There’s lots of debate about the politics of immigration reform. Here’s what Tom Davis, former head of the NRCC, says:
But Davis, the former NRCC chair, offers some strategic advice. If he were a Democrat, immigration reform “would have been been one of my first orders of business. If you were to pass it…it would bring eight to 10 million new voters” to the Democratic Party, Davis says. “Game, set, match. I’m surprised they’ve waited this long.”
I don’t know where he gets his figure of 8 to 10 million new voters, but it’s certainly true that if Republicans continue to get under 35% of the Latino vote nationally, they will have a lot of trouble winning presidential elections.
joe from Lowell
I think he’s talking about the newly-legalized immigrants themselves becoming Democratic voters. There are 12-14 million total undocumented immigrants – or “Paperwork-deprived America-joiners,” as I like to call them – so 8-10 million at or above voting age sounds right.
DougJ
@joe from Lowell:
Thanks.
Brian J
Take a look at this blog post from polling firm PPP. Specifically, read this part:
That’s a massive leap. I didn’t realize that Goddard, the Democrat, was ahead (although now that I do, I continue to believe the Democrats are suffering mostly because they are the incumbents, not because of any particular rejection of their ideas), but he still is. The margin of his lead decreased, primarily because more Republicans (likely white voters) are now firmly supporting Brewer. As PPP notes, there are more white voters in Arizona, but I still think the Democrats come out ahead here.
In the short term, I suspect it’s easier to move the white vote just a few percentage points in their direction than it will be for the Republicans to move the Hispanic vote in theirs. Also, Hispanics have a clear reason for going to the polls for Democrats, or so I would imagine, all because the Democrats are simply not Republicans. In other words, the Democrats just have to be against the bill, but not too far in the other direction, and they could do just fine.
In the long term, it’ll be extremely hard for the Republicans to reverse this movement if they keep their current actions up. Unless it backfires badly to the point where they lose by 10 points, it’ll send the signal that this nonsense is the way to go. It will therefore be replicated in every state where it might make a difference.
So, in other words, this is great news for conservatives, especially John McCain.
The Grand Panjandrum
With the no on Finance Reg Reform and the draconian Immigration Bill preferred by much of the Right, the only thing remaining for the GOP is the find the Latino version of Michael Steele to seal the deal. They’ll get the Tea Party vote and that is about it. Amazing how quickly these things begin to turn. The GOP only to had to moderate its tone a bit and they were sitting pretty for November, but with the likes of Palin, Beck and Limbaugh being the driving voices of the conservatives (and I use that word lightly) they seem hell bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
If the employment numbers improve and the economy show even moderate improvement the once much ballyhooed bloodbath allegedly about to befall the Democrats may not appear. They will in all likelihood still lose some seats but it will not be as bad as it could have been. But we are still more than six months away from the election so we have the long hot summer of discontent to deal with before any real patterns can be picked up. The wingnuts have only begun the crazy season so we have plenty of time for them to continue to fuck it up.
cleek
i’m sure the former head of the NRCC has Dems’ best interests at heart.
Keith G
I am somewhat of a disbeliever. I have seen too many predictions for Democratic success stated with the certainty of a geometric proof and in the end unravel. Unfortunately, humans are strange creatures. So many factors can overwhelm ethnic ID, that I will believe in an Arizona (or immigration reform) bounce the moment after it impacts a general election and not a second before.
Brian J
@The Grand Panjandrum:
I hope you end up being right.
Short Bus Bully
One could make the analogy that Immigration Reform will do for the Democratic base something along the lines of what the Civil Rights act did, get a whole bunch more voters into the party.
The GOP will oppose this with the same vitriol they opposed Civil Rights, and for the same reasons.
Midnight Marauder
@cleek:
He may not have their best interests at heart, but he sure as fuck knows a sweet deal when he sees one.
Brachiator
I’m not sure that this is true, because the Latino vote is concentrated in a few states, and you just cannot assume that immigration issues mean the same thing to all Latino voters. For example, I don’t know that the issue resonates the same way in New York or Florida as it might in Arizona, California or Texas.
I don’t think that immigration reform could have been passed, but it might have put further strain on the GOP as the libertarian-free market wing fought with the nativist wing.
The 2010 elections may be the first test of whether this issue has caused an acceleration of Latino voters away from the GOP.
Brian J
@Keith G:
I think people confuse winning with winning big. Unless the Hispanic population absolutely explodes and the Republican support virtually craters to the point where black people like them more than Hispanics, I don’t think this means that Democrats will win in 1984-size blowouts. But they don’t need to win that big to capture the White House. They just need to get to 270, and as the Hispanic population grows in more states, it means more ways to get to that number. Instead of fighting in the Midwest only, we can now fight in the Southwest, too.
