Immigration law

[randolph]

Republicans take note.

Robert Creamer Political organizer, strategist and author
Posted: June 24, 2010 08:37 AM

BIO Become a Fan
Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index











Evidence Arizona Immigration Law May Be Fatal Mistake for GOP







There is compelling new evidence that Republicans will rue the day that they allowed their virulent anti-immigrant wing to grab the controls of the Republican Party.
In fact, contrary to much of the pundit chatter, a drama is playing out this fall that may doom Republicans to permanent minority status in America.
The passage of the Arizona "papers, please" anti-immigration law has forced Republican politicians around the country into a political box canyon that does not offer an easy escape. For fear of offending the emergent Tea Party - and other anti-immigrant zealots in their own base -- they are precipitating a massive realignment of Latino voters nationwide.
According to data released by Public Policy Polling (PPP), Texas Governor Rick Perry has lost his early lead over Democratic challenger Bill White and the race is now tied. The movement from a previous PPP poll in February comes entirely from Hispanic voters. PPP reports that:
"With white voters Perry led 54-36 then and leads 55-35 now. With black voters White led 81-12 then and 70 -7 now. But with Hispanics Perry has gone from leading 53-41 to trailing 55-21....there is no doubt the (Arizona) immigration bill is popular nationally. But if it causes Hispanics to change their voting behavior without a parallel shift among whites then it's going to end up playing to Democratic advantage this fall."
The punditry sometimes forgets that in politics intensity is often just as important as poll percentages. For many Hispanic voters, the Arizona immigration law is an insult. It is an attack on their very identity. And it is certainly a litmus test that tells a Hispanic voter whether or not a political candidate is on their side - the critical threshold test of voter decision making.
The same is simply not true for non-Hispanic voters. As a result, by allowing the Party to be defined by the anti-immigrant zealots - and refusing to lift a finger to pass comprehensive immigration reform in Congress - the Republicans are playing with political fire.
In fact, given the fact that Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the American electorate, the Republicans are playing with permanent marginality.
As if to sharpen their anti-immigrant brand, last week the Texas Republican State Convention voted for a platform that included a plank calling on the state government to adopt a state law like the one in Arizona.
But Texas is far from the only place where the emerging Latino backlash is in evidence. PPP reports that its latest polls in Colorado show that incumbent Democratic Senator Michael Bennett has gone from tying his opponent Republican Jane Norton to a three-point lead largely because his lead among Hispanic voters has soared from 12 to 21 points.
California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman felt compelled to back tough anti-immigrant measures to get the Republican nomination. Now her support among Latinos is hemorrhaging, dropping from 35 to 26 points from March to May. Since the primary, Whitman has begun to waffle on her tough anti-immigrant stand but the damage has been done - what's more, it's memorialized in videos that Democrat Jerry Brown is sure to loop over and over on Spanish language TV.
Even in districts where the Hispanic vote is not large, big declines in Republican support could prove decisive in otherwise close races. After all the difference between getting 49.9% and 51.1% means everything in an election.
The bottom line is that by passing the Arizona "papers, please" law, Republicans - especially in the West - have awakened a sleeping and growing giant.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Republicans take note.

Evidence Arizona Immigration Law May Be Fatal Mistake for GOP

The view expressed in the article you posted above is the conventional wisdom among political scientists across the political spectrum, but at the risk of seeming to defend the positions that have been expressed in this thread I would like to take exception with part of its premise.

The calculus is about electoral success, indeed electoral viability altogether. Those in this thread who agree with the Arizona law, and who have gone further to promote even more direct action against immigrants who are in this country without documentation, should be assumed to be expressing their principled position without regard for whether they are "popular" as measured at the ballot box, either directly in the form of referenda or indirectly in the form of the success of this or that candidate.

I find the views expressed here to be reactionary, in the classical definition of that word in political science, and a recipe for disaster. Nevertheless, I salute those who are willing to express their views with such passion and vigor. The reality of a changing world (not deliberate demographic reengineering, as one poster has suggested) will relegate them to permanent minority status soon enough.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

The view expressed in the article you posted above is the conventional wisdom among political scientists across the political spectrum, but at the risk of seeming to defend the positions that have been expressed in this thread I would like to take exception with part of its premise.

The calculus is about electoral success, indeed electoral viability altogether. Those in this thread who agree with the Arizona law, and who have gone further to promote even more direct action against immigrants who are in this country without documentation, should be assumed to be expressing their principled position without regard for whether they are "popular" as measured at the ballot box, either directly in the form of referenda or indirectly in the form of the success of this or that candidate.

