Post-mortems on President Obama’s election victory have harped on his dominant hold on the Hispanic vote. That has, in turn, led to speculation about the Republican Party changing its tune on immigration, an issue which is widely — and probably quite rightly — viewed as a deal breaker for the majority of Hispanic voters when GOP candidates ask for their support. To that end, several prominent Republican leaders, such as House Speaker John Boehner and conservative thinkers like Charles Krauthammer, have suggested a course change for Republicans that would enable them to avoid being characterized as anti-immigrant and, by extension, anti-Hispanic.
While I’m far from sure that at this late date it will be possible for Republicans to make up the ground they’ve lost in the last decade with Hispanics by flipping on the issue, I think those advising a course change are correct. President George W. Bush was right to champion reform legislation on this issue, and his party’s failure to support him was wrong as well as a lost opportunity that may not recur. Most of those who come to this country illegally are merely seeking work, and it is high time that most conservatives stop acting as if illegals are a grave threat to the country. Nevertheless, any expectation that the bulk of party members will change their stance on the issue is probably unrealistic. The reason why most of the GOP presidential candidates pandered to the right on this issue is no mystery. Even though it is political poison for the party’s future, most in the GOP grassroots want no part of any plan to grant amnesty to the approximately 12 million illegals in the country.
There was a reason why, of all issues, the generally moderate Mitt Romney chose immigration as the one on which he would tack hardest to the right. In the one instance where his pose as a “severely conservative” Republican seemed to resonate, Romney attacked Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich for their more liberal stands on the issue. The tactic worked, and even though Romney’s stand shifted a bit to the center as the campaign wore on — by accepting a modified version of the DREAM Act, which would grant a path to citizenship for children brought here illegally but subsequently served in the U.S. military — until November 6, there was little sign that his party was ready to reassess its position.
In part, this reluctance to shift on immigration stems from the fact that a great many Americans believe the starting point to any discussion of the issue ought to be defense of the rule of law. Though some of those who obsess about the issue have blown the dangers that stem from immigration out of proportion and sound like 19th century “Know Nothings,” most Republican primary voters who care about the issue take a less extreme position. They believe the idea that the United States ought not to be able to control its borders is ludicrous. Treating law breaking in the form of illegal immigration as nothing more serious than a traffic ticket is offensive.
That’s why strong majorities of Americans polled on the topic generally support the controversial Arizona law that was both mischaracterized and condemned by President Obama in the second presidential debate. There’s nothing unconstitutional or unreasonable about inquiring about the immigration status of someone who has already been arrested on a different charge.
The plain fact is that the 12 million illegals that are already here are not going to be rounded up and deported. The government has neither the resources nor the will do so, and expectations that this will happen or, as Romney ludicrously put it, they will “self deport,” is detached from reality. Sooner or later the government will have to recognize their status and give them a path to legality, if not citizenship.
But anyone who thinks most Republican voters are prepared to tolerate a shift on the issue in the immediate future is dreaming. While there has always been a faction of leaders and thinkers that supported a strategy based on extending rights to the illegals, the last two elections show that this group is a minority within the GOP.
It should also be acknowledged that such efforts are fated to be largely futile. As Seth wrote, Hispanics are not going to be impressed if they think Republicans are cynically pandering to them. A large portion of the Jewish community continues to think of the GOP the same way their grandparents thought of it: as a vestige of an old country-club elite that harbors anti-Semitic attitudes. This may be an almost deranged and twisted view of reality, since contemporary Republicans tend to be even more sympathetic to Israel and Jewish concerns than Democrats, yet it nevertheless persists. But the bad taste from the harsh rhetoric on immigration from Republicans in recent years will not be washed away any more easily, even though a change of tune from some in the party on the issue won’t hurt. A possible Marco Rubio presidential candidacy in 2016 would also have an effect on the Hispanic vote.
But assuming that it will be easy for Republican leaders to accomplish this without a very strong pushback from their voters is unrealistic. As much as a GOP shift on amnesty would be smart politics and probably good public policy, it’s not likely to happen.
thanks, jonathan, for a realistic view of the issue. If all they search are jobs, how about a guest worker program? or give them a green card, without possibility ot become a citizen. If all they are looking for are jobs, this should satisfy them,don't you think? and we can expose those who are just using the issue as a club. I am not holding my breath.