Maybe the numbers will end up proving me wrong, but take a look at some of the southern states, like Georgia and South Carolina, where Obama lost but still made it sort of close. He was destroyed by McCain amongst white voters in Georgia, but decimated McCain amongst blacks. If there are fewer and fewer white voters but more and more non-whites, and Republicans can’t get anywhere, it doesn’t make it likely they will win, barring some big event, like a terrorist attack.
flukebucket
How about the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986? Was it considered a big win for the Republicans since Reagan was the guy who signed it into law? Or were things so different back then that everybody got a little bit of the credit?
Brian J
@Midnight Marauder:
Exactly. Say what you want about their ideas, but the operatives in each party know how to read demographic information. That’s why the RNC convention in 2004 made Hispanic home ownership, among other things, such a point of focus.
Martin
@joe from Lowell: Yep. But this would have had to have passed right after Obama got into office for the paperwork to be processed in time for people to vote.
Also, a hell of a stimulus plan – for every new citizen, grab the ones without a job and put them in contract employment for ICE to process the next guy in line.
joe from Lowell
Brachiator,
Puerto Ricans in New York or Florida (Puerto Ricans now outnumber Cubans in Florida) might not care as much about immigration issue, but they sure as hell don’t like hillbilly-Americans running around calling people “Macaca.” African-Americans often don’t like immigration very much at all, but the rants about people who aren’t American enough darkening up white America tend to cause a backlash among them, too.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
The politics of a liberal immigration reform, or one that doesn’t include deportation and has a path to citizenship for those illegal aliens already here, is complicated at best for dems, at least right now with unemployment so high.
In the short term we would likely lose many so called Reagan Democrats who tend to be nativist on the “amnesty” canard. But long term, it is a win politically for dems, on top of being the moral and sane thing to do.
During Bush’s attempt at immigration reform, the polling was a solid majority for a path to citizenship, though with some hoops to jump through, and the country club wingers were all for it, and even the GOP evangelical wing. But the xenophobe southern cracker nuts go rage virus on the issue, and right now they rule the wingnut gop roost, so not many wingnuts in congress would want to cross them.
Again, we are being held hostage by the 28 percenter energized nutbugs who are the only block itching for election day to come to vote. Until at least 29 percent of saner Americans develop the same kind of energy in the other direction, the crazies have the attention of law makers. Sad, but true IMHO>
david mizner
No question long term immigration reform — and in particular the racist responses on the right — work to Dems’ advantage.
Short term (for the fall) it’s a complicated, hard-to-predict factor, with the push for reform increasing Latino turnout in Western races but hurting Dem candidates in some white-white swing districts where illegal immigration is a hot-button and where the anti-forces have all the intensity. Oddly–or not oddly, since it’s a look from the Beltway–this TPM piece mentions the upside while ignoring the downside.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/inside-the-new-immigration-push—-an-election-year-boost-for-reid-boxer-bennett.php
Win, Win situation, TPM says. What could go wrong?
JSD
This is exactly the strategy the Dems should be employing. And they shouldn’t wait too long to start it if they’re going to use it this year. There’s no point in waiting. You won’t get the votes to pass it after 2010.
Zifnab
@The Grand Panjandrum:
Nice to hear that referencing Republicans for a change. If we can get a reverse ’02 going, it would be refreshing to see Democrats hold on to both Houses of Congress until a Presidential election year, when Obama can truly bring his weight to bare.
beltane
@flukebucket: Things were different back then. Much, much different.
Brachiator
@joe from Lowell:
Agreed. But I still want to see some hard data that Latinos are fleeing to the Democratic Party and also are energized enough to vote for Democrats. I’m still not getting that vibe.
And I continue to find very troubling the belief that Democrats don’t need ideas, and don’t need to convince voters of the value of their ideas, but only need to sit back and wait for the masses to swarm over to their side.
And so, this will cause the black Democrat vote to swell from 98% to what, 99.99%? Not a huge differential.
By the way, I am also not sure that immigration reform which includes amnesty, which some prefer, would please many voters, even reliably Democratic voters. The issue of amnesty is hurting the Liberal Democrat candidate, Clegg, in the UK elections, which indicates the degree to which it might be problematic here.
beltane
@joe from Lowell: This is just anecdotal evidence, but my husband has a large number of Cuban and South American friends from the years he lived in Miami. Some are Democrats and some are Republican, but judging by their facebook comments, they are all completely enraged by what is happening in Arizona. It is like the Republican have awakened some kind of sleeping giant.
Mark S.
@joe from Lowell:
That’s exactly right. I couldn’t believe how racist talk radio got during the last IR debate, and that was tempered by the fact that it was Bush who proposed it. With Obama, it will be a billion times worse, and the teabaggers will undoubtedly make it even uglier.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@Keith G:
And Democrats even stranger. Remember, we’re the party of Choking Dogs, the party of Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory, and so on.
The thing is, we have an historical scenario for this: the Civil Rights Act. There’s a reason the African American vote is solidly Democratic since the time I was in diapers.