I find the views expressed here to be reactionary, in the classical definition of that word in political science, and a recipe for disaster. Nevertheless, I salute those who are willing to express their views with such passion and vigor. The reality of a changing world (not deliberate demographic reengineering, as one poster has suggested) will relegate them to permanent minority status soon enough.

The above is a very erudite comment on the article I posted.

Whether the article proves to be correct will depend on a lot of things.
First, the dynamic between the legal immigrants who can vote and the illegal immigrants who cant. Its possible considerable numbers of legals may support clamping down on illegals, after all they compete for jobs. Second the performance of the Obama administration. If Obama cannot articulate a positive solution and implement it, legals will not have a lot of motivation to vote Democratic. Third, I think legals will be just as outraged as the rest of us if Obama provides amnesty to the illegals.

[randolph]

This article puts it very well.



"SAN FRANCISCO ? In a tongue-in-cheek call for immigration reform, farm workers are teaming up with comedian Stephen Colbert to challenge unemployed Americans: Come on, take our jobs.
Farm workers are tired of being blamed by politicians and anti-immigrant activists for taking work that should go to Americans and dragging down the economy, said Arturo Rodriguez, the president of the United Farm Workers of America.
So the group is encouraging the unemployed ? and any Washington pundits or anti-immigrant activists who want to join them ? to apply for the some of thousands of agricultural jobs being posted with state agencies as harvest season begins.
All applicants need to do is fill out an online form under the banner "I want to be a farm worker" at , and experienced field hands will train them and connect them to farms. http://www.takeourjobs.org
According to the Labor Department, three out of four farm workers were born abroad, and more than half are illegal immigrants.
Proponents of tougher immigration laws have argued that farmers have become used to cheap labor and don't want to raise wages enough to draw in other workers.
Those who have done the job have some words of advice for applicants: First, dress appropriately.
During summer, when the harvest of fruits and vegetables is in full swing in California's Central Valley, temperatures hover in the triple digits. Heat exhaustion is one of the reasons farm labor consistently makes the Bureau of Labor Statistics' top ten list of the nation's most dangerous jobs.
Second, expect long days. Growers have a small window to pick fruit before it is overripe.
Story continues below




And don't count on a big paycheck. Farm workers are excluded from federal overtime provisions, and small farms don't even have to pay the minimum wage. Fifteen states don't require farm labor to be covered by workers compensation laws.
Any takers?
"The reality is farmworkers who are here today aren't taking any American jobs away. They work in often unbearable situations," Rodriguez said. "I don't think there will be many takers, but the offer is being made. Let's see what happens."
To highlight how unlikely the prospect of Americans lining up to pick strawberries or grapes, Comedy Central's "Colbert Report" plans to feature the "Take Our Jobs" campaign on July 8.
The campaign is being played for jokes, but the need to secure the right to work for immigrants who are here is serious business, said Michael Rubio, supervisor in Kern County, one of the biggest ag producing counties in the nation.
"Our county, our economy, rely heavily on the work of immigrant and unauthorized workers," he said. "I would encourage all our national leaders to come visit Kern County and to spend one day, or even half a day, in the shoes of these farm workers."
Hopefully, the message will go down easier with some laughs, said Manuel Cunha, president of the California grower association Nisei Farmers League, who was not a part of the campaign.
"If you don't add some humor to this, it's enough to get you drinking, and I don't mean Pepsi," Cunha said, dismissing the idea that Americans would take up the farm workers' offer.
California's agriculture industry launched a similar campaign in 1998, hoping to recruit welfare recipients and unemployed workers to work on farms, he said. Three people showed up.
"Give us a legal, qualified work force. Right now, farmers don't know from day to day if they're going to get hammered by ICE," he said, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "What happens to my labor pool?"
His organization supports AgJobs, a bill currently in the Senate which would allow those who have worked in U.S. agriculture for at least 150 days in the previous two years to get legal status.
The bill has been proposed in various forms since the late 1990s, with backing from the United Farm Workers of America and other farming groups, but has never passed."
___

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Rachel

Havent been here in a while but thought I must throw my hat into the ring. First and foremost... How can we be a country if there are no borders? Look up immigration laws in Mexico. Everything is a Felony. We need a fence. A .50 cal fence every half mile.

But what about all the lovely Latin trannies who come here?

[Rachel]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

But what about all the lovely Latin trannies who come here?

Well in my opinion the Mexican women arent all that attractive. Brazillians however...

[The Conquistador]

When I am world dictator, my country's borders will be fairly reminicent of the DMZ across North and South Korea and amnesty will be granted to trannies and their admirers. Everyone else can kick rocks or landmines....