Immigration Politics and the 2010 Elections

The MSM is on a full court press to convince us that the recent legislation in Arizona turns that bit of Painted Desert into a police state. See Linda Greenhouse's piece "Breathing While Undocumented" for a sample. That none of this is in good faith is evident from the fact that no one seems to be asking how the law would actually work. Arizona has decided that its own law officers ought to do the work that federal officers ought to be doing but clearly aren't.

Maybe this will be done in a way that unconstitutionally burdens all citizens of Latino decent, and maybe not. I would like to see someone with the necessary expertise tell us what documents are necessary to prove that one is a legal resident. A driver's license? A social security card?

Meanwhile the majority party in Congress has put immigration back on the agenda, just in time to wreck negotiations on a Cap and Trade bill. Why? The answer is that the President has given up on the "non-minority" vote for this November. Or at least non-young, non-male voters.

Maybe the Arizona business will help with Hispanic voters. That would explain the MSM's attention. But he has his work cut out for him. The Examiner explains:

Last week, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) wrote a very angry op ed for the Huffington Post in which he assailed President Obama for everything from allowing federal agencies to lawfully deport criminal aliens, to not acting to stop the Arizona state legislature from passing a law which makes it a crime for illegal aliens to be present in Arizona.

In his rant, the Illinois Congressman even griped about the breakup of human smuggling networks, notorious for abusing and kidnapping their human freight.

What Rep. Gutierrez wants is "comprehensive" immigration reform. In case you don't know what that means, let me enlighten you. It means legalizing people who entered this country illegally, in exchange for empty promises to control the boarders in the future. So far, so good. But he wants President Obama to actually arrange this.

The President can do nothing of the sort. Congress has been trying to pass immigration reform for decades. It isn't going to do it in the middle of an election year. The sole purpose of raising the issue now is to try to drum up enthusiasm among Hispanic/Latino voters. But such voters want action, and they can see that the President can't deliver. FiveThirtyEight shows that enthusiasm for Obama among such voters has fallen precipitously. Only 55% now support the President.

This is in line with polls showing lackluster enthusiasm among other key Obama constituencies. Just at the same time comes this from Gallup:

On the heels of yesterday's report showing nearly half of young voters aged 18-29 - a critical piece of Obama's 2008 coalition - are "not enthusiastic" about voting in this year's election, Gallup is out with another body blow for Democrats today with a survey showing that the GOP leads Democrats by 20 points among those voters most enthusiastic about the 2010 midterms.

Among all registered voters, the GOP leads in the generic congressional ballot in the current Gallup survey by just one point, 46 to 45. But among those who are "very enthusiastic" about voting in November, the GOP lead over Democrats balloons to a 57/37 gap.

A twenty point gap in enthusiasm! I have never seen anything like this before. There are two obvious questions: are these polls accurate, and will the situation change between now and this November. If the answer is no, no exactly, and yes, the Democrats may be in for a pleasant surprise. If the answer is yes and no, they are looking at a disaster of Biblical proportions. I make no predictions; but if these polls are accurate and noting much changes, the Republicans will sweep everything that isn't tied down. The President will wake up after the election to find the GOP in control of both houses of Congress.

Comments

[Lynn]

One can only hope!!

[Guard]

Why the crackdown in Arizona now? This problem was just as bad under the previous Administration (Bush and the Republicans). This is being used by the GOP as political stunt and here's why: because the AZ law does nothing to place the burden on the real problem and that is businesses that hire illegal immigrants to this day. Why are they coming across the border in the first place? To do the jobs that Americans will not do as Bush even says. Instead the Juan Crow laws place the burden on the individual to prove they are a citizen. So, today AZ authorities can pull over individuals simply because "they look illegal." Today, they go after latinos, but, tomorrow they may go after anyone "who rolls their eyes the wrong way" depending upon the mood [authorities] are in. This law is unenforcable because most people are not going to follow it and you can't arrest hundreds of thousands of people who refuse to follow such an archaic law that will not pass the highest courts over its unconstitutionality. I give the law 2 years before its overthrown.

[William]

All the law does is restate the law enforcement power that the state ALREADY HAS as policy.

The escalating violence, due to the lack of border security, has become a tipping point in the debate and must be addressed.