Very good idea. It is humane to allow children who came here at an early age (I don't know what age that should be) a reasonable path to full citizenship. I was strongly for Rubio for VP, although I admire Ryan. Rubio represented the entire important state of Florida and has Hispanic roots. I do not believe that the Democrats, in this very unDemocratic country (the electoral college is a sick concept we've had for 200 years too long), were any better for Jews than the GOP, except for Lyndon Johnson. The most significant change that the GOP would best make is to get off religious social affairs. Seeking control of personal behavior on basically religious grounds is appalling and 1000% contrary to the idea of less government control over individual behavior. Abortion and such should be the function of religious groups using reason, not legal, persuasion. I realize that religious fanatics, Islamic, Christian, Jewish, etc., can never be persuaded otherwise. Maybe, no maybes are better, a new party is in order. It should have the liberal Democrat social agenda and the Republican fiscal and foreign policy agenda.
As for the 'liberal' social agenda, I am not in agreement on much of it. Homosexual "marriage" is sick. I very strongly want only the traditional 'marriage' allowed. Homosexuals could and should have contractual arrangements for their domestic partnerships, but please leave my designated names alone. That includes the term "gay". I very much liked the movie, 'The GAY Divorcee'. Also, the term African-American is an incorrect descriptive. The anthropological term Negroid is proper. And most 'Negroids' are not even that. White also stinks. Anthropologically it should be Caucasoid. And as far as Hispanics go, that ain't too good either. I am a Sephardi Jew. Am I Hispanic? Beats me. And we have all those FOREIGN languages on our ballots. What happened to American (English to some) being required for citizenship? And why not Pig-Latin on the ballot? Crazy world. Crazy election. Crazy president. etc., etc. etc.
A nation that won’t defend its borders and cares not a whit about who crosses it, why they come, or what they plan to do once they get here, is a nation that won’t be sovereign for long.
Presently, in my world I now forbid any conservative or Republican to drink caffeinated beverages. My friends, you must calm down!! All of a sudden, everyone has become a demographer; a subset of sociology which conservatives love to ridicule. We lost an election by TWO percentage points basically because we couldn't turn past supporters out. We control the House of Representatives by a sound margin. We have THIRTY governors and at least half of state legislatures. We have an outstanding group of young conservative leaders; so good, in fact, that bickering among their supporters is likely to become a problem. Yes, this election was a great disappointment. Yes, there are many areas to identify and to reform within the party structure. But, do any of the following years sound familiar: 1964, 1974, 1992, 2008? If they do, they should bring back nightmares, politically speaking. 2012 does not belong in this series, so let's put down the Demography 101 texts, calmly analyze the results and exit polls, begin a rational conversation among friends, and then get to work.
Your optimism overlooks the fact that Obama can still issue executive orders—and will appoint many federal judges. I am afraid the damage may be irreversible.
David, if you're talking policy that will take effect or the courts, I agree. It's pretty depressing. I was referring to elections. But again, I think you're correct. Much damage has been done, particularly Obamacare and will be done by the Courts. Conservatives will become the caretakers of the welfare state, as they have in Britain.
well, around, you are bringing smiles to my face- you have jettisoned your pessimism and espoused optimism .that, i submit,should be the rule of the day! and, you are quite right, this was no mandate- the house- OUR house- in republican hands and the governors too! ntwo things must be corrected: better senatorial candidates (Atkin and O' Donnell were disasters) and the hispanic demographic aspect must be addressed. the Black population will never votev for a republican-the hispanics may. and so, rubio, cruz, martinez,sandovasl are becoming big players. Did you also notice that the son of Jeb bush (mother-hispanic) is becoming involved in politics??
