Political observers have been warning Republicans for the last several years that the willingness of many of its leaders to indulge in immigrant bashing was a mistake. While Americans have every right to ask that their laws be enforced, the hyping of illegal immigration as a major campaign issue is a decision that may affect the GOP’s ability to appeal to Hispanic voters for years to come. The question is, are there enough Republicans willing to take the flack from the party’s grass roots to work on legislation that is not only fair-minded but might actually give Republicans a fighting chance to win Hispanic support?
The answer from Senator Marco Rubio is yes. Politico reports the rising Republican star is hoping to gather enough GOP votes to enable the Senate to pass some version of the DREAM act which would create a path to citizenship for children of illegals who seek higher education or military service. But though Rubio’s plan makes sense, Senate Democrats are not wrong to point out that this bill has zero chance of being passed by the Republican House this year.
That’s hardly surprising given the way most of the Republican presidential candidates pandered to anti-illegal immigrant sentiment during the primaries. Though accused by conservatives of being a Massachusetts moderate, immigration was one issue on which Mitt Romney was able to get to the right of most of the field. The one outlier on immigration was Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was correct to point out that it was both heartless and impractical to think that 12 million illegals were going to be deported. But his scheme that envisioned the creation of local immigration boards — after the pattern of the draft-era Selective Service boards — was a non-starter.
Romney, who was endorsed this week by Rubio, is opposed to the DREAM act in its current form but has said he would be open to a version that was restricted to those children of undocumented immigrants who wished to join the military. Other Republicans have been willing to go along provided that the act stops short of granting such persons full citizenship.
Given the popularity of a harsh response to illegals within Republican ranks, it’s doubtful that Rubio’s initiative has much chance. Denouncing measures, such as Texas’ decision to grant in-state tuition discounts to such children, as Romney did during the presidential debates, is an easy applause line among conservatives. But, as Rubio points out, penalizing the children of illegals, who broke no laws on their own, doesn’t make much sense or help the country. America needs more productive and educated citizens. Stigmatizing the illegals merely keeps them working in a shadow economy and does no one any good.
As for the GOP, it would do well to follow Rubio’s advice. While Romney won’t lose the 2012 election because of his stance on immigration, in the long run, Republicans need to find a way to reach Hispanic voters. Given the social conservatism of much of that demographic, they ought to be fertile ground for the Republicans. But until the party stops using illegals as a punching bag, Hispanics will remain firmly in the Democrats’ pockets.
Mr. Tobin, what is your evidence that something like the DREAM act is a decisive factor in the minds of Latino voters (not those here illegally, but those who are genuine, U.S. citizens) when it comes to voting D or R ? Are there any studies or reliable polling data that indicates this would make a difference with these voters? I rather doubt it. n nYou must be very careful in your criticisms to distinguish between Pubs who rail against illegal aliens and the idea of immigration and immigrants here legally, although GOP candidates should, almost as an article of faith, be sure that for every negative word they speak about illegal aliens they speak at least two positives ones about *legal* immigrants and legal immigration. The GOP (and I suggest you) have unwittingly ceded the debate to the Dems who conflate the notion of enforcing our borders with anti-immigration sentiments. n nSupporting things like the DREAM act and amnesty for illegals is the kind of pandering that Democrats excel at and should not be imitated by the GOP. Instead, the GOP should be emphasizing policies that reform and streamline legal immigration and emphasize the many benefits of legal immigration. Being the party of job creation, small business opportunities and family values— things that Latino voters care about– will do more in the long run than pandering.
Ummm…..no. n n nBut for *when* you guys finally cave—and you will, that has long been obvious–then might I suggest there might be just a *slight* difference between going into the military and going to Stanford as ways to earn citizenship? One gets shot at, the other all too often applauds the shooter. Some might find this a little annoying to their feelings… n nBut then when caving, why bother with standards anyway? Me, with my desire to uphold things by rules arrived at fairly–*I'm* the problem child. I know that. Sorry. My bust. Carry on to the great and glorious GOP " ethnicity uber alles" future. I'm sure it will be a great one. n nThough it is a ride I won't be taking with you.
". . . are there enough Republicans willing to take the flack from the party's grass roots . . ." n n"Flack" means public relations. You probably meant "flak," which is a German acronym for anti-aircraft artillery.
