Showing posts with label Latino voters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Latino voters. Show all posts

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Latinos Swing Hard for Obama and the Democrats


Let us now put to rest the nasty canard that Latinos will not vote for a black candidate. This election season, Democratic Presidential candidate, Barak Obama, stands to gain several Western states on the strength of the Latino vote. Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and perhaps Arizona are all in play for Obama. Never mind that the Latino vote in the state of California forms a Democratic firewall guaranteeing a Blue status to this very large state. Despite some rank racist statements by various Hispanic Republican leaders, the Latino community is strongly behind the African-American Democratic candidate and come election day the overwhelming majority will be punching the Democratic ticket.

I do not want to discount the fact of racism in the Latino community anymore than I would in the Anglo community. But anti-black sentiment is no more pronounced in the Hispanic community than it is in the larger majoritarian community. Whatsmore, Latinos have come to see their interests as largely consistent with those of the African-American community. Like African-Americans, Latinos feel that their ethnicity and national origin are keeping them from getting jobs and that receive unfair treatment by the criminal justice system. As well, the heavy handed tactics of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) have cast a siege mentality amongst Latinos.

Polls have consistently demonstrated overwhelming support of Latinos for Barack Obama. The media narrative going into the presidential election posited that Latinos would split their vote for John McCain, who had sponsored legislation for comprehensive immigration reform. As McCain backed away from his prior stance, and embraced the pro-enforcement policies of the Bush administration, Latinos saw little reason to back a Republican candidate who towed the Bush Party line. This was all the more evident when one considers the demoralizing effect that the harsh ICE enforcement tactics of the Bush administration were and are having on the Latino community. As articulated by the Pew Hispanic Center:

Half (50%) of all Latinos say that the situation of Latinos in this country is worse now than it was a year ago, according to a new nationwide survey of 2,015 Hispanic adults conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center.

This pessimism is especially prevalent among immigrants, who account for 54% of all Hispanic adults in the United States. Fully 63% of these Latino immigrants say that the situation of Latinos has worsened over the past year. In 2007, just 42% of all adult Hispanic immigrants--and just 33% of all Hispanic adults--said the same thing.

Some Latinos are experiencing other difficulties because of their ethnicity. One-in-seven (15%) say that they have had trouble in the past year finding or keeping a job because they are Latino. One-in-ten (10%) report the same about finding or keeping housing.

Not surprisingly, worries about deportation and perceptions of discrimination in jobs or housing because of Hispanic ethnicity correlate with the view that Latinos' situation has worsened in the past year. Two-thirds (68%) of Latinos who worry a lot that they or someone close to them may be deported say that Latinos' situation in the country today is worse than it was a year ago, as do 63% of Latinos who have experienced job difficulties because of their ethnicity and 71% of Latinos who report housing difficulties because of their ethnicity.

Naturally, Latinos are very unhappy with the status quo, which translates to a toxic environment for Republican candidates (of any stripe). On a personal level, I live in an area with a heavy Latino population and the concerns set forth in the Pew survey are very real to this community. One Chilean friend who had a grocery store that catered to Latinos closed shop because he said fear of ICE and law enforcement in general was keeping many Latinos close to home. Fear of law enforcement is not confined to undocumented Latinos. There is now a pervasive fear of the police amongst Latinos, who are see the criminal justice system as discriminating against all Latinos.

I have heard many personal stories of people being accosted and treated rudely because they are Latino. The anger is palpable both as a community and on a personal level. And that anger is being translated into strong support for Barack Obama. Senator Obama, who is viewed as championing changes to the harsh immigration policies of the Bush administration, as well as shifting economic priorities, is clearly benefitting. Economic concerns play an important role in this allegiance. Although McCain’s inept campaign has not helped his cause amongst Latinos.

The choice of Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, as McCain’s running mate did nothing for the presidential candidates standing in the Latino community. Unlike Texas governor, George Bush, who hails from a border state, Alaska has virtually no cross-border issues of significance for the Hispanic community. (Although a substantial percentage of the Alaska fishing work-force is now Latino.) And although a significant portion of the Latino community identifies itself as evangelical Christians, this alone is not significant to undo the political realignment brought about by the Bush Administration’s policies.