Michael, you should have only a partial smile. As I said to David, I'm not pessimistic about future Republican electoral success, but am very pessimistic about what damage liberal policy will(or already)have, particularly with Obamacare. I agree that we have to improve with the Latino vote. As far as the political fools who have been running for the Senate, we may need to give them some type of word association test in order to glean what obsessions they may have. For example: ask what comes to mind when you hear date, late, fate, fortune. Can't be any less effective than what was being done to vet them for the last two election cycles.
Rollout eVerify 100% and charge all violators under something like RICO statutes like the hand of God.
Thanks for this post. n nGranting amnesty to illegals was part of the "solution" that made three million of them citizens in 1986. The problem we have now is due to failure of every administration since then to enforce the immigration laws enacted as part of that deal. Amnesty or "path to citizenship" is not a solution in and of itself. To grant amnesty is to concede the lack of ability to determine who can and cannot become citizens both now and in the future. Amnesty renders immigration law to be irrelevant. n nNonetheless it is unfair to villify the illegals who come here searching for opportunity. Unfortunately that is what too many Republicans have done. I sure we would all like to think that had we been born into a poor hopeless existance in Mexico, that we would be among the ambitious ones who venture and seek better opportunities in the United States. Individuals seeking economic opportunity and providing services of value should be respected and admired, not made to be scapegoats for broken economic models beyond their control in their country of birth and in the United States.
Immigration reform should focus attention on employers. In a capitalistic economy employers should compete for employees just as they compete for customers. The working conditions and compensation should reflect interest in retaining the employee in a market where others vie for the services of that employee. For employers to say we want our customers and our suppliers to be subject to the forces of capitalism, but we want the government to inact policies to manipulate the labor pool, thus depressing wages, so we don't have to compete for labor is a distortion of capitalism, corporate welfare, if you will. Hiring illegal immigrants is cheating. Those employers who cheat have an unfair advantage in the marketplace. Their competitors must make the choice to cheat as well or lose customers. The employers who hire illegals should be the target of our scorn, not the individuals they hire.
More on immigration reform. n nBarry Estabrook wrote a book "Tomatoland: How Modern Industrial Agriculture Destroyed Our Most Alluring Fruit." Included is graphic description of the deplorable treatment of illegal farmworkers. Exposure to pesticides and herbicides, deplorable housing conditions and dangerous, life threatening work conditions are chronicled. National Geographic a few years back had an article about the hundreds of illegals found dead each year in the deserts south of Tucson Arizona. The bodies are stored in a warehouse while efforts are made to identify them and return them to their homes for burial. These kinds of stories should not be part of our national story, but they are until we expect more of ourselves and our government.
The GOP has been hopelessly branded since Gov Wilson opened his mouth about it. n nWe need to increase the quotas for legal immigrants, in particular for those with skills or assets. Set up a line for those here illegally to get a guest worker pass, but to get a green card requires leaving and doing the real path. It needs to be open and fair, limit anchor babies to those with more than a tourist visa or here illegally.
What's the difference between a green card and a "guest worker pass"?
"In part, this reluctance to shift on immigration stems from the fact that a great many Americans believe the starting point to any discussion of the issue ought to be defense of the rule of law." n nIf we were to make a list of the pillars which make the United States an exceptional country, the Rule of Law would be one of the most commonly cited. If employment laws can be ignored, why should drug laws or insider trading laws be respected or enforced? Should it depend on whether there are profits to be made or by whom? The rule of law does not exist in third world countries.
Why not adopt the Israeli approach to "infiltration"?
I appreciate your analysis, Jonathan; however, in my view, the Romney campaign should have thought about how to word its views. Instead on concentrating on the phrase “illegal immigration,” the focus should have been on the drug cartel murders, the arms sold to them, and the people subjected to inhumane abuse (like being hauled in unairconditioned trucks and left to die). I had seen many a tea party website during this election season and most had written something to the effect of “America for Americans.” How do you think people interpreted those words? Now, look at how Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Volusia voted and I think that you have an answer.
The "leaders and thinkers" of the Republican party keep choosing candidates like Mr.Read My Lips, Mr.50 Years of Earmarks, Mr.Keating Five RINO for TARP and Mr.Romneycare with predictable results. So, the fix is to nominate Mr.Amnesty for Illegals? Yeah, that'll do the trick.