Zifnab
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
It depends on how you pitch the reform. No one is afraid of Mexicans taking a white collar job. So office workers and business people probably aren’t intimidated by the brown wave nearly as much as blue-collar types.
However, federal income – particularly social security income – is a major political issue. If you can link immigration legalization to deficit reduction and social security reform, you could get a lot more traction, particularly among retires.
And bringing people to terms with the fact that immigrants are already hear and have already “tooker jobs!” could take the heat off the labor angle. Legalizing immigrants lets you compete with them fairly, rather than letting them undercut you in wages or hours.
CDT
Testing
freelancer (itouch)
@DougJ:
do a google search on the phrase “Darwinian-Galtonian evolutionary tradition”.
These people are unbelievable.
Gregory
Funny, I presumed right off the bat it was a dog-whistle reference to illegals voting Democrat
ic.Josh
@joe from Lowell:
First of all, I enjoy reading your comments at Think Progress.
Second of all, I am of Mexican descent, and for as long as I can remember my entire family has been liberal-democratic.
My grandpa is so liberal he makes me look conservative. Of course, in Arizona, his dark brown skin would get him in to trouble–so I’m not sure how much his political ideals really matter.
But, yeah. From my perspective, if the Democrats really took immigration reform head-on, they’d earn a lot of respect in the Hispanic community.
Solomon
And so, this will cause the black Democrat vote to swell from 98% to what, 99.99%? Not a huge differential.
It may get them to turn out and vote in an off year election to help stave off electoral disaster.
Rosali
I don’t know why the Dems don’t revive the DREAM Act and push for a vote on it. Clearly, the young people (college students and military enlistees) who are granted citizenship under the law would be likely to register to vote and vote for the party that made it possible.
rob!
Wow, now we know what the other half of Franken and Davis is doing!
Martin
@Brachiator: It’s a very mixed bag. Lots of border cities filled with latinos trend Republican because they’re also opposed to immigration – after all, they didn’t immigrate here, they came with the place when the US bought/annexed it.
Even among Democratic leaning Latinos, the loyalty is complicated. Among the strongest voters for Prop 8 here in OC were Catholic Latinos from traditional Democratic strongholds. And the African American population also didn’t vote as you’d expect from Democrats.
And as you move away from border areas, the relationship gets even stranger. All that said, Arizona makes this a viable case for Democrats. Prior to the AZ law, the Democratic position was pushing against nothing more than efforts to erect giant walls. Now it’s pushing against civil rights issues. That’s a huge change and allows the Dems to present their case for reform against a backdrop that actually means something, and will likely pull together a meaningful base of support. If anything changed the immigration calculus that Lindsay was complaining about, it was GOP efforts in AZ more that specific calculations relative to 2010 or even 2012.
david mizner
You know, the more I think about it, I’m guessing that pushing immigration reform in the absence of a real jobs-creating program in the middle of what’s essentially a depression for the non-wealthy could have some, uh, political drawbacks.
BARRASSO
Man I wish I was a cop in Arizona, I would spend the next month pulling over everyone who had a bumper sticker supporting the bill and accusing them of being Canadian illegals.
Sentient Puddle
@Brachiator: I’d be very careful about making an assumption that Hispanic voters will only swing a few states. For one, this gives me an excuse to link to Nate’s Operation Gringo thought experiment (always fun). But more to the point, he does drop an interesting tidbit: the Hispanic vote was the determining factor in three states: New Mexico (total fucking shock there, I know), North Carolina, and Indiana (here you can go WTF).
Midnight Marauder
@Mark S.:
Good point and something that has to be taken into account when we talk about the environment and atmosphere we’ll be dealing with during any potential Immigration Reform battle. No matter the political drawbacks on the table for the Democratic Party, they will still be squaring off against an opposition whose face will be increasingly unhinged racism and bigotry. When people find themselves on the fence of which side they support in this discussion, I feel confident that most will not want to join up with the ranks of the proudly ignorant.
/O-Bot
KG
@The Grand Panjandrum: The Latino Michael Steele? I think Sullivan had a link to a youtube video of that guy.
As for the effect of the Arizona law and immigration reform, California was a swing state until Pete Wilson ran on Prop 187 to get reelected. Now we’re pretty solidly Democratic. My guess is that, with a little organization, Arizona will move into the Democratic column for a long while. On the federal level, immigration reform didn’t seem to help the Republicans in the 80s; nor did talk of it seem to do much for Bush in the aughts. My guess is that it won’t do much now – mainly because the “Latino” community is too diverse (Puerto Ricans aren’t too interested in immigration, since they are natural born citizens, Cubans have the wet foot/dry foot rule, and you’ve got people that trace their families back to when Los Angeles and San Francisco were part of Mexico and people who came here within a generation).
But then again, immigration reform needs to happen, it’s the right thing to do.