Eristic ragemail has previously written how Republican designs on the Hispanic vote were being undermined by a misguided and inept enforcement-only immigration policy. What I see now, is a wholesale shift away from the Republican Party in all its manifestations. Whatever conservative cultural factors may have once aligned a segment of the Latino community to the Republicans has given way to more pragmatic concerns. As with the larger community, it appears that Latinos are more strongly shifting their allegiance to the Democratic Party. This shift by Latinos to the Democratic Party is, in my estimation, permanent.

Monday, September 8, 2008

ACT NOW: Latinos and Other Minorities Being Disenfranchised

In recent national elections there have been some pretty blatant disenfranchisement of minority voters. When the Republicans cannot win by using wedge issues to divide and conquer they resort to dirty tricks. Mebe, over at Daily Kos is reporting that some major purging of Latino and minority voters is taking place in critical swing states. Herein, Mebe's post:

Votes being purged left and right, well not really right, they are the purgers not the purgees.

WE HAVE TO BUG THE SHIT OUT OF THE MEDIA TO GET THIS COVERED! Like now.

Keith Olberman, Bill Moyers, anyone and everyone.

Yesterday, thankfully there was a diary on the rec list about 600,000 votes in Ohio, I am happy and glad that diary got some damn attention, far too many like it drop like rocks. EVERYTIME.

I saw this over at Huffington Post.

"Kansas, Michigan and Louisiana are purging their voter lists.

http://www.alternet.org/...

Colorado dumped ONE FIFTH of all voter registrations -- the largest in history

Florida is refusing to accept 85,000 new registrants -- overwhelmingly blacks.

New Mexico: purged half of the democrats in Mora county (Hispanics) and 600.000 mailers were returned

Ohio & Nevada are scrubbing tens of 1000s of voters who lost their homes to foreclosures
(Kerry lost by a mere 10-votes per district in Ohio)

http://www.gregpalast.com/...

We have got to get this information out. To all of the folks distracted by the she-devil, get your head out of Palin's ass and help us alert the media and everyone we know.

Can you digg it? This story must get out, right now it's about 60 diggs short of making the page:
http://digg.com/...

Edited to add: Hey Kos could we please have a constant reminder of this issue up until the election? Something, please, I'm begging you. PS Love you and thanks for the site.

Contact the media:

ABC News
77 W. 66 St., New York, NY 10023
Phone: 212-456-7777

General e-mail: netaudr@abc.com
Nightline: nightline@abcnews.com
20/20: 2020@abc.com

CBS News
524 W. 57 St., New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-975-4321
Fax: 212-975-1893

Email forms for all CBS news programs
CBS Evening News: evening@cbsnews.com
The Early Show: earlyshow@cbs.com
60 Minutes II: 60minutes@cbsnews.com
48 Hours: 48hours@cbsnews.com
Face The Nation: ftn@cbsnews.com

CNBC
900 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Phone: (201) 735-2622
Fax: (201) 583-5453
Email: info@cnbc.com

CNN
One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366
Phone: 404-827-1500
Fax: 404-827-1784
Email forms for all CNN news programs

Fox News Channel
1211 Ave. of the Americas, New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 301-3000
Fax: (212) 301-4229
comments@foxnews.com
List of Email addresses for all Fox News Channel programs
Special Report with Brit Hume: Special@foxnews.com
FOX Report with Shepard Smith: Foxreport@foxnews.com
The O'Reilly Factor: Oreilly@foxnews.com
Hannity & Colmes: Hannity@foxnews.com, Colmes@foxnews.com
On the Record with Greta: Ontherecord@foxnews.com

MSNBC/NBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112
Phone: (212) 664-4444
Fax: (212) 664-4426
List of Email addresses for all MSNBC/NBC news programs
Dateline NBC: dateline@nbc.com
Hardball with Chris Matthews: hardball@msnbc.com
MSNBC Reports with Joe Scarborough: joe@msnbc.com
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: nightly@nbc.com
NBC News Today: today@nbc.com