No, the GOP cannot gain ground with Hispanics by pandering to the Democrat view of Hispanics. And as consp77 says, there is nothing wrong with pointing out to any group, including Hispanics, when the candidate has a chance to address them in some fashion, how the policies of Republicans will help them as well. The Republican theme is opportunity. That should appeal to all Americans (and especially to minorities).
Commentary is desperately in need of political commentators who are sharper than your average ESPN analyst. n nTobin's notion that some form of the DREAM Act is the key to winning more Hispanic support in 2012, and beyond, is so shockingly naive that I suspect he doesn't really believe it and is just putting the anodyne idea out there in the interest of filling space so that he appears to be doing his job. n nThe key to Republicans' long-term political fortunes is not appealing to Hispanic voters, but limiting the number of new Hispanic voters as much as possible. The reason for this is simple: Hispanics have never voted Republican, and they never will vote Republican as long as the GOP is the party of limited government. n nIn general, Hispanics are hard-working, but poor; they are family-oriented, but not marriage-oriented; they are socially conservative, but focused more on economic issues when they vote for a candidate. They have no problem with government providing them with more services because they generally need a lot more government services. In short, they are a great demographic for Democrats. n nThe Democratic Party knows this, and it will be quite eager to back up Tobin in his dream to assist Republicans in adding more programs to appeal to Hispanics and (better yet) illegal Hispanic immigrants. That's a competition that Democrats are rightly convinced they will always win. n nThe only way for Republicans to effectively compete with Democrats for Hispanic votes is to become more like Democrats. Bush did this through compassionate conservatism (i.e., big government conservatism). He did about everything imaginable that a Republican could do for Hispanics during his six years as governor of Texas and his two terms as U.S. President. For example, as president he gave them a minority housing program which de-emphasized down payments on houses as old-fashioned conservatism. That's a pretty good deal in the short-term for poor Hispanics wanting to buy a home. But it wasn't such a great deal for the country in the long-term (nor was it a good deal for those poor Hispanics who bought a house during Bush's tenure). And in the end the most Bush could get out of Hispanics was still only 44% of their vote in 2004. n nTobin also exaggerates the importance of the Hispanic vote. Less than 10% of the voters in 2008 were identified as Hispanic. McCain won 31% of their votes. If he had won 45% — which is a larger share than any Republican presidential candidate has ever gotten of the Hispanic vote since records began to be kept in the 1970s — he still would have lost the national popular vote by seven million votes rather than ten million. n nOn the other hand, if McCain had raised his share of the white vote from 55% to just 60%, he would have tied Obama in the national popular vote. And unlike the hypothetical 45% of the Hispanic vote which no Republican presidential candidate has ever won, at least three GOP presidential candidates have won 60% or more of the white vote over the last four decades. It's very doable. So should GOP candidates concentrate on raising their minority share of the Hispanic vote? Or is their time and energy more likely to pay off if they spent it chasing votes elsewhere? n nI don't expect Tobin to understand this argument. It's arithmetically sound, but it goes against the grain of the conventional wisdom in politics, and Tobin, like most ESPN analysts, fears violating social taboos more than he fears violating the laws of arithmetic.
"indulge in immigrant bashing" — "While Americans have every right to ask that their laws be enforced." n nSee the problem here? This is a common tactic of liberalism. The Tea Party speaks out against Obama. So, they must be racists. They jerk the conversation away from the focal point that doesn't do well for them by yanking it to an extreme that suits their agenda. n nSo, here, asking the government to do something about the large number of people who live in America illegally isn't about illegal immigration – it's immigrant bashing…The point being to fence in opponents by setting the frame in which you can point an angry finger at them and say, "How dare you defend immigrant bashing! You racist!" Personally, I'm not against the idea of some type of amnesty, but I'd need to be convinced. But, I dislike how the topic is always framed. I'm tried of being considered a racist just because I want tough laws and enforcement of them when it comes to illegal immigration. n nIf such a plank in the party platform cause the loss of Hispanic votes – so be it. Given the number of illegals in the country, and the number that come in year after year, and given the negatives that come with illegal immigration, this is a big issue. It is an issue where you shouldn't toss out your principles for the hope of winning votes. n n"to citizenship for children of illegals who seek higher education or military service. But though Rubio’s plan makes sense" Who is going to pay for it? I know from firsthand experience getting through college is hard even with government-backed financial aid. Do you imagine extending that aid to illegals too? If not, since most illegal immigrant families are working class, how big a dent to you expect such an effort would put in the number of illegals? n nThe US government doesn't have infinite resources. If it can't afford to cushion the pursuit of higher education for working class citizen families, how many more of those families are going to lose out due to the lose of revenue by granting illegal immigrants instate tuition assistance and/or opening up federal financial aid to them?