Pococurante
A good idea without timing is a crappy idea. The best time to attack immigration is actually right now, closer to elections and as more good news about the ACA comes out.
Frankly
I’m for immigration reform for the same reason Japan needs it, both countries the working population is aging.
Our population is aging and this will bring in people willing to do the work to make the USA the good country it is.
Give us your tired your poor and your huddled masses from the saying for the Statue of Liberty still has meaning for me. I tracked my family from Ellis Island and I’m glad to be an American, a veteran and proud to be from a family of immigrants. And other people should be allowed the chance to become Americans, without all this BS.
Brian J
@Sentient Puddle:
If Indiana is anything like the rest of the Midwest, Hispanics are probably working in meatpacking plants. And while the overall population is very small in states where you wouldn’t expect to see a lot of Hispanics, like Iowa, it tends to grow a lot quicker than the white population.
MikeJ
@david mizner: The whole point of immigration reform is that these people are already here, and already working. Good reform would level the playing field, doing away with any advantage in hiring illegal labour. It would also increase the pool of people to tax.
Brian J
To nobody in particular, just all those who say the loyalty of the Hispanic vote is complicated and won’t be uniform: that’s absolutely true, but it isn’t exactly a new development. In fact, I think it’s probably evident even as we see some movement towards the Democrats. Even as support went to Obama and the Democrats and away from McCain and the Republicans, erasing what gains were made during the Bush years, it didn’t collapse entirely. They still got, what, 30-35 percent? In other words, it wasn’t as uniform as the black vote towards Obama, and it probably never will be. But it doesn’t happen to be to really, really help the Democrats in a number of states. Nor does it have to swing that far in the opposite direction to help the Republicans, which was probably why Rove and others were determined to make inroads. If they could get just half of the Hispanic vote, they might make it very hard for Democrats to win.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Not surprising. Anyone who has ever been pulled over for DWB knows this law goes way beyond immigration control.
Rosalita
Now here’s a GFY attitude
david mizner
@MikeJ:
I’m all for reform, it’s both moral and smart — I’m just talking politics.
I’ve read several pieces and posts by progressives claiming immigration reform is an unconditional political winner. I doubt these people have spent much time in, say, swing districts in the South and Midwest, where anti-immigrant feeling is palpable. That’s not reason to hold back on reform. It is reason to couple it with a real jobs bill.
JGabriel
Marco Rubio (R-Cuba) on the AZ immigration law:
Arizona responds:
.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Those soybeans won’t pick themselves you know.
I’ve been in some ass-end parts of Hoosierland and there are some large Hispanic populations there, primarily doing farm work. I know there are worse fates but being a non-Caucasian living in the ass-end of Hoosierland must suck pretty hard. (Visiting is no treat, either.)
Herbal Infusion Bagger
“I don’t know that the issue resonates the same way in New York or Florida as it might in Arizona, California or Texas.”
I have the same comment as PG above. Before Pete Wilson leapt on the anti-immigration bandwagon with Prop 187 when he was trailing Jerry Brown’s sister in the polls, California was a toss-up, but more often than not a GOP state.
Since then, with the exception of that douchebag the Governator and some downballot statewide positions nobody cares about, it’s a solidly Democratic state.
Prop 187 really fucked off the Latino vote and most other immigrant groups. Tactical win for the GOP, but a strategic disaster.
Arizona is 30% Latino. I’ve gotta think this is going to make Arizona a toss-up state in 2012.
liberty60(Veteran, Great War of Yankee Aggression)
@flukebucket: The 1986 bill was the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, co-authored by Republican Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who today would be frog-marched out of the party, or at least be on the receiving end of a million burritos mailed to him by RedStaters.
The GOP today reminds me a lot of the Dems of 1972, who had the loudest angriest voices capture the party, and lose middle America in the process. But of course that didn’t stop them from capitalizing on the Watergate fumble, and getting a touchdown in 1976.
Tom Q
To reply to Keith G way up above, cynical that such predictions will ever bear out in an actual election…as far as I can see, they already have: in 2008. Ron Brownstein documented that, had Dukakis got precisely Obama’s share of various ethnic groups’ votes, he’d have still lost, because of the way demographics have shifted. The percentages Dems are currently getting of the Hispanic vote are very conducive to winning national elections. Additionally, raw numbers of Hispanics in the electorate are growing rapidly. Anything that nudges them further Dem-ward — like this AZ law — is electoral ambrosia.
Which isn’t to say the GOP might not do well in this Fall’s balloting, if it’s low turnout. I suspect it’ll be less a windfall for them than they (and the entire DC establishment) are predicting, but they could make some decent gains. The problem is, they have literally no plan beyond that. It’s like throwing all your starting pitchers in Game 1 of the World Series — even if you win it, your prospects of winning the whole shooting match are very slim.
Tom Davis, by the way, is generally seen as one of the last of the moderate Republicans and a very decent fellow. I wouldn’t assume he’s being disingenuous. Lots of those sort of Pubs, once retired, turn out to be honest commentators.