It's Constitutional and enforceable.

Laws that bar the employment of illegal aliens are already on the books and enforced, as well.

No discrimination, just equal treatment under the law.

[Guard]

I highly doubt this can be enforced effectively. It still does not address the real issue: businesses who break the law to hire illegal immigrants. If that is not addressed enforcing this law does nothing to stop the problem. So, a few people are arrested for failing to prove citizenship...a thousand more will cross the border that day.

[William]

The tolerance of the American public for the violence and costs of an uncontrolled border is reaching its limits.

When a tipping point has been reached it will be addressed, regardless of any vested political or economic interests that support the status quo.

[A PROUD AMERICAN]

I do not see this bill as racist and only the criminals, there relatives, illegal lovin advocates and those who wish no law enforcement of any kind are the ones who are worried. If 80% of the illegals are Mexican, its not too far of a leap to think a good majority of Mexicans can be illegal. What people don't say is that cops will not be out looking primarily for illegals. They may be asked in the course of another police action. For example, if police get a call of domestic abuse, come out and find a drunk Mexican beating his wife, he cannot speak English, and has a mouthful of gold teeth, you might be an illegal. If a cop stops you for a DUI and you have no license or identification, and reak of tequila, you might be an illegal. If you are working illegally, using someone else's ID or Soc Sec # and are asked to verify that and cannot, you might be an illegal. It is the Mexicans who are racist. They are the ones who whine at any enforcement of the law, since they think they are special and have the same rights as a legal American and don't have to obey no stinkin laws. Whoa the poor brown people. Gimme a break. If they want respect, they better learn how to obey our laws, assimilate into OUR culture, speak English and quit bitchn about every little thing. Don't like it here, go back to your own country.

[Guard]

Not only is this law unconstitutional we are beginning to see a very "Poisonous Atmosphere" develop...Mass Protests in 70 cities planned this weekend over that archaic law. The Arizona law has created a "poisonous atmosphere" that didn't need to be there in the first place.

[Guard]

Also, this law fails to target businesses who hire illegals...that is where the real problem lies. It's not going to work. This law is not going to stop drug trafficing and murders in Arizona. All it does it continue to feed the chaos of the coming race wars as it builds a poisonous atmosphere in Arizona and America and feeds the bigoted attitudes of radicals.

[William]

Guard,

The poisonous atmosphere exists because the Federal Government has shirked it's most basic duty to protect our borders for decades, under both major parties, because both parties have valued short term political advantage over their responsibility.

That people are losing faith in the Federal Government is not surprising. It's more surprising that it's taken this long.

[Lynn]

The "poisonous atmosphere" is being fed by the likes of Al Sharpton and others who are painting this as racist and discrimination, rather than respect for the rule of law. The MSM has also shirked its responsibility in accurately reporting this whole thing.

[William]

source: Center for Imigration Studies

http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html

"We estimate that 57 percent of the illegal alien population comes from Mexico, 11 percent is from Central America, 9 percent is from East Asia, 8 percent is from South America, and Europe and the Caribbean account for 4 percent"

[Guard]

This law does not respect the Constitution and as a Constitutionalist, I can not support this law. Today, the Latinos will be targeted and tomorrow there is a good possibility we will be the targets. This law threatens our civil liberties as guaranteed in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. It opens up racial profiling to take place and that is what adds to the "poisonous atmosphere", not Al Sharpton or any other person who is excercising their First Amendment Rights in opposition to this and I can tell you that opposition is widespread and reaches across racial lines. This law still...yes, still FAILS to address the real problem and that is businesses attracting the illegal immigrants. This law will NOT prevent more drug trafficing and murders. Instead, as you can see in just the past few days, the Arizona law is opening up a huge can of worms that threaten stability in our nation. This poisonous atmosphere created by the AZ law will lead to more chaos while feeding the egos of the radicals on both sides of the debate.

[William]

Thanks for the reference from the Center for Immigration Studies William (William Who? William the Second?).

Guard, there are already laws on the books that need to be enforced against businesses that hire illegal aliens.

I respectfully disagree that this law is a threat to civil liberties or violates the Constitution.