PBS
2100 Crystal Drive, Arlington VA 22202
Phone: 703-739-5000
Fax: 703-739-8458
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: newshour@pbs.org

National Radio Programs

National Public Radio
635 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753
Phone: 202-513-3232
Fax: 202-513-3329

E-mail: Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, Ombudsman ombudsman@npr.org
List of Email addresses for all NPR news programs

The Rush Limbaugh Show
1270 Avenue of the Americas, NY 10020
Phone (on air): 800-282-2882
Fax: 212-445-3963
E-mail: ElRushbo@eibnet.com

Sean Hannity Show
Phone (on air): 800-941-7326
Sean Hannity: 212-613-3800
James Grisham, Producer: 212-613-3807
E-mail: Phil Boyce, Program Director phil.boyce@citcomm.com

National Newspapers

The Los Angeles Times
202 West First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 800-528-4637 or 213-237-5000
Fax: 213-237-4712

L.A. Times Contact Information by Department
Letters to the Editor: letters@latimes.com
Readers' Representative: readers.rep@latimes.com

The New York Times
620 8th Ave., New York, NY 10018
Phone: 212-556-1234
D.C. Bureau phone: 202-862-0300
Fax: 212-556-3690

Letters to the Editor (for publication): letters@nytimes.com
Write to the news editors: news-tips@nytimes.com
Corrections: senioreditor@nytimes.com
New York Times Contact Information by Department
How to Contact New York Times Reporters and Editors

USA Today
7950 Jones Branch Dr., McLean, VA 22108
Phone: 703-854-3400
Fax: 703-854-2078
Letters to the Editor: editor@usatoday.com
Give feedback to USA Today

The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty St., New York, NY 10281
Phone: 212-416-2000
Fax: 212-416-2658

Letters to the Editor: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Comment on News Articles: wsjcontact@dowjones.com

The Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20071
Phone: 202-334-6000
Fax: 202-334-5269

Letters to the Editor: letters@washpost.com
Ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com
Contact Washington Post Writers and Editors

Magazines

Newsweek
251 W 57th Street, New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-445-4000
Fax: 212-445-5068

Letters to the Editor: letters@newsweek.com

Time
Time & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, 1271 6th Ave., New York, NY 10020
Phone: 212-522-1212
Fax: 212-522-0003

Letters to the Editor letters@time.com

U.S. News & World Report
1050 Thomas Jefferson St., Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202-955-2000
Fax: 202-955-2049

Letters to the Editor letters@usnews.com

News Services / Wires

Associated Press
450 West 33rd St., New York, NY 10001
Phone: 212-621-1500
Fax: 212-621-7523

General Questions and Comments: info@ap.org
Partial Contact Information for the Associated Press by Department and Bureau

Reuters
Three Times Square, New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 646-223-4000
Reuters Editorial Feedback

United Press International
1133 19th Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: 202-898-8000
FAX: 202-898-8048
Comments and Tips: tips@upi.com

Friday, June 6, 2008

McCain: A Chip off of the Bush Republican Block

John McCain likes to tout his independence from the nutwings that make up the Republican Party base. However, neither his voting record nor his recent statements indicate that he will be anything other than a third term Bush administration. McCain has virtually always voted in lock-step with his Republican colleagues. As well, his advisors are almost all industry hacks and lobbyists. The one issue that could have put McCain in good stead with Hispanic voters was his support of a comprehensive immigration reform bill that he co-sponsored with Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy. He has now repudiated that position and is in lock-step with the Bush administration’s radical immigration enforcement tactics.



The conventional wisdom put forth by the mainstream media is that McCain is a “maverick” amongst Republicans. But McCain’s right wing position was recently highlighted in a report by the media watchdog, Media Matters. The Media Matters report notes that the media continues to push this maverick narrative against all facts to the contrary. Of special significance is his repudiation of comprehensive immigration reform.

In a March 31 article, the Los Angeles Times claimed that Sen. John McCain's "biography tour" may "soften conservative discomfort with the maverick senator, who has strayed from Republican orthodoxy on immigration and campaign reform." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, McCain has abandoned his previous support for comprehensive immigration legislation to more closely align himself with the base of the Republican Party. McCain asserted on January 30 that he "would not" support his original comprehensive immigration proposal if it came to a vote on the Senate floor, now saying that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective.