Alan
@joe from Lowell: That figure may be right. But tell it to the RW nuts who believe it’ll jump to 40 million if given amnesty. And a huge majority of them will end up on welfare–just like they did in the 80s. That’s what “they” tell me.
Brachiator
@Martin:
It’s even more complicated than that. There used to be a de facto open border policy, especially in California moving north to work and then returning home after a few years.
Gustavo Arellano, in his Ask A Mexican columns, often emphasizes how irrelevant some Latinos view the border.
And so you find a number of activists emphasizing the degree to which Latinos add to the US economy and glossing over the false assumption of a lot of liberals that Latinos are hot to become US citizens. This just ain’t true (nor are the wingnut Reconquista fear fantasies).
And added to the mix is the despicable situation during the Great Depression when a number (no one is sure exactly how many) of Mexican Americans were deported.
I never expect voters to behave as though they are loyal sheep who must vote the way that anyone expects. And the Prop 8 thing was complicated, and the opposition disorganized. And Nate Silver explodes some of the Prop 8 myths that focus on blacks and Latinos:
In any event, you can’t come to any easy conclusions about immigration reform using other political, economic or social issues.
Jobs and the economy are still the major issues. And sadly, you might have some Democrats who consider illegal immigrants to be threats or competitors for jobs.
And a Democratic Party case for immigration reform that smells like amnesty is an invitation to a huge backlash.
Linda Featheringill
@Josh:
Good to hear from you!!
I suspect that if the Democrats attacked the immigration questions head-on, as you suggested, they could win a lot of respect even if they couldn’t pass the bill they wanted.
Not really any of my business, but I get the idea that you don’t live in Arizona?
demo woman
Wonkette had a post from an Iowan (repub) who wants to microchip illegals.
I
Alan
@demo woman: Ah yes–obviously a disciple of Newt Gingrich. We can trap, tag and track them just like FedEx does packages.
Zifnab
@david mizner:
I just don’t think that’s politically feasible. The political will for a jobs bill isn’t going to exist. Coupling it with the immigration bill will just bring back the cries of Porkulous, maybe with the added xenophobia that Obama is trying to create jobs specifically for illegals.
The immigration bill already has enough momentum. The corporate interests want this bill to pass, because they like having a young, cheap labor force. The Democrats want this bill to pass, because Hispanics are becoming a more potent voting block. The liberals want this bill to pass for civil rights. And Hispanics want the bill to pass for obvious reasons.
Republicans are going to be hard pressed to push this bill off without risking seats in states like Florida and Texas.
Once the Republicans start pumping up “Dey Tooker Jobs!” rhetoric, it will make a future jobs bill harder to stop. But attaching a jobs bill to the immigration bill up front won’t work so well.
Omnes Omnibus
@demo woman: And this is why Georgia is voting to prevent microchipping people. Or not.
beltane
@demo woman: Saw that. It just proves the thesis that Republicans like to accuse Democrats of doing what they themselves are planning to do to others. Microchips, internment camps, and death panels are all part of the Republicans’ long-term plan for the country.
El Cid
Via the Yahoo! NewsBlog:
The notion that BrightBlart has made at least a cool half-mill by promoting fraudulent videos to destroy a housing- and poor- and voters-rights organization — well, I’d say it’s beyond belief if it weren’t so utterly routine.
…
Barry
@KG: “mainly because the “Latino” community is too diverse (Puerto Ricans aren’t too interested in immigration, since they are natural born citizens, Cubans have the wet foot/dry foot rule, and you’ve got people that trace their families back to when Los Angeles and San Francisco were part of Mexico and people who came here within a generation).”
A TNR article back when prop 187 was first passed in California stated that this unified the Latino community quite a bit; they understood the ‘back on the boat, Pablo’ reaction to bad times. That article was prescient for California.
El Cid
@beltane: Thankfully, our state of Georgia just passed a law making it illegal to forcibly implant a microchip in a person, thanks in part to the testimony of a crazy woman who said the Department of Defense installed a vibrating microchip between her vagina and anus and activateable by coworkers’ cellphones using her telephone number listed on billboards.
licensed to kill time
@demo woman:
Good gawd. Maybe she can organize roving teabigot gangs to wrestle down the browns and shoot them up with microchips. Their brown data could be transmitted to huge billboards with maps so we can all keep an eye on where they are. What could go wrong?
david mizner
@Zifnab:
Sorry, I didn’t mean they should actually couple it with an immigration bill. I meant that Obama has Congress need to do more to address what Geithner says will be an “unacceptable” unemployment level for months to come. They’ve already passed a jobs bill, and they’ll pass another of some sort, but nothing they’re prepared to do is remotely sufficient. There’s a lot of denial about this. For people making less than 150 k, there’s a depression going on. I’m bringing it up in this context because the nativism is especially potent in a time of economic crisis.