William the First (lol)

[Guard]

William, I respectfully disagree with you. We are beginning to see the bad environment this law is creating by the threat of mass protests. I forsee a mass campaign not to follow the law because people do not believe it's Constitutional. They are simply going to allow being arrested to make a big statement that it's impossible to enforce a law when a big chunk won't follow it anyway.

[Guard]

William, I respectfully disagree with you. We are beginning to see the bad environment this law is creating by the threat of mass protests. I forsee a mass campaign not to follow the law because people do not believe it's Constitutional. They are simply going to allow being arrested to make a big statement that it's impossible to enforce a law when a big chunk won't follow it anyway.

[Guard]

There's already a sheriff down in Arizona who has come out saying that he will NOT enforce the law. Now take that and add it to the people who will not follow it and you have a bad environment being created by this law.

[Stan Gibilisco]

The Arizona law provokes mixed feelings for me. Having lived in an "immigration zone" (Miami Beach), I can sympathize with the plight of the honest refugees. Once I saw a 14-foot rowboat with about 100 old tires nailed to it, beached right in front of "my house" (a 1500-unit condo complex, yeesh!). Haitians all, a good bet. "Good hearts," ruined bodies. I suspect, but of course can't prove, that the proportion of "good-hearts" in the Mexican case exceeds most people's estimates.

I oppose the Arizona law, unless and until it passes Constitutional muster in the courts.

I hope that the Republicans take control of both houses in 2011, but I'm not too optimistic, especially about the Senate. Both the Democrats and the Republicans seem to have drifted so far into pure ideological territory that their behavior often borders on absolute stupidity, in my opinion. The horrible irony here: I have actually begun to consider "retirement" offshore! (Not to Mexico, however.)

[KB]

This is a great thread! Thanks to all. I am late in joining it as this is the last week of classes here. Guard: there is nothing unconstitutional in the Arizona law. All of the provisions reinforce what is already tested law. For example the requirement that all immigrants carry documentation of their status. That has been law for decades.

The "reasonable suspicion" rule might be enforced in a way that is unconstitutional. I see no reason that the law requires that. If a policeman pulls over a van that is loaded with people none of whom have driver's licenses or other evidence of legal status, this might create reasonable suspicion of illegal status.

The Federal government has failed to enforce immigration law. I agree with Guard that this is as much the fault of Republican administrations as the fault of anyone else. If a Sheriff in Arizona declares that he will not enforce the law, that only reinforces the point. Do you really believe that Sheriffs have the right to pick and choose which laws they will enforce?

[Guard]

KB and Stan, I just read Peggy Noonan's recent article that focuses most sharply on how our nation, I believe, needs to tackle this issue. She expounds on how the states need to refrain from passing any new laws, including Arizona. Our Federal Government needs to secure that border and that is what I've been saying since 2005. I sent countless e-mail after e-mail to my Congressional Delegation and the answers I got back from all sides (Johnson, Thune, and Herseth) were that they were "looking into the matter," but, that answer did not seem to be an "urgent" priority to them or then-President George W. Bush. In fact, they were very quick to add that as a nation, we needed to "becareful not to add to the air of anti-immigration or racism." Both Republican and Democratic leaders were telling me this at the time. So, as you can tell, this issue has been one of deep frustration with me. Now, out of the blue comes this Arizona law that: 1) places the burden on the individual, 2) does nothing to address actual border security and 3)does nothing to target businesses involved in hiring illegal immigrants.
KB and Stan, I just do not believe that police and sheriff departments pulling people over and asking for their citizenship credentials is actually going to even put a dent in this problem. So, they pull them over on a daily basis because of suspicions, but, as that occurs there are thousands still crossing the border illegally and they are attracted by the businesses that continue to break the law and hire them. So, in effect, I believe that this Arizona law is just a "feel good" measure to appease the citizens of that state, but, will it really help them in the long-run. Time will tell, but, I just believe that it will do didley squat for the people of Arizona and do more harm to them then help them.

[Annie Loyd, Voice of the Valley Spirit]

I was born in South Dakota and raised in South Dakota at a time when there were great tensions with the indigenous communities.

I have lived in the southwest for more than 25 years now and the majority of "facts" that most people are writing about are just inaccurate.