Media Matters also notes another L.A. Times article which hues to the maverick narrative.

In a June 5 Los Angeles Times article, staff writer Michael Finnegan wrote that in the Southwest, where there is an "influx of Latinos," Sen. John McCain "hopes that his support for legalizing many undocumented immigrants, and the political price he paid for it within his party, will keep him competitive with Latinos." Yet Finnegan did not note that during the race for the Republican nomination, McCain reversed himself on the issue of border security, saying that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective. Indeed, McCain said in January that he "would not" support the comprehensive immigration reform legislation he once sponsored with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA).

Latinos never had much reason to support the Senator from Arizona. Arizona has put in place some of the harshest anti-immigrant measures in the country. Neo-Nazi Sheriff, Joe Arpaio has used these measures to harass Latinos. McCain has not uttered a peep of protest against these highly punitive and discriminatory measures. Whatever hopes the Republicans had of splitting the Latino vote in key swing states are quickly dissipating.

Links:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200804010006?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806040010?f=h_latest

http://mediamatters.org/items/200805220003?f=s_search



If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can

get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.

Friday, May 9, 2008

Heads Up! Immigration is Unexpectedly Percolating in Congress

Greg Heineman, president of the National Council of Social Security predicted that making E-Verify mandatory for all U.S. employees would result in an "onslaught" of more than 10 million more visits to SSA field offices.

With the Republicans pushing for enforcement-related immigration legislation to the House floor, immigration has re-surfaced as a hot issue in the current Congressional session. On Tuesday, May 6th, the House of Representatives held hearings on immigration. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The hearings that began Tuesday reflect a careful attempt by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., to maintain some semblance of control and keep the peace with two crucial constituencies — “Blue Dog” Democrats interested in get-tough immigration legislation and Hispanic Caucus members who want no immigration enforcement legislation to move unless it also advances a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already living and working in the United States. But it was apparent from testimony and remarks by various members that her goal would be difficult to achieve." North Carolina DINO ("Democrat in Name Only"), Heath Schuler has paired up with Tom Tancredo to push the SAVE legislation which would require all employers to verify every new employee's documentation via the Social Security Administration's E-Verify system. Currently, less than 1% of employers use the system although various states have made it mandatory. The legislation is opposed by employers and civil rights groups because of its burdensome and anti-civil liberties provisions. An article, in the, May 7th business section of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, succinctly sets out the flaws in the legislation's provisions.

Forcing companies to use a government system to verify the legal status of workers would cause thousands of citizens and legal residents to be initially rejected for work and cripple the Social Security Administration, critics told Congress on Tuesday. The system, known as E-Verify, is currently voluntary, but several proposals in Congress — including an immigration enforcement measure known as the SAVE Act — would make it mandatory.

John Trasvina, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said that the E-Verify system relies on faulty Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security databases and would therefore create an official "no-work" list requiring millions of U.S. citizens and legal workers to bear the burden of proving their legal status. Forcing a deeply flawed system upon an unstable economy is not the answer," he told a Ways and Means subcommittee.

Greg Heineman, president of the National Council of Social Security Management Associations Inc., which represents 3,400 SSA managers and supervisors, predicted that making E-Verify mandatory for all U.S. employees would result in an "onslaught" of more than 10 million more visits to SSA field offices.

Rep. Joe Baca, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and other proponents of a comprehensive immigration bill have lambasted the Democratic leadership over their failure to act more aggressively on immigration reform. Baca proposed an alternative to SAVE called, Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act, also known as STRIVE. The STRIVE bill calls for increased enforcement of laws against employing illegal immigrants, but would also create a guest-worker program to allow millions of undocumented immigrants to stay and work in the United States and eventually become citizens. With the national election looming, and the Latino vote coalescing as an important part of the Democratic strategy to retake the executive branch and augment their numbers in Congress, it appears that the Democratic leadership is listening as witnessed by Tuesday's impromptu hearing. Although the chances of passing any kind of comprehensive immigration reform remain slim it appears that the winds may have shifted in favor of some form of legislation that provides a path to citizenship to the the estimated 12 million undocumented workers in the United States. The danger is that a combination of DINOs and Repubs could advance anti-immigrant legislation in its stead. Stay tuned as things will continue to get interesting as the focus shifts to the general election with the Democrats trying to exact the loyalties of Latinos and blue collar voters. Expect piece-meal legislation intended to mollify both sides of the immigration debate.