Mark S.
@demo woman:
Jesus, I thought that was just some random nut they got a quote from. That guy is running for Congress.
Maybe Georgia wasn’t so crazy for banning this practice.
Omnes Omnibus
@El Cid: The thing about microchips is, if you aren’t doing anything wrong why should you care if the government knows where you are? Unless, of course, the government is run by Democrats, or Blacks, or, horror of horrors, Black Democrats.
/wingnut
beltane
@El Cid: I once had a job where I had to deal with people like that woman on a daily basis. Unfortunately for them, they lived in New York where the legislature did not take their, um, concerns seriously.
Rosalita
not unlike the board they had in Men In Black…
Mark S.
B-J mind meld: everyone brought up Georgia.
TooFunnyToBePresident
Actually, I think the administration timed these issues perfectly. HCR, at best a push for Democrats politically, is out of the way months ahead of the election. I’ve long said there are three key steps to a (relatively) strong electoral showing for Democrats in 2010: 1. Engage a serious national debate on CIR. 2. Give Republicans plenty of time to speak. 3. Make sure the cameras are rolling.
I’ll be further convinced that Obama has been playing 11-dimensional chess all along if Congress takes up DADT and/or ENDA during election season as well. Forcing Republicans to pander to their anti-brown and anti-gay bases in the same breath basically reduces their election slogan to, “The GOP: Get off of my lawn!”
The issues that a party chooses to emphasize in the heat of an election say something profound about what it think the nation supports. It’ll be nice to see the party running proudly on its commitment to diversity, rather than try to sneak the good legislation through when no one’s looking.
demo woman
Undocumented workers don’t have rights in the state of GA. The microchip law would protect GA citizens.
kay
I think it’s better than climate change from a purely political perspective. Any real climate change legislation is going to raise energy prices in the midwest, or be incredibly effectively demonized as doing that. I understand this and am personally willing to take the hit, if such a hit materializes, but are the midwestern Senators? Even the liberal ones? Can they do that in Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio? I don’t think they will, particularly with the economy as it is.
Climate change benefits the GOP, and immigration benefits the Democrats, again, as a purely political matter. That’s how I see it. Lindsey Graham had an easy call. Call me crazy, but I think he’s “political”.
Citizen Alan
Not of they have cops stationed at the polls to arrest any darker-hued voters who show up without three original copies of their U.S. birth certificates. I remind you that Arizona was the state where the late Bill Rehnquist (ptui!) worked as a poll watcher and ran around asking to see appropriate ID from all the black voters.
demo woman
Is it five o’clock yet
Birthers prepare to march on Washington
The long-rumored “birth certificate march on Washington” — a project of the original birther attorney, Phil Berg — will happen on Saturday, May 29. Berg is beckoning supporters to the 82-acre President’s Park, right across from the White House.
libarbarian
I’ve been shaking my head reading the reactions of the “limited government” people over at HotAir.
Heh. Indeed.
Josh
@Linda Featheringill:
Short answer:
My great-grandfather got a worker visa to enter the country legally in the 1930s. He volunteered for the army during World War 2, and received a Purple Heart, Silver Star, and his American Citizenship for his service in Italy.
My family moved from Texas to Michigan, moving toward the booming auto industry.
We’ve been in Michigan since then.
liberty60(Veteran, Great War of Yankee Aggression)
@Brachiator:
Your comments match my experience here in So Cal; that the Hispanic/ Latino community has all the natural segmentation and differences the white one does.
The idea that either party can completely encapsulate them is a bit of a stretch, but they know exactly what the Tea Partiers mean when some guy bitches about having to dial 1 for English.
kay
@libarbarian:
I love that. That can be the new standard. “Acts like they don’t want to be approached by the law”.
I have no idea how to act. Friendly and approachable? I picture people grinning like idiots and waving.
Martin
@demo woman: Obama should go to Defense and have them whip up a cool laser system that will etch his birth certificate on the corneas of every protester.
I wonder if BOB is flying out or will carpool? How many hairy armpit girls can you get on a tractor?
El Cid
@demo woman: The law, like many rights in the Constitution, doesn’t say “citizen”, it says “person“.
I can only assume this was a mistake, and a follow-up law will correct the error, along with a requirement that anyone looking foreign or Yankee enough will be required to wear a dog-collar with a Confederate Battle Flag GPS microchip.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@kay:
Absolutely, I agree. He is the Chuck Grassley and Snowe of HCR. A GOP dead fish bounce for Climate Legislation, in hopes of luring soft headed dems with the prospect of “bi-partisanship” into a political trap. Our dimmwitted uninformed citizenry only believes in Global Warming when they experience an unusually hot summer. They don’t have a clue about global climate change science. Luckily dems in the senate wised up this time and pulled the plug on Lindsey’s and goopers rope-a-dope game.
beltane
@libarbarian: Would they feel this way if one of their own were approached by the “jack booted thugs” of the ATF?
