McCain and the Failure of Anti-Immigrant Politics
Immigration was the issue that many on the Right-- especially panderers like Romney -- thought would define the 2008 elections. And it was the issue that was supposed to help doom McCain among GOP voters. Instead, it was the issue that in the end probably killed Romney's last hope of getting the nomination. And the GOP will likely nominate one of the key authors of the supposedly hated comprehensive immigration reform legislation.
There is some justice that it was GOP Hispanics who delivered the death blow to Romney. McCain led Romney is a number of demographic groups, but it was Hispanics -- more than veterans or elderly voters -- who gave McCain a disproportionate number of their votes. McCain received 54% of Hispanic voters to the 14% of Hispanics who supported Romney. With Hispanics making up 12% of the GOP primary voters and that difference, doing the math, adds up almost exactly to the overall 5% McCain margin of victory in Florida.
People will say that Florida is unique in the preponderance of Hispanics in GOP primaries because of the Cuban vote, but that's a reality of ethnic politcs historically. There are always "unqiue" states that if you politically shit on some group, they make you pay. And unless the GOP commits complete collective political suicide -- which the McCain victory indicates is not to the taste of the actual GOP voters -- the share of Hispanic Republican voters will only increase as the overall Hiispanic population expands.
And in general elections, that vote by Latinos is only expanding more, which means that any anti-immigrant politics is doomed. As we've bighlighted at Progressive States Network:
Citizenship applications doubled in 2007 in areas where [the citizenship] campaign was launched and have increased 65% across the country (and over 110% in Los Angeles!). Latinos made up only 6% of the electorate back in 2004, but with massive voter registration and citizenship drives, the rightwing seems to have awakened a sleeping giant that will soon have political clout more in line with its 14.3% of the population.
The centrist New Democratic Network (NDN) has highlighted data that the Hispanic electorate is projected to expand from 7.5 million voters in 2000 to 14 million in 2008. NDN argues that "The Republican handling of immigration has been one of the biggest strategic mistakes by a modern Party in recent American history." But they are not alone in that assessment. America's Majority, a conservative strategy center, has highlighted the political losses by politicians taking hard-line anti-immigrant stances in 2006, arguing "Any policy that induces mass fear in illegal aliens will induce mass anger in legal aliens." They argue that rightwing politics could cost the GOP 3.5 to 4.7 million Latino votes in 2008.
I was in California during the early 1990s when the anti-immigrant Prop 187 was passed. Politicians then thought it was smart politics, but the GOP leadership that led that fight was wiped off the map in following years and now has ZERO political relevance in daily life in that state. It was political suicide and any Republican or Democratic politicians who think such anti-immigrant politics will help them get elected will probably be wrong this election year, but even for the handful of folks who get some short-term political gain, they will have no long-term political future.
Conversely, those politicians who stand up for humane policies and comprehensive solutions to the immigration issue will be the ones leading the country in coming years. Those who duck or take cowardly stands now should expect to run into the long memories of the expanding numbers of voters from immigrant communities who will punish them in the future, just as Romney was punished in Florida yesterday.
Florida is merely a promise of the future political reality across the country.
Comments (15)
Hispanics are the fastest growing voting block in the USA and considered fundamental for a Democratic victory. This shows that Hispanic friendly McCain would be almost impossible for Obama to beat, as Hispanics have a notorious aversion to African-Americans.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 30, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes-- that's why much of the Congressional Black Caucus represent heavily latino districts. See this Time Magazine piece:
Latino voters, like many voters, no doubt are biased towards the familiar, which currently helps Clinton, but there is nothing in current political reality that says that Latino voters won't support a black candidate.
January 30, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a dumb thing to say. To assert that Caribbean latinos have an aversion to blacks is down right foolish. Hillary outpolled Obama because she is known and respected in that community, Obama is still a new face. Polling of attitudes among Mexican immigrants show that there is less antiblack prejudice among the younger and among those that have been in this country the longest.
January 30, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The google has not been my friend today, but I am sure I read once that because a high proportion of Latinos are staunch Catholics, as a voting demographic they are pro-GOP on social questions.
Do you know if this correct, and if it could hinder the Dems from cornering the Latino vote?
January 30, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The latest Pew Hispanic Center reports indicate that a plurality of Latino's are trending back to the Democratic party by a greater margin than in the last 9 years. Since the social issues have not changed much in that time, I would be inclined to say Roman Catholicism is not a significant factor overall.
The below study looks at the factors for this increase.
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=83
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
January 30, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: but I am sure I read once that because a high proportion of Latinos are staunch Catholics, as a voting demographic they are pro-GOP on social questions.
And many Blacks are socially conservative Evangelicals, but it has not motivated many of them to vote GOP. Social issues are luxury issues: they are issues the white middle class can afford to let dominate. Blacks and most Hispanics have more serious things to worry about in the voting booth than who is sleeping with whom. As always, it's the economy.
January 30, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: they love their welfare checks and affirmative action more than they love their social values.
And blacks are not really social conservatives, judging by their illegitimacy rate. Nor are Hispanics, judging by the and gay marriage of Mexico.
Someone is lying to you.
"You say I'm a dreamer. We're two of a kind. Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"
January 30, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. I stand corrected. So sorry. I really should know better, as I speak Spanish fluently and I went to school with many Cubans (I even roomed with Fidel Castro's brother in law one summer).