We have previously published the list of DINOs who signed on to the Tancredo-Schuler bill. I am again reposting the information.

Help Defeat Save and Promote Comprehensive Immigration Reform

MigraMatters has an excellent comprehensive view of the Act, as well as legislative updates. (http://migramatters.blogspot.com/2008/03/best-have-your-papers-in-order-new.html). It is imperative that the progressive community mobilize against this odious and underhanded breach of civil liberties. To get updates and information, check out the following websites:

· Church World Service http://www.congress.org/churchworld/issues/alert/?alertid=10899656

· The Catholic Campaign for Immigration Reform http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/action.html

· National Immigrant Justice Center http://www.immigrantjustice.org/blog/uspolicyblog/save-act-update---more-calls-are-needed.html

· GENERATION 1.5 http://generationonepointfive.blogspot.com/2008/03/hr-4408-must-be-stopped-call-to-action.html

· Dream Act – Texas http://dreamacttexas.blogspot.com/2008/03/urgent-please-help-stop-hr-4088.html

· Find out if your representative has signed the Bill http://clerk.house.gov/110/lrc/pd/petitions/Dis5.htm

Here are some numbers to call and help defeat this rapacious legislation:

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND SAY:

PLEASE DECLINE TO SIGN THE PETITION TO DISCHARGE

H.R. 4088 THE SHULER-TANCREDO BILL

(ALSO KNOWN AS THE "SAVE" ACT)

AND, IF YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IS A CO-SPONSOR OF H.R. 4088

PLEASE WITHDRAW YOUR NAME AS A CO-SPONSOR OF

H.R. 4088, THE SHULER-TANCREDO BILL

See if your Rep. is a Sponsor Here:

http://clerk.house.gov/110/lrc/pd/petitions/Dis5.htm

Your Representatives' phone number is online here:

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/mcapdir.html

OR

CALL THE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD AT:

202-225-3121

Blue Dog Dems


(Ala.) - Rep. Cramer
(Ala.) - Rep. Davis
(Ark.) - Rep. Berry
(Ark.) - Rep. Ross
(Calif.) - Rep. McNerny
(Colo.) - Rep. Perlmutter
(Colo.) - Rep. Udall
(Fla.) - Rep. Boyd
(Fla.) - Rep. Klein
(Ga.) - Rep. Barrow
(Ga.) - Rep. Bishop
(Ga.) - Rep. Marshall
(Ill.) - Rep. Bean
(Ind.) - Rep. Donnelly
(Ind.) - Rep. Ellsworth
(Ind.) - Rep. Hill
(Ind.) - Rep. Visclosky
(Iowa) - Rep. Boswell
(Kan.) - Rep. Boyda
(La.) - Rep. Melancon
(Mich.) - Rep. Stupak
(Miss.) - Rep. Taylor
(N.H.) - Rep. Hodes
(N.Y.) - Rep. Arcuri
(N.Y.) - Rep. Gillibrand
(N.Y.) - Rep. Higgins
(N.C.) - Rep. McIntyre
(N.C.) - Rep. Shuler *
(Ohio) - Rep. Ryan
(Ohio) - Rep. Space
(Okla.) - Rep. Boren
(Pa.) - Rep. Altmire
(Pa.) - Rep. Carney
(Pa.) - Rep. Holden
(Pa.) - Rep. Kanjorski
(Pa.) - Rep. Murphy
(Pa.) - Rep. Murtha
(Pa.) - Rep. Sestak
(Tenn.) - Rep. Cohen
(Tenn.) - Rep. Cooper
(Tenn.) - Rep. Davis
(Tenn.) - Rep. Gordon
(Tenn.) - Rep. Tanner
(Texas) - Rep. Lampson
(Texas) - Rep. Rodriguez
(Utah) - Rep. Matheson
(Va.) - Rep. Boucher

(Wash.) - Rep. Baird
(Wis.) - Rep. Kagen



If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can
get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Who Has the Best Chance at Enacting Comprehensive Immigration Reform


Before I launch my analysis, let me note that I am a life-long Democrat and I have never voted for a Republican candidate in my life. As well, you should know that I strongly support Barack Obama whom, I believe, will be our next president. That said, purely from a tactical point of view which candidate can change the dynamics of immigration enough to bring about comprehensive immigration reform?