Veronica Nesbit
The climate and clean energy bill could potentially reinvigorate an entire sector of the economy with green jobs. It seems to me if we’re going to have a long overdue influx of legalized workers due to immigration reform it would be good to have as many jorbs available and in the pipeline. The climate/energy bill may be the poop that took a pee for all we know, but let’s at least bring it to the floor and make some damn progress. By the time the senate votes on a final bill maybe they’ll also have some actual immigration legislation too! Ya da da mean?
kay
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
The NYtimes referred to Senator Graham as a “maverick” today.
They have a new idol! They’re so fickle. Poor old John McCain didn’t change, he was always a fraud: they changed, Stuck.
It’s like a messy divorce.
licensed to kill time
@libarbarian:
Who among us can say they don’t get a frisson of “oh shit” when they see the flashing lights in the rearview mirror? I always keep my hands on the steering wheel and move very slowly. And I say yes sir, Mr. Officer sir, like a good little citizen. I’ve seen too many cop shows to do otherwise, regardless of any illegality. Sheesh.
flukebucket
@demo woman:
Your link is busted but a true birther march will be one hell of a thing to see. 10 times more entertaining than a Tea Party.
El Cid
We should start a rumor that Barack Obama is going to somehow require police to check you for guns at the same time.
Midnight Marauder
@El Cid:
I think we should get the Arizona Hispanic Republicans to get the ball moving on that one. Clearly, they have some tremendous rhetorical skills in their group, as they found a way to blame Arizona SB 1070 on President Obama!
I just love this. “Even though we are taking a stance against the people who actually wrote this legislation and signed it into law, we would also like to blame this other extraneously related individual who is actually on our side on this issue in the grand scheme of things. Oh, and this is GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!”
Arizona. Your Peak Wingnut Headquarters.
Brachiator
@El Cid:
And she was complaining about this?
Sounds like an iPhone app, the iVibrator.
Omnes Omnibus
@Midnight Marauder: Party of personal responsibility, my ass.
Tazistan Jen
@KG:
Sure, Latinos can feel two ways about immigration. Hell, I feel two ways about immigration myself. But I bet very few of them feel two ways about the kind of racist overreaction we just saw in Arizona.
I was in California when Pete Wilson did his prop 187 thing. At the time it was seen as a good move by most. It was a good move – at first. But the backlash was severe and long-lasting. Arizona Republicans will live to rue the day they vented their spleen in this manner.
Redshift
@cleek: One thing to keep in mind about Tom Davis — he’s a moderate Republican (the kind they’d call an extreme leftist RINO these days), so it is actually in his interest for the extreme right version of the GOP to blow up sooner rather than later, so he can be one of the ones to pick up the pieces.
I still wouldn’t trust him any further than I could kick him, but it’s possible this is a genuine confluence of interests rather than a poisoned apple.
demo woman
@El Cid: Thanks. I should have taken the time to look at the wording. The GA state house only has a few days left before the session ends so they might have to wait until next year. They are now discussing the right to carry arms in bars. Unlike VA there is no restriction on drinking while carrying arms.
KG
@Barry: @Tazistan Jen: I’m a Californian, born and raised, also half Cuban, so I’m well aware of what happened out here on 187. And I do think that the Arizona law is plainly racist and will have a disparate impact (to use a legal term that will be used when it’s challenged in court) on minorities. My point was more along the idea that “all politics is local.” I’m not sure immigration reform will have the generational impact that the New Deal or Civil Rights did, but laws like in Arizona or Prop 187 here will (and usually not in a way that is good for the proponents).
terry chay
@Brian J:
I’ve been saying in the comments now for a while that this is good political calculus for Arizona in the short term. But the path leads to the end of the Republican Party in Arizona in 8 years.
It may seem like Brian’s quote belies this:
I don’t want to correct this quote from PPP. It is correct. But it bears some explanation. It makes it sound like there are *a lot* of non-hispanic whites. When in reality, they outnumber Hispanics and Latinos only 2 to 1.
By that argument, isn’t a 11 point swing for Whites smaller than a 26 point swing in Hispanics?
No.
The key point is PPP is talking about Hispanic *voters*. Whites traditionally vote more than any other ethnicity at rates of 2 to 1. The PPP (and the Republican calculus) is taking this into account. They are also taking in to account the chilling effect the new law is going to have on Hispanics in Arizona going to the polls to vote in 2010.
Right now, Whites (non-Hispanic) are the clear majority of the population. If you slough off those that are liberal, or have some reason (marriage) to be be against this discriminatory law, you are in a position of fragility if you are going to claim “a majority of Arizonians support this bill.” However, if the question is, “Do a majority of *voting* Arizonians support this bill?” (and are passionate enough about the issue to affect their vote) The answer then goes back to Yes. I’d imagine that this amounts to 5 “real” percentage points toward Brewer. That’s what the PPP poll is answering.
