Sea change for immigration politics
- Time3:13 pm
- aldobelloaldobello
- blog Hispanic Americans Immigration Reform Latinos Observations
An interesting opinion piece by Politico on the change of immigration politics.
Politicians are finally catching up to demographic reality.
Not so long ago, conservatives could use anti-immigrant positioning to rally their base and as a political wedge against moderates. Progressives, meanwhile, could promote pro-immigration policies — but couldn’t gain leverage with moderates or against conservatives.
So conservatives’ anti-immigrant legislative agenda set the terms of the national debate.
But the right’s reaction to two recent developments highlights how quickly the landscape has changed.
First, the Obama administration’s bold decision to grant innocent, undocumented youth protection from deportation largely paralyzed conservatives. Instead of attacking the president for providing “amnesty to illegals” as one would expect, they criticized the constitutionality of his decision.
Second, the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States, which vindicated the administration’s challenge to Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, hamstrung conservatives. Rather than argue for the substance of Arizona’s anti-immigrant policy, conservatives complained that the ruling infringed on states’ rights.
The dramatic shift in tone and strategy is due to the fact that politicians, or at least some of them, are finally catching up to public opinion and 21st-century demographic realities. The muted response of conservative elected officials suggests a heightened — and perhaps fatally belated — awareness that immigration politics have changed in response to four important developments.
Key is that the seismic demographic shifts in the electorate and their concentration in battleground states mean that the road to the White House leads through the Latino electorate. Immigration is a defining issue for immigrants and Latinos — not the top issue but a defining issue because it’s personal. These voters, therefore, reject candidates who espouse or associate with anti-immigrant demagoguery — regardless of their views on other issues. And swing voters strongly support pragmatic approaches to solving our immigration problems.
The Obama administration’s decision to provide administrative protection to undocumented youth is a clear example of this new paradigm at work.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney ran one of the most extreme anti-immigrant primary campaigns in memory for a leading candidate. He vowed to veto the DREAM Act and promised to pursue a national self-deportation policy. As a result, his standing with the Latino electorate is in the toilet, and Romney himself acknowledged to a group of donors that he can’t win if he doesn’t do better with those voters.
By contrast, Obama announced a realistic pro-immigration policy that demonstrated his commitment to protecting the Latino community’s youth. In the wake of that decision, Obama saw a sharp increase in his already overwhelming advantage over Romney among Latinos. Perhaps more significantly, he witnessed a 50-point turnaround in Latino voter enthusiasm.
What’s more, polling of likely voters after the announcement showed that the public strongly preferred the president’s approach. In fact, it showed that independent swing voters preferred the president’s approach over Romney’s 2-to-1.
The president’s decision to block Arizona’s anti-immigrant law would have been a political liability, according to the old thinking. Instead, conservatives who previously praised the law are fumbling for a response. Similarly, the administration’s relief for undocumented youth should have triggered a harsh political backlash. Instead, it has broadened and deepened the president’s support among key blocs of voters.
Politicians of all stripes should take note: When it comes to immigration, smart and humane policies are also good politics.
Marshall Fitz is the director of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.