Instead of saying, "'Hispanics' have a notorious aversion to African-Americans." It would have been more correct to have said, "Mexican-Americans" have a notorious aversion to African-Americans. That, I am sorry to say, seems to be true. In California we'll find out for sure.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 30, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Spanish people of Spain have been drifting away from the Church en masse for years, but the Latin American immigrants in Spain are usually quite devout. Most of the nuns one sees in the Madrid streets nowadays seem to be cholitas (Native-American).
Here I have noticed that those who are Native-American (Ecuador, Peru, etc.) never hang out with the Dominicans etc. nor do you ever see them dating each other. White Spaniards date both
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 30, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a couple generations removed from actually going to Mass, but my sense of things is that Catholicism crosscuts the conservative-liberal divide. My Irish Catholic factory-worker grandparents probably drew inspiration at the ballot box more from Dorothy Day than Father Coughlin.
January 30, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was careful to state that it was not "a significant factor overall" which is to say not statistically relevant. I believe there is a religious-to-GOP corollary (my formerly sainted Irish mother registered Republican eight years ago over the abortion issue, breaking an 80-year Democratic tradition). That said, there does not seem to be a significant statistical impact in the Hispanic population between the social issues and GOP registration; and the trend is with the Democrats. The Pew Hispanic Center's survey was careful to include multiple geographies and countries of origin, which is why in their summary they state that a "plurality" of hispanic voters are represented in the trend.
I've seen all sorts of cholitas nuns on my recent visit to Rome, so I agree there is something to Religious penetration in developing countries, especially Central and South America. That said, The Pew survey suggests this Hispanic religiosity is not translating to the ballot box in a statistically significant manner.
One other note, and I've been searching my hard drive for it, but I read a study that explores the corollation between poverty/class and clergy. Essentially the members of the clergy per capita is a good deal higher in poorer developing countries than in rich economically developed countries (today, not 100 years ago). The study that is evading me looked at Ireland in the last 25 years and measured the changes in seminary and convent enrollment as Ireland went from the poorest per capita country in Western Europe to the richest. The stand out area was nuns/convents; which had an even greater decline than the seminaries (which is saying something). The thinking is that economic development affords more opportunity to women; which implies convents benefit most when women have fewer economic opportunities.
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
January 30, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not Hispanic. I AM a legal immigrant. I feel no antipathy against illegal immigrants - instead it is a sense of "There, but for the grace of God, go I". I will never ever consider voting for anyone who is against dealing with human beings "humanely". The vast majority of Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants - it is hypocritical to be anti-immigrant. Today's immigrants come here for the same reason Western European immigrants flocked here and those from the ex Soviet Union in more recent years. There absolutely needs to be a path to citizenship. There also needs to be a guest worker program. In addition we need to look at improving living conditions in Mexico so we can reach the ideal state of having the Canadian border be exactly like the Mexican border. Plenty of Canadians live in the US and vice versa but there is no huge pressure in either direction. Unfortunately, I believe racism is at the root of the "immigration problem" - the problem would disappear if the immigrants were white. Without question, the immigrants, legal and illegal, add immeasurably to our economy overall.
January 30, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan, what do you mean by "anti-immigrant politics"? Anti-immigrant is different from anti-unregulated-immigration. The "anti-immigrant" characterization seems spun to shame people right past thinking for themselves about different views on how to resolve illegal immigration.(the old "you're with us or you're against us" approach that leaves no room for facts or shades of gray)
Are you sure it's anti-immigrant for Romney to declare that McCain's plan "is an amnesty plan that would reward people for breaking the law and cost taxpayers millions to provide them benefits"? Could it be he's from the camp that feels amnesty would provide incentive for even more illegal immigration? Maybe Romney said something I didn't hear about. (I happen to think that if Romney could get elected by being anti-immigrant, he might do that, so he's not the best example here). I thought McCain's plan was worth a try, but I don't accuse people who disagree with me of being "anti-immigrant."
I was in California just prior to prop 187, too. Liberals, Conservatives and many Latinos supported this bill--just under 60% of the voters, right? And there was some resentment, but I don't remember an overwhelming "inti-immigrant" spirit as much as a desire to address the drain on schools and public services, lest people kept coming until the whole system collapsed and everybody went down.
Is it anti-immigrant that there are undocumented immigrants who pick crops at a criminally low wage while airplanes spray pesticides on them? There are many who want unregulated immigration so they have workers they can take advantage of in a way legal citizens would not accept?
Many legal immigrants believe that unregulated illegal immigration has made it more difficult for them to make a living wage and get out of poverty. What label applies to them?
Many who own large vineyards, farms and other businesses want taxpaying citizens-- who can't afford their own healthcare--to pay healthcare and other costs of the illegals.
So many pro-illegal-immigration people serve their own interests which sometimes have nothing to do with humane impulses toward either struggling American citizens or good people who come here seeking work.
It's a complex issue that raises valid concerns on all sides. So I just don't quite buy the "anti-immigrant" rhetoric that some throw at anybody who doesn't see things the same way they do.
January 30, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If illegal immigration is curtailed, a head of lettuce will cost 8 bucks in the grocery store and a package of strawberries will cost 15. This is how you make the case to ignorant Republicans who think illegal immigration is a simple issue. For ignorant Democrats who think this is a simple issue, you need only point out that Americans use slave labor to keep groceries affordable.
This is far from a simple issue. Let's get real.
January 30, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree
January 30, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink