just to enter the country.

in order to work, they need a social security card. generally they're obtained by fraud or theft.

thats a federal law that they've broken.

sounds like a criminal to me.

[The Rabbi]

It's about illegal immigrants not immigration !!!

Tom in TN

Good. Then you must support changing the laws to more open immigration and remove all those people from the stigma of being a criminal.

Easy!

[towerclimber37]

Good. Then you must support changing the laws to more open immigration and remove all those people from the stigma of being a criminal.

Easy!

how about we get control of the illegal immigration before we allow more folks to just walk in.

otherwise we'll risk occurrences of mass violence. Take a look at France Rabbi.

they have an open immigration policy. They also have mass riots, people barricading streets with cars, burning down buildings, overwhelming their social systems and basically stamping their feet saying "you owe me something".

Illegal immigrants don't care about the laws of the country they're in.

the illegal immigrants in France don't care about being French. They don't care about obeying the laws of that sovereign country. they care about changing the government to suit themselves, regardless of what others want. when they don't get their way, they riot.

[molonlabetn]

Good. Then you must support changing the laws to more open immigration and remove all those people from the stigma of being a criminal.

Easy!

Why not make theft and robbery legal, too? Hell... why should we define criminal actions at all, or even have laws...

[Guest Phantom6]

Good. Then you must support changing the laws to more open immigration and remove all those people from the stigma of being a criminal.

Easy!

Damn. Where is that BS Smilie when I need it?

[The Rabbi]

Why not make theft and robbery legal, too? Hell... why should we define criminal actions at all, or even have laws...

I thought you didnt want penalties for victimless crimes?

[The Rabbi]

how about we get control of the illegal immigration before we allow more folks to just walk in.

otherwise we'll risk occurrences of mass violence. Take a look at France Rabbi.

they have an open immigration policy. They also have mass riots, people barricading streets with cars, burning down buildings, overwhelming their social systems and basically stamping their feet saying "you owe me something".

.

And how has enforcement been working for the last 20 years? What makes you think "this time it'll be different"?

The US isnt France. There is no way to compare the two. The riots in Paris were not necessarily immigrant related.

But this thread is not about whether immigration is good or not (it obviously is and we need much more of it).

It is about the fact that anti-immigration rhetoric (and that's what it is, the "only illegal" part is pure BS) will cost the GOP the next election.

[Guest tjbert47]

Good. Then you must support changing the laws to more open immigration and remove all those people from the stigma of being a criminal.

Easy!

What I support is turning off the magnet that drawers them here. In other words no health care no welfare no nothing! And letting them find someone else to live off of. I'm having a hard enough time doing for my family. And I am damn tired of having my tax dollars wasted by Uncle Sam.

Hope that is plain enough for you to understand.

Tom in TN

[Guest tjbert47]

And how has enforcement been working for the last 20 years? What makes you think "this time it'll be different"?

The US isnt France. There is no way to compare the two. The riots in Paris were not necessarily immigrant related.

But this thread is not about whether immigration is good or not (it obviously is and we need much more of it).

It is about the fact that anti-immigration rhetoric (and that's what it is, the "only illegal" part is pure BS) will cost the GOP the next election.

Enforcement only works if you actually ENFORCE the laws.

Tom in TN

[The Rabbi]

What I support is turning off the magnet that drawers them here. In other words no health care no welfare no nothing! And letting them find someone else to live off of. I'm having a hard enough time doing for my family. And I am damn tired of having my tax dollars wasted by Uncle Sam.

Hope that is plain enough for you to understand.

Tom in TN

The magnet that draws them here is better-paying jobs. This is a fact. If you want to turn that off, go right ahead. You won't like the results.

[dariks]

Your world must be a very nice place to live in.

In the real world, however, things are different.

Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. It cost me and you every time you go to the doctor or pay your insurance bill. It costs me and you in the fact that tax money is now being spent to provide welfare, food stamps, etc. instead of being used for other things. It costs all us every time someone is raped, killed, has there house broken into, etc, etc, etc. So you can't tell me that this is a victimless crime. There very clearly ARE victims.

