Immigration Helps Define the Differences
Between GOP Frontrunners
After the rise of the Tea
Party, the Republican
takeover of the House of
Representatives last
November, conservatives’
refusal to compromise
with President Obama on
this summer’s debt deal,
and Obama’s falling
approval ratings, it would
seem that the GOP is in
prime position to take the
next step forward to
replace Obama with one of
their own in the 2012
election.
Of course, it is not so simple. Obama’s support, especially from independents, has dwindled but
there is a dearth of enthusiasm for Republican policies as well. Most voters are frustrated that the
economy has not rebounded to pre-recession levels, even if economists declare that the recession
has ended. Unfortunately for President Obama, he is the easiest person to blame. Still, he
remains quite popular on a personal level.
One would think that with Obama’s perceived vulnerability, Republicans would seek every
advantage. But in their recent primary debates, one issue, immigration, has not only
differentiated one of the two favorites from the rest of the pack but has the potential to alienate
nearly an entire voting bloc that is crucial for a GOP victory over Obama. We’re talking, of
course, about Hispanics.
Texas Governor Rick Perry understands immigration and border control issues firsthand. During
the debate in Florida on Sept. 22, in response to his opponents’ criticism of his policy to grant instate tuition breaks to children of illegal immigrants, he said, “I don’t think you have a heart.” He
has since apologized for his statement, but it is clear this change is motivated by political
reasons, not one he sincerely believes in.
Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts and the other favorite among Republican
candidates, pounced on Perry’s comment, looking to burnish his own conservative credentials
amidst wariness from the GOP base over his prior moderate stances on abortion, gay rights and
climate change. Romney argued that opposing illegal immigration doesn’t mean one is heartless,
but rather that “you have a heart and a brain.”
Romney, adhering to the standard GOP line, champions an anti-amnesty viewpoint that also
punishes children who had no choice in coming to the U.S. But what is noteworthy, is the
perception that he cares nothing for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He seems to regard
these children, many of whom are American citizens, as second class and undeserving of rights
that other American citizens enjoy. As a former successful businessman—his time as such he
touts as the primary reason he should be president—he would do well to recognize the economic
benefits to society of the entrepreneurial and hardworking attitude of those wishing only to live a
better life in this country. And, providing more educational opportunities to promising young
adults produces a cadre of people who will look to utilize their skills in the country that gave
them the chance to build them in the first place, further enhancing U.S. society.
Also on the topic of what should be smart economics, Romney fails to live up to his advocacy of
fiscal conservatism. He supports a border fence that covers the entire 1,951-mile U.S.-Mexico
border yet estimates based on studies done by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service
found that costs would exceed $150 billion. This figure does not even include the cost of
purchasing private land in the border area or the cost of labor if private contractors are used,
which is likely— additions that will drive up the final cost by billions more.
Of course, a fence is beside the point. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, when
she was the Governor of Arizona and therefore no novice in border security, once said, “Show
me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder.” A fence will not stop border crossings
from those determined to enter the U.S.
True, conservatives are traditionally pro-spending on defense and national security, so this is no
ideological surprise from Romney or other candidates, but the fact is that over the last several
years, border security has markedly improved. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection study
done last year found that the four cities with the lowest violent crime rates among large cities are
all in border states: San Diego, Phoenix, El Paso, and Austin. It is even safer to patrol the border
than in most U.S. cities, as three percent of Border Patrol agents were assaulted with guns or
knives in 2009, compared to the 11 percent average for all U.S. police officers. In 2009, border
violence declined for the first time in seven years and the number of Border Patrol agents has
doubled since 2004.
Changes implemented by President George W. Bush were continued by Obama, who ordered
1,200 National Guard troops to the border along with $500 million destined to border security.
It is clear that Romney, leading the chorus of most other Republican candidates, is ignoring facts
about the border to drum up the party base. But what does this mean for Hispanics in 2012?
In the 2008 presidential election, Obama enjoyed 66% of the Hispanic vote. His current approval
ratings, according to a Gallup poll conducted last month, stand at 48% among Hispanics.
Republicans see this as an opening to exploit, but they mistake declining Hispanic support for the
president—due mainly to his unfulfilled promises of immigration reform—for a corresponding
surge of support for the GOP, even if they believe that support is only dormant now. Trends
have shown that immigration is not always the single-most important issue for Hispanics
anymore. When faced with an election choice between a candidate who denigrates hardworking
immigrants as a subclass and one who has not managed to deliver on immigration promises but
nonetheless supports reform and has had to contend with opposition that is hell-bent on opposing
him for the sake of opposition, which candidate do you think they will vote for?
Most analysts, including Republican ones, admit that the GOP nominee will most likely need 40
percent of the Hispanic vote to defeat Obama. This is a concession that in the end, they know
they cannot make up GOP support from Hispanics from the decline in Hispanic support for
Obama.
One angle that is not getting much press is the perspective of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a rising
Cuban-American Republican star who is respected for his grasp of policy and his personal story
as a son of immigrants. Rubio has publicly stated that he is not “anti-illegal immigration” but
rather “pro-legal immigration.” It is a seemingly less hostile way to state his case while
maintaining support for border security. His colleagues contending for the Republican
presidential nomination would do well to emulate him and it is a wonder why they haven’t
already.
The 2012 election is 13 months away, but if the GOP continues to reinforce its anti-immigrant
stance, they risk alienating Hispanics for this election and for decades to come. For a party
facing an ethnic group that currently constitutes 17 percent of the U.S. population, and will total
25 percent by 2050, Republicans may want to rethink their strategy.