I think a Rubio vp pick will help Romney a lot with Hispanics.
Hispanics are not particularly conservative regarding their lifestyle choices. Illegitimacy rates are now approaching 50%—and this unfortunately guarantees an increase in welfare dependency. Still, the hardline approach against illegal immigration cannot work. We simply are not going to ship millions of these people out of the country. Some sort of awkward compromise must be achieved. This is especially true concerning the children of many illegals—who are American citizens.
"Still, the hardline approach against illegal immigration cannot work. We simply are not going to ship millions of these people out of the country." n nWe don't have to. Take away their jobs and they will self deport. They don't have the resources to stay here without work. n n"Some sort of awkward compromise must be achieved. This is especially true concerning the children of many illegals—who are American citizens." n nWhy does there need to be any compromise? The burden is on them, not us. We've been compromising for the last twenty-five years and what good has it done the nation? We've simply imported more poor citizens who are dependent on the government, and therefore more Democrats. The children and grandchildren of these illegal immigrants are forming a distinct and permanent underclass somewhere between African-Americans and the white middle class. n nCalifornia has gone from a purple state in the 1980s to a deep blue state today almost entirely because of the increase in Hispanics. They've politically teamed up with white liberals and have routed the former Reagan conservatives in the state. And don't believe that old wive's tale that it's because Pete Wilson demonized illegal immigrants in the early nineties. Hispanics in the state didn't vote for Republicans before then, either. And as California goes, so will go the nation. In the 2010 midterm, one of the biggest national election victories for conservatives in years, not a single Republican won a statewide office in California. Not one. n nThere is no reason for compromise. If you compromise, then your conservative beliefs, if you have any, will die. It's that simple.
Give them six months to get out. Then start prosecuting identity theft, seizing facilities from employers who routinely employ them, and round them up. Eisenhower did it. So can we.
The HIspanics I know are interested in Jobs. I do think the status of illegals, particularly, children has to be addressed but even Gov Rick Perry's common sense and very popular legislation was bombarded with criticism.
Why are Jews, from right to left, so obsessed with facilitating immigration? Because Grandma came through Ellis Island? Because you don’t want to live in a country with a white, Christian majority (which has treated Jews better than any country in history)? Because you think (foolishly) that a multicultural country is less likely to be anti-semitic?
I don’t know the reason, but it seems utterly stupid to me.
Mr. Tobin, many people feel that securing our border is a major issue. Like most, I do not believe you can deport every illegal immigrant. I have no problem discussing DREAM Act style alternatives. What I want in return is border control and security. Do that first. Prove it. Border control first. Do you understand this? n nThen I will be happy to accept a plan to naturalize illegals, as was done under Reagan. I refuse to agree to it, however, until I know it will not just result in another wave of illegals and we will be right back where we started. We tried naturalization without security. It did not work. I cannot believe you will not recognize the legitimacy of this concern.
I want to highlight one point I made: The government doesn't have infinite resources. n nThe economic drain on citizens of illegal immigration is not only felt in the job market (which liberals claim is simply about jobs Americans refuse to do anyway). Illegal immigration drains public funds in many ways. Amnesty will greatly increase that drain dramatically. n nLowering the effectiveness of financial aid for college for working and lower middle class citizens is one key area. n nThere are more than sufficient reasons – both principled and practical – to argue against a softline on illegal immigration. There is amply reason to argue for a hardline and pushing the government to enforce the laws of the land – and stop allowing the opposition to frame the issue as one of racist anti-immigrantionists vs the kind hearted, wise ones… n n
Yeah really thats great!