But this thread is not about whether immigration is good or not (it obviously is and we need much more of it).

It is about the fact that anti-immigration rhetoric (and that's what it is, the "only illegal" part is pure BS) will cost the GOP the next election.

Immigration IS good for the country. Very good in fact! Increasing immigration quota's and streamlining the process to make it both faster and cheaper would do wonderful things for America. Oh wait.......I'm supposed to be against any immigration because I'm against illegal immigration. My bad.

[Guest tjbert47]

The magnet that draws them here is better-paying jobs. This is a fact. If you want to turn that off, go right ahead. You won't like the results.

Better paying jobs my butt. Turn off the freebies and see how long they stay.

Tom in TN

[dariks]

The magnet that draws them here is better-paying jobs. This is a fact. If you want to turn that off, go right ahead. You won't like the results.

You're overlooking the obvious answer (on purpose I think). If business owners refuse to hire them, because the penalties are too high, then where are they going to find those better paying jobs?

[The Rabbi]

You're overlooking the obvious answer (on purpose I think). If business owners refuse to hire them, because the penalties are too high, then where are they going to find those better paying jobs?

If you make the penalties high enough there wont be any business owners. Why do you think they are hiring them to begin with?

[The Rabbi]

Your world must be a very nice place to live in.

In the real world, however, things are different.

Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. It cost me and you every time you go to the doctor or pay your insurance bill. It costs me and you in the fact that tax money is now being spent to provide welfare, food stamps, etc. instead of being used for other things. It costs all us every time someone is raped, killed, has there house broken into, etc, etc, etc. So you can't tell me that this is a victimless crime. There very clearly ARE victims.

Immigration IS good for the country. Very good in fact! Increasing immigration quota's and streamlining the process to make it both faster and cheaper would do wonderful things for America. Oh wait.......I'm supposed to be against any immigration because I'm against illegal immigration. My bad.

Your list of ills has nothing to do with illegal immigration. The act of walking over the border never hurt anyone. You are supposing that every person who enters this country illegally also engages in fraud and other violent crimes. That is obviously false. You think people who commit fraud and violent crimes ought to be punished? Good, we agree. But that has little to nothing to do with illegal immigration. In fact, the present policies actually make it worse because there is incentive to get lost in the crowd.

And if you agree that immigration does all those things (and it does) then you ought to be for liberalizing immigration laws, not making them worse.

[dariks]

If you make the penalties high enough there wont be any business owners. Why do you think they are hiring them to begin with?

Businesses were doing just fine before illegal immigration became a problem.

[dariks]

Your list of ills has nothing to do with illegal immigration. The act of walking over the border never hurt anyone. You are supposing that every person who enters this country illegally also engages in fraud and other violent crimes. That is obviously false. You think people who commit fraud and violent crimes ought to be punished? Good, we agree. But that has little to nothing to do with illegal immigration. In fact, the present policies actually make it worse because there is incentive to get lost in the crowd.

And if you agree that immigration does all those things (and it does) then you ought to be for liberalizing immigration laws, not making them worse.

I am not supposing that every person who enters the country illegally engages in violent crime. Most of them probably do not. But to make a broad statement that illegal immigration is a victimless crime is completely false. The current statistics that I've heard are that between 12 and 25 citizens are killed each day. Victimless?

I believe that people who break the law should be punished. Crossing the border illegally is a crime. The only "punishment" I want is for them to be deported. If they want to come to the US then they need to do it the legal way. This gives us a chance to verify that they have no contagious diseases and that they are not fugitives in their own country, among other things.

I am not for letting everyone in. If that's how you feel, then why should we even bother having a border? We can just let anybody who wants to come in. It doesn't matter if they're a violent criminal or a disease carrier. Right? Borders exist so that countries can control who and what comes into their countries. This is a fundamental concept. Illegal immigrants bypass these safeties and put all of us at risk and end up costing us more money in the long run.