First the poll that so many people refer to regarding 70% of Arizona supporting SB1070 is in accurate AZ is a state of more than 6.5 mil people and the poll was of 500 80% of the people that responded to the poll were white - Arizona has been and will continue to be ever increasingly so more than 38% Latino population.

Second, for those that speak about "getting documents" or "crossing legally" - he majority have - the process of remaining in the United States - to continue to work with documents is flawed and lacks the modern day mechanisms to make it efficient and effective

Third, SB1070 does nothing to increase the security in our communities, to provide for border security or increase economic sustainability for our state - 80% of our trading in Arizona is with Mexico.

Fourth, please explain how you can tell someone who is documents and someone who does not have documents by looking at them??? That is why the law has been determined to be racist by Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians - by Lutherans, Catholics, Jews and Hindus. We can demonstrate numerous incidents of individuals from different Indian Communities that have been stopped and unduly burdened due to this most ridiculous law.

Fifth, South Dakota has always been a reasonable and responsible state - believing in liberty, the protection of the individual and their personal rights and the benefits of government NOT encroaching on the rights of the individual - this law does all of that and more.

most respectfully submitted

[KB]

Again, great thread! Guard: I agree with you about a lot of things. I am pretty sure that the AZ bill will not make a dent in AZ's problem. I haven't read the Noonan piece yet, but I think that everyone knows what a rational solution to the immigration issue would look like.

First: bring the boarders under control. That means, as you have pointed out, real penalties for people who hire undocumented workers. Second: provide for a steady flow of immigrants sufficient to meet the needs of the American economy. If you do both, business interests will piss and moan but will go along. Third (and only third): provide for the legalization of people already here illegally provided they meet certain conditions. A lot of Americans will complain about that, but again, if the first two steps are taken, most people will go along. There are great, perhaps insurmountable political obstacles, but that is the right policy.

Annie: I agree with a lot of your thoughtful note. Let me address one item. You ask: "please explain how you can tell someone who is documents and someone who does not have documents by looking at them?" I am happy to oblige. Suppose an Arizona cop pulls over a van that turns out to be loaded with people not one of whom speaks English or has a valid driver's license. Does he really have to look at them to have "reasonable suspicion" that they are here illegally? Should the policeman ignore this suspicion, or make an attempt to verify their status? The latter is all the Arizona law requires. I see nothing racists or unconstitutional about that.

[William]

I think we'll all agree that the Federal Government has jurisdiction to secure and protect our borders.

We will likely all agree that the Federal Government has failed in this basic, although difficult, task.

When the Federal Government cannot fulfill its basic responsibilities how then can we ask, or have faith in, the Federal Government to take responsibility over massive social programs and legal jurisdictions that are best left to the states in the name of the "Commerce Clause".

The expansion of Federal jurisdiction over local and states issues, in the name of the Commerce Clause", while failing to fulfill its basic obligation to secure our borders, is not only untenable but demonstrates that Federal power has far exceeded its grasp.

When the Federal Government has neglected its established duties but, yet has exceeded its Constitutional authority, it no longer enjoys the respect and fealty of its citizens.

I'm afraid that's the point we're reaching today.

[BillW]

Annie - I too have spent many years living in the Southwest and you are absolutely correct - the folks who rant the loudest, however, are not really interested in the facts. They prefer to open their mouths every morning and let the likes of Glenn beck, ean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh force feed them the mantar of the day. Makes 'em just as dumb as those who willingly turn their brains over to Racael Maddow and Michael Moore.

Ken - you state the extreme case with your question about the carload of non-English speakers, but that is not the standard set as the law was originally written. The police would have had the authority to confront anyone who looked Mexican enough, and to take action - i.e. arrest them if they did not have proof of their right to be in the USA.

That anyone could have very easily been my Mexican born stepson out for a morning run without his driver's license to prove his identity. That seems to me to be a bit extreme - especially since my Mexican born, fluent Spanish speaking son who often visits his Mexican looking, Spanish speaking cousins in Tucson is a highly decrated veteran of three tours of duty in the Middle East as a staff sergeant with the Army Aiborne.