In fact, that is why the governor signed it (she could have found a way to keep the bill from even appearing on her desk). Remember, she was not elected governor, and is in danger of being primaried. Coming out strong on this (and abortion) helps her in the polls.
I bet something similar could be said in California during Prop 187. If you remember, a lot of the Latino vote was stifled back then because the argument was “they earned their citizenship and what we’re doing is just keeping the value for the work they did becoming a citizen legally” or some such (that is how I remember the debate at the time).
But the demographic trends were clear. That year, they lost the governorship (again) and lost the control of the State Assembly. Two years later, California became a majority-minority state state and the Democrats regained control of the State Assembly (and haven’t relinquished it since). Four years later the governorship (and haven’t relinquished it delta the Arnold Schwatzeneggar outlier). Eight years later, the Democrats had a majority lock on the assembly, the senate, and all eight statewide offices (including the governorship). Something not seen since 1882.
By the way. Another parallel between this and Prop 187. Both bills followed on the heals of a recession and a massive swing in Democratic registration. Prop 187 was passed in 1994. The recession was in 1992 (and it hit California the worst). This was passed in 2010, the recession started in 2007 (and it has hit Arizona worse than most because the housing bubble without no pockets of high prices (for instance, in California, property values in Orange County and San Francisco have been high and stayed high)).
joe from Lowell
That is a most excellent FUSAG.
joe from Lowell
terry chay,
Look at 2008. Voting patterns among different demo groups are not set in stone.
Methinks voting rates among Arizona Latinos might be a little bit higher this year than they’ve been in other years.
terry chay
@Brachiator:
Let’s get some facts concerning the Black vote correct.
First of all, Party ID among blacks is not 98% Democratic. It’s more like 85%.
Second of all, Party ID among blacks has not historically been that high. It was caused by two major movements: 1) FDR was the first Democratic president to gain a majority of the black vote. By the end of his term, a majority of blacks were identifying with the Democratic Party, and 2) The Civil Rights Act of 1963 when the ID numbers we see today became entrenched. Johnson (who pretty much passed the act single-handedly) destroyed Goldwater (who was opposed to the Act) among Blacks and nobody came that close to his percentages (94%) until Obama (96%).
Third of all, percentages don’t tell the entire story. Turnout is the other part of the story. And turnout numbers for Obama were phenomenal => a 2 point swing in the overall turnout (and vote).
The Civil Rights Act shows that shooting for Immigration Reform is probably a long term win for the Democratic Party. Unlike the Civil Rights Act, there is no “Southern Strategy” here that will counterbalance the potential swing this represents—Reagan Democrats? Puh-leeze. According to exit polls in 2008, the Reagan Democrats never came back. Look it up: McCain won every category of whites (men, women, age groups, education etc) except the youth category (who hadn’t even been born yet when Reagan Democrats existed). In fact, among working class whites specifically, Obama had exactly the same numbers as Gore did in 2000. In other words, that “white” ship has sailed.
Another thing is while George Bush was a stupid president, you must honestly admit that he ran politically savvy campaigns—after all how could a guy like that win any election let alone “win” two national ones along with an off-year election? Bush actively courted Hispanics and managed to turn in pretty good numbers: 35% in 2000, 44% in 2004. Why do you think he did that? Why do you think he pushed for immigration reform in 2004 and 2007 (only to be steamrollered by his own party)? McCain’s numbers (a known pro-immigrant Republican until very recently): 30% with the same total vote share as Kerry (8% of the national vote, though they are 15.4% of the population—again that 2:1 difference I mentioned earlier).
terry chay
@joe from Lowell: I believe you are correct but with emphasis on “a little.” My guess will be *this year* voting rates among whites will increase (in total numbers, not percentage) higher than Latinos (in the state of Arizona, and probably nationally also).
This is the calculus that is going into the decision by Arizona Republicans to pass this bill.
The problem for the Republicans is that this is a one-timer. It’s like putting Gay Marriage on the ballot. In the long term, starting with 2008 one will see a permanent 2:1 Democratic edge among Hispanics and Latinos (or higher) and a marked increase in percent of total vote (say as high as 12%) by about 2014. That’s a 2 point Democratic swing in the vote nationally—2 points is death when your opponent’s strategy is 50%+1 vote. As for Arizona? Look no further than the California Election of 2002 to see what will happen.
sneezy
@Brachiator:
New York and Florida, with 16.7% and 21.0% Hispanic or Latino population, respectively, are not good examples. You just picked two states in the top eight. (Florida? You can’t have thought about that one very long.)
The US as a whole is about 15.4% Hispanic or Latino. Twenty-three states are at least half that.
Don
I applaud Arizona’s new legislation, requiring police to help with immigration enforcement. This country is overpopulated, and ten million Americans are out of work.