The last comprehensive legislation on immigration, IRCA 1986, became law under a divided government (Democratic House and Republican Senate) and was signed by President Ronald Reagan. The rancor over the 1986 legislation was just as heated and bitter as is the current political climate. What made the difference in 1986 was the fact that Ronald Reagan enjoyed immense popular support and could count on the Congressional Republicans to fall in line. As well, a bipartisan agreement was possible due to the fact that many Democrats favored immigration reform. Finally, neither Democrats nor Republicans had to fear that the issue would be used against them given the bipartisan support on the issue.


No action will take place on the issue of comprehensive immigration reform before the national election in November 2008. Eristic ragemail has propounded that immigration is not the third rail of politics, as some pundits claim. However, the Republicans continue to view immigration as a wedge issue that they can parlay in a year where few issues favor Republicans. As such, the issue remains hot and, at least in the Congressional races, Democrats will tip-toe on immigration. Not so in the presidential elections.

Clinton has stated that if she were elected President, she would consider within her first 100 days, granting an open path to naturalization for all illegal immigrants

All three putative presidential candidates, Obama, McCain and Clinton, are clearly on record as supporting comprehensive immigration reform. Clinton’s position, is perhaps the strongest of the three candidates. According to her website:

Hillary has consistently called for comprehensive immigration reform that respects our immigrant heritage and honors the rule of law. She believes comprehensive reform must have as essential ingredients a strengthening of our borders, greater cross-cooperation with our neighbors, strict but fair enforcement of our laws, federal assistance to our state and local governments, strict penalties for those who exploit undocumented workers, and a path to earned legal status for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar.

Clinton has stated that if she were elected President, she would consider within her first 100 days, granting an open path to naturalization for all illegal immigrants based on legal limits. Previously, on October 30, 2007, Clinton had committed her support to New York Governor Eliot Spitzer´s plan to give driver´s licenses to illegal immigrants. Also on March 8, 2006, Clinton criticized H.R. 4437, a bill passed by the House of Representatives in December 2005 that would impose harsher penalties for undocumented workers. Clinton will likely not get the Democratic nomination but she owes quite a bit to the Latino vote that gave her wins in big states.

Obama has also constantly voiced the view that there is no way that 12 million illegal immigrants can be sent back

Barack Obama’s position on comprehensive immigration reform is not as strong as Clinton’s and treads a fair deal of enforcement rhetoric. It should be noted that of the three candidates, Barack Obama actually marched in the national pro-immigrant marches of 2006. Obama supported the Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would allow increased funding and improve border security technology, improve enforcement of existing laws, and provide a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Barack voted to authorize construction of the 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. However, Obama has also clearly stated he will not support any bill that does not provide an earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population. He favors a guest worker program. Obama has also constantly voiced the view that there is no way that 12 million illegal immigrants can be sent back, especially the children of illegal immigrants, due to no fault of their own, and one of his top priorities would be to make sure that they be allowed to continue with college education in the U.S. Obama emphatically stated "It´s not going to happen. We´re not going to go round them up … We should give them a pathway to citizenship." In January 2008, Barack Obama also campaigned to grant drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.





During the debate on Bush’s immigration legislation, Obama was less than forceful in his pro-immigrant position.

But I fully appreciate that we cannot create a new guestworker program without making it as close to impossible as we can for illegal workers to find employment. We do not need new guestworkers plus future undocumented immigrants. We need guestworkers instead of undocumented immigrants.