Yeah - any law that says he has to prove his right to be in this country when he is home on leave from years of defending it because he doesn't look 'American enough' in the eyes of some redneck Arizona cop is a racist law. In fact, 30% of the military in Iraq and Afghainstan are of Hispanic origin - and they don't have to prove anything to anybody when it comes to their right to walk the streets of this country unmolested.

[BillW]

Sorry for the atrocious spelling - fat fingers, old eyes and a small Blackberry keyboard are a pathetic excuse - but it is the only excuse I have to offer :)

[KB]

Bill: thanks for the very solid comment. It is an unfortunate fact that any attempt to control the southern border is likely to lead to more inconveniences for Hispanic Americans than for those who don't "look" Hispanic. Does that mean we shouldn't try to control the borders?

All Americans are required to produce identification in many circumstances, as when we are stopped by the police or board an airplane. Legal immigrants are required by law to carry documentation. None of this is anything new.

To be sure, your "Mexican born stepson out for a morning run" shouldn't be harassed. That would be true regardless of his military service. But that isn't what this law authorizes. When the police have made a legitimate stop, and the person they stop can't speak English and has no identification, can the police inquire into his or her immigration status? Do you really believe that that is "an extreme case" for cops in Arizona?

No board control laws can work without relying on documentation. To say that it is racists to ask for documentation is to say that no border laws should be enforced. I believe in a liberal immigration policy, but I do believe there should be a policy.

[BillW]

KB - The police already have the right to establish the identity of anyone they stop or confront for probable cause - i.e. a traffic violation, etc... Get stopped on the streets of Aberdeen for speeding and fail to prove ciizenship and you will get a comfortable seat in the Brown County jail waiting for Immigration to come and decide your fate - same in Arizona.

The sheriff of Pima County (where Tucson is) hit the nail on the head when he came out against the law from the start. He already has the authority, and there are ample laws on the books, to deal with illegals who come to his attention in the course of normal law enforcement. The intent of the law was to have his people go beyond that and 'hunt' for illegals, using their racial profile alone as reason to confront people concerning their status. His objection was lack of manpower. He doesn't have the staff to go illegal hunting in addition to his normal law enforcement job.

My objection is that using racial profiling as the basis for confronting people concerning their citizenship is hardly "inconveniencing" Hispanics, to use your words, it is an outrageous trampling of their fundamental civl rights.

It is most certainly racist to demand documentation from only one group of people based on their race. I live near Chicago where there is a big problem with gang related murders, almost all committed by blacks with illegal hand guns. Would it not be a racist policy to pass a law that says the police have the right - in fact the obligation - to stop all blacks and search them for weapons, but not white folks or Asians? Virtually all securities fraud is committed by white people. How would a law stating that from now one all white folks will have their bank routinely audited by the local constable, and without the need for court orders or probable cause, but blacks, Hispanics and Asian aill not be subject to such audits? Can you imagine the field day FOX News would have with that one?

While it may hold true that almost all illegals are Hispanic, it is absurd to think that all Hispanics are illegal. In Arizona, by far the majority of Mexican looking, Spanish speaking people are US citizens. Harrassing them all becasue a few might be illegal aliens is an outrage.

Illegal immigration is a problem to be sure, although not nearly as serious as most people think. You might want to take a step back and look at out history. With every wave of immigration there has been a racial backlash - "Irish need not apply" - that went away when it became clear that the Irish, Italians, Chinese, eatern Europeans, Vietnamese, etc... were not going to bring about an end to American culture as we know it. Much - not all, but much - of the hysteria over illegal immigration is the 21st century version of this grand American tradition of meeting cultural change with racism.

The driving impetus for the Arizona law has nothing to do with legitimate concern for illegl immigration, and everything to do with the fact that Jan Brewer is unlikely to get win the GOP primary. A good friend of mine, John Munger, is the most likely next Republican candidate for governor of Arizona, and quite likely to win the general election. Brewer needs to make political hay and make it fast, hence her sudden conversion to border security hard-liner.

Note that all of the discussion concerning the racial profiling aspect of the law is moot. The Arizona legislation and Brewer quietly ammended the law after Tucson and Flagstaff sued them for its obviouslack of Constitutionality and removed the part about stopping anyone based on race. All that is left is what was there before - get arrested without ID and the local cops will hand you over to Immigration. So it is nothing but a big political bag of air any more.