Since October of last year, approximately 57, 000 children from Central America have entered the US without inspection. Congressional Republicans have been quick to lay the blame for this onslaught at President Obama’s feet. They stridently accuse the President of being soft on immigration. They contend that his immigration policies coupled with his refusal to enforce immigration laws are directly to blame for the current crisis. Now they are moving to sue him.
In an effort to stem the flood of children seeking refuge anti-immigration Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill last week asking President Obama to help them repeal a law enacted in 2008 by President George W. Bush during the waning days of his administration. The law requires judges to hold full immigration hearings for all arrivals of children instead of turning them away at the border.
Until the existing law is changed, the children that have come here unaccompanied are entitled to a full immigration hearing to determine if they have a legal right to remain here. This was a good and necessary law when the GOP enacted it in 2008 and it’s especially fitting and proper today when its full value is being tested. The irony in asking the President to first ignore the law by deporting the children without hearings and then asking for his help in repealing the law because it doesn’t suit the Tea Party Republicans is not wasted on me. The tail continues to wag the Republican elephant!
The new GOP Nativist immigration mantra resembles one which was offered in 1938: “Let’s stop immigration completely and give our present immigrant population an opportunity to become Americanized before they foreignize us.” It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. The new motto argues that immigrants increase unemployment and rely excessively on welfare. Because the nation is recovering from the effects of the 2008 recession, this notion has plenty of “band wagon” appeal. Some years ago there was little factual information available on the effects of immigration; therefore, primitive “common sense” arguments went unchallenged. This is no longer the case. A substantial body of knowledge concerning the effects of immigration has been amassed. This research contradicts the current Nativist arguments based on economic ignorance.
The GOP has a rich history of leadership on matters of immigration. Until recently, they realized that immigration is not a benefit to be doled out by a generous nation. They knew that immigration makes us richer and stronger. Here are a few examples:
- 1986: President Reagan signs the Immigration Reform and Control Act into law. This legislation permitted millions of non-immigrated residents to legalize their status in America.
- 1999: President George W. Bush elected president, promises comprehensive immigration reform. Stopped by the events of September 11, 2001.
- 2001: Senator Orrin Hatch introduces the Dream Act (S-1291) to provide conditional residence to certain immigrants of good moral character who graduated from U.S. high schools, arrived in the United States as minors, and lived in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the Bill’s enactment.
- 2005: In his State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush boldly stated, “America’s immigration system is outdated, unsuited to the needs of our economy and to the values of our country. We should not be content with laws that punish hard working people and deny businesses willing workers and invite chaos at our border.”
- 2007: Senator John McCain, along with the late Senator Ted Kennedy, introduced The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S-1348), which contained an Earned Legalization component. Fifteen Republican Senators signed on to the proposed bipartisan legislation.
- 2008: Senator McCain emerges as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate. A key component of his campaign was a promise to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation, with an Earned Legalization component.
During the Reagan Administration, the Republican Party was known as the party of the “Big Tent” where there was room for all Americans. After a humiliating defeat in the presidential election of 2008, the doors to the tent abruptly slammed shut. The Party adopted a hard-bitten “about face” on immigration. It was as if immigration and immigrants were responsible for the defeat. In view of the party’s historical leadership in the immigration arena, this political flip-flopping appears to be motivated by some combination of Nativism from the “Tea Party” flank of the party and a misinformed notion from the right leaning flank that immigrants hurt the economy by consuming and depleting resources.
One thing is clear: with the “off year” election rapidly approaching, the need to know where Republicans really stand on immigration becomes ever more critical. If they plan to continue as the party of “no”, the road to the Presidency in 2016 could be long and difficult.
In the 2010 off-year election, House Republicans scored impressive wins on an anti-immigration ticket. Nonetheless, Democrats still won 60 percent of the Hispanic vote in those House races. In 2012, President Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote on a pro-immigration ticket. This portends a serious problem for Republicans. If Hispanics continue to vote disproportionately for a pro- immigration reform ticket, they could give the Democratic Presidential nominee a critical edge in 2016.
If Republican candidates continue with their hardhearted resistance to immigration reform, they risk any hope of winning a meaningful percentage of Hispanic votes. While Hispanics are not necessarily enamored with Obama’s efforts to reform immigration, they think far less of the Republican’s “now is not the time for change” posture.
Hispanic voters want Republicans to see that their growing population makes America richer, not poorer! It makes America stronger, not weaker. Hispanics can help Republicans advance all of the nation’s national goals, but not if they continue to be perceived as a burgeoning problem to American society.