Toward that end, American employers need to take responsibility. Too often illegal immigrants are lured here with a promise of a job, only to receive unconscionably low wages. In the interest of cheap labor, unscrupulous employers look the other way when employees provide fraudulent U.S. citizenship documents. Some actually call and place orders for undocumented workers because they don't want to pay minimum wages to American workers in surrounding communities. These acts hurt both American workers and immigrants whose sole aim is to work hard and get ahead. That is why we need a simple, foolproof, and mandatory mechanism for all employers to check the legal status of new hires. Such a mechanism is in the Judiciary Committee bill.

And before any guestworker is hired, the job must be made available to Americans at a decent wage with benefits. Employers then need to show that there are no Americans to take these jobs. I am not willing to take it on faith that there are jobs that Americans will not take. There has to be a showing. If this guestworker program is to succeed, it must be properly calibrated to make certain that these are jobs that cannot be filled by Americans, or that the guestworkers provide particular skills we can't find in this country.

I know that dealing with the undocumented population is difficult, for practical and political reasons. But we simply cannot claim to have dealt with the problems of illegal immigration if we ignore the illegal resident population or pretend they will leave voluntarily. Some of the proposed ideas in Congress provide a temporary legal status and call for deportation, but fail to answer how the government would deport 11 million people. I don't know how it would be done. I don't know how we would line up all the buses and trains and airplanes and send 11 million people back to their countries of origin. I don't know why it is that we expect they would voluntarily leave after having taken the risk of coming to this country without proper documentation.

Critics, might say that Obama was trying to have it both ways, voicing support for comprehensive immigration reform while sounding tough on enforcement. Where Obama actually stands on CIR remains to be determined. Given the litany of problems to be faced by the next president, it may well be that immigration reform will take a low priority in an Obama administration.

McCain actively campaigned for Jim Oberweis of Illinois, who is rabidly anti-immigrant and whose positions can accurately be described as radically nativist

Finally, there is John McCain. McCain has been dancing around all sides of this issue. On the one hand, he co-sponsored the Bush legislation, indicating a long-held support for comprehensive immigration reform. On the other, McCain has made statements which play well with the nativist crowd. McCain actively campaigned for Jim Oberweis of Illinois, who is rabidly anti-immigrant and whose positions can accurately be described as radically nativist. After Oberweis lost, McCain seemed to backpedal and suggested that the Republican anti-immigrant rhetoric may not have much traction. Given his history and coming from a border state a more nuanced view on immigration is probably hard-wired in McCain. In other words, given the right opportunity, McCain would instinctually favor immigration reform that includes a path for citizenship for the undocumented workers residing in the United States. The problem is that his party will not countenance such a position.



Would things change if McCain won the presidency? Unlikely. First, it is almost certain that he would have to deal with a Democratic Congress. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives look to have substantial gains in Democratic seats. Given his strong support for the war in Iraq, he would be substantially weaker than Obama or Clinton. As well, he faces a weak economy, the prospect of stagflation and raft of other problems inherited from the Bush administration. Given these dynamics would he stick his neck out on immigration when he has to hold his ground on a raft of unpopular issues? The Democratic Congress is unlikely to push the immigration issue into the foreground. On the other hand, this may be one of the issues that he can till common ground with the Congress. Will, he as Clinton promised, make this a priority in his first hundred days in office? Not a chance.

Conversely, Obama and Clinton would enjoy a Congress controlled by their party. This should give them some room to maneuver on this issue. How might this play out? Well, the largest prizes in the electoral college map are states that have significant Hispanic populations. Will Obama, who is almost certainly the Democratic nominee, feel some obligation to the Latino voters? Certainly, having gotten Bill Richardson’s endorsement, long before other superdelegates pledged, must be worth something. Much will depend on how the Hispanic leadership presses the issue. The Hispanic leadership does not wield the same political power as the Black Caucus. Given the foregoing, our best chance at comprehensive immigration reform remains with Barack Obama and the people he chooses to people his administration. Can he change the nativist dynamics that currently infect the debate? Yes. Will he do so? Maybe.


If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can
get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.

Friday, February 8, 2008

A Window into a Community

Both of my parents are from Mexico and they are both evangelical Christians. My father was an early convert to Protestantism having been raised by an Evangelical pastor in Mexico. As a young man he immigrated to this country and worked at a factory in Nebraska. He absorbed the blue-collar pro-union politics of his co-workers. He remains a blue-collar Democrat to this day voting Democrat no matter how powerful and unremitting the exhortations of his evangelical pastor on behalf of Republicans.

My mother has contributed mightily to the coffers of Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Falwell. While living at home, I read the right-wing missives of these heralds of god. My mother is a hard-core, right-wing evangelical voter. She will vote the party ticket as laid down by Pat Robertson and his ilk. Given the extreme polarity between my father’s views and those of my mother, they rarely talk politics. The intolerance is entirely on the part of my mother who refuses to countenance political debate of any kind – especially with the left-wing views to which my father subscribes.

The only time a political discussion opens up in our family is when I visit my parents. My father and I naturally grouse about the lousy political state of things. We carry this on until my mother joins us and I egg him on to needle her. She shushes my father up and unless I change the direction of the discussion she leaves us alone in the kitchen to drink our coffee and share our views.

My dad reads the local English-language newspaper and watches the local and national news on the English language stations. My mother does not read newspapers but she might watch some of the local news. They both watch Spanish-language television which is ubiquitous in the border area where they reside. Few of their political views are influenced by Spanish language television especially given its constant glitter shows and sensationalistic news coverage. The only other source of political news for either of my parents is the evangelical church that they attend and the numerous flyers sent to them by evangelical organizations such as The 700 Club.

Norquist says. "Oddly enough, people resent the idea that you might throw their mother out of the country."

My sister retired from the U.S. Air Force and currently works for Lockheed-Martin. Her political views might be described best as moderately left-of-center. Her religious views are more in line with those of my parents. Her children speak three languages.

My political views are considerably more nuanced than those of my parents or of my sister. Spanish is my first language and I attended the first few years of grade school in Mexico. Eventually, I made my way to an elite Eastern school and today my views are influenced by the New York Times, Harpers, and The New Yorker as well as by a number of political blogs and other websites.

We have extended family in Mexico. My uncles visit the U.S. at least once a year. We have big barbeques and check out all the second-hand stores for goods that are prohibitively expensive in Mexico.

I have family members who are in this country working without legal documents. They pay taxes, shop at American stores and abide by the laws of this country. Were it not for their undocumented status they would be considered model citizens. Should they be stopped or apprehended by agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (ICE) they would be summarily deported.

It should be pretty clear that as an informed citizen and given my experiences, I would not be particularly enthusiastic about the Republican Party’s nativist anti-immigrant policies. Republican strategist Grover Norquist, a top ally of Karl Rove, believes that the "vicious" rhetoric by GOP candidates could prompt Hispanics to flee "in droves" to the Democrats. "Talking about a strong border is one thing," Norquist says. "It's when you get into enforcing the law — which means deport — that you lose people's votes. Oddly enough, people resent the idea that you might throw their mother out of the country." I could not have put it better myself.

So what does this have to do with the price of tortillas? Namely, that the Republican apparatchiks have been using the anti-immigrant issue as their wedge issue of choice – kind of like the gay marriage issue of 2008. Unfortunately, it is not yielding returns for them. Any redneck who hates Mexicans is not going to put a Hillary or Obama bumper sticker on his pickup and if he votes he will likely vote R despite the nativist rhetoric. There are, however, like the Iraq war, unintended consequences. The nativist rancor has given the racist right cover to push their agenda of hate. As well, the Latino community has more reasons to say adieu to the Republican Party.

The last point is not without consequence. In the last two presidential elections, George Bush was able to make real inroads into the Hispanic vote. In one election he got fully 40% of the Latino vote. No Republican would dream of getting 40% of the African-American vote. At one point, the Latino community was actually in play between the Dems and the Reps. Not so today. If my experience is illustrative of any dynamic, it is that while we – the Latino community -- are not focused on one issue we are quite aware who is behind the current climate of hate. And we are not going to forget. Nor will my evangelical mother.


If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to my RSS feeds. Or you can
get my posts delivered to your inbox directly, by subscribing to my feeds by email.