The anti-immigration rhetoric, which somehow got wedged in the whole health care reform debate, is making it mighty hard for Hispanic conservatives to wave the GOP flag with pride.
First there was Congressman Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) infamous “You lie,” outburst, after President Obama said illegal immigrants wouldn’t be covered under a new health care plan. Wilson’s outburst prompted Ivan Marte, the ex-chairman of the Rhode Island Republican Hispanic Assembly to leave the Republican Party. On Monday, Marte told The Providence Journal that Wilson’s behavior was “shameful” and “uncivilized.”
In a letter to GOP Chairman Giovanni Cicione, Marte wrote, “I do hope that my resignation served as a sign, that the Republican Party in this Nation need to reevaluate their position,” on reaching out to minorities.
Then there’s the matter of the debate swirling around the Baucus Health Plan, which liberal Democrats are using as an opportunity to sway Hispanic voters.
In the Baucus plan, which capitulated to Republican demands, proof of citizenship would be required before someone could buy personal insurance coverage through the state exchange. Essentially, this would bar illegal immigrants from purchasing health insurance with their own money. Even legal immigrants in the U.S. less than five years would be restricted from purchasing health insurance through the National Health Exchange.
Not only is this plan so mean-spirited it would make the Grinch blush, it’s bad fiscally. Congressman Mike Honda (D-CA), put it best in a September 22 special to Roll Call, when he asked, “how fiscally rational is it to exclude individuals willing and able to share in the responsibility of paying into the system?”
Honda isn’t the only liberal Democrat who’s starting to look mighty appealing to Hispanic conservatives.
On Wednesday, “House liberals” urged Democratic leaders to tone down language in the Senate health care legislation that “limits legal and illegal immigrants’ access to medical care,” Roll Call reported.
The anti-immigrant rhetoric is also turning-off Hispanic evangelicals. Rev. Nick Garza, chief operating officer of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC), told The Christian Post that demanding proof of citizenship in order to purchase Health Insurance was, “a defacto endorsement of racial profiling.”
Immigration reform is a sensitive topic for many Hispanic Americans. Marte’s recent departure from the GOP, coupled with the vociferous anti-immigration rhetoric, is discouraging for Hispanic conservatives.
Hispanics are the largest and fastest-growing minority group in the U.S. and as we all know, Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election with nearly two-thirds of the Hispanic vote. One reason he was able to take such a large portion of the Hispanic vote had to do with his stance on immigration.
It’s a shame Democrats are able to demagogue on this issue because once you get past the immigration issue, many core Republican beliefs are appealing to Hispanic voters. Issues like faith, family, and a strong defense policy are important to many Hispanics.
If the GOP hopes for a big comeback, it would behoove Republican leaders to ease up on the anti-immigrant rhetoric.
Naira Ruiz is a regular contributor to The D.C. Writeup
Loading ...
September 25th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
How is asking everyone for their SSN an act of racial profiling when EVERYONE has to prove their citizenship?
[Reply to this Comment]
September 25th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
@Beast, You’re right. Both legal and illegal immigrants can be of any race, so requiring proof of citizenship to purchase health coverage isn’t necessarily, “a defacto endorsement of racial profiling.”
However, requiring legal immigrants wait five years before they can purchase insurance through the National Health Exchange is both harsh and fiscally absurd.
More importantly, the lack of sensitivity politicians like Joe Wilson display in the immigration/health care debate is embarrassing not only to Hispanic Republicans; it’s embarrassing to all immigrants who strongly agree with Republicans on other key issues.
[Reply to this Comment]
September 25th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
This whole “Hispanic” thing is just getting totally out of control. Who do these people think they are?? They seem to think they are important in this country but they really aren’t (unless you’re a sleazy politician looking for a vote). Asking for identification is now racial profiling?? Give me a break. The Mexicans need to realize that due to millions of them coming to this country illegally and breaking so many laws, they will get absolutely no respect from Americans. Hasn’t the healthcare debate shown our politicians that Americans are totally against giving away entitlements to criminals. We are sick of it! Our outrage should be a sign of things to come for illegals, especially when Oshama starts another amnesty push. Americans WILL vote out those politicians who care more about illegals than legal citizens. Wise up people, we cannot let this travesty of paying for illegals to continue. We cannot pay for every poor, illiterate slob who can cross the border. Let your Senator or rep know that we can take away what we gave them – their job !! I know next year I will only vote for anti-illegal immigration candidates
[Reply to this Comment]
September 26th, 2009 at 10:57 am
The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) has released a wide-ranging review of academic and government data that shows what legalizing undocumented immigrants would mean for the U.S. economy today. Legalizing undocumented workers would improve wages and working conditions for all workers, and increase tax revenues for cash-strapped federal, state, and local governments. (April 13, 2009)
Washington, D.C. – The dollars and cents of immigration reform make a lot of sense for the beleaguered U.S. economy. The net economic gain would be $66 billion in new state and federal revenue, according to a new report.
The review, from the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Center, notes that Florida is one of the states with the most to gain if undocumented workers were provided a pathway to legal status. About 500,000 immigrant workers would be affected.
Economist David Kallick with the Fiscal Policy Institute contributed to the study. Right now, he explains, those billions of dollars are lining the pockets of employers – who hire folks in the underground economy and avoid contributing to payroll and other taxes.
“The cost of the underground economy to taxpayers is pretty substantial. The idea is, bringing undocumented immigrants into the ‘above-ground’ economy and making sure that they pay taxes just like everyone else.”
Critics of reform accuse undocumented workers of “stealing” American jobs; some want to deport everyone who is in the U.S. illegally. Kallick argues that immigrants do not steal good-paying jobs, and more legal workers in the labor pool will help grow the entire economy.
That’s also the view of Esther Lopez, director of civil rights and community action for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union International. She says labor groups see that legalization is good for all workers, and she considers it an important step in rebuilding the middle class.
“We need an immigration system that is part of our national economic recovery program. We need immigration reform that punishes employers who ‘game’ the system to drive down wages and working conditions.”
[Reply to this Comment]
September 26th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Ignorance is Bliss: Those who have NO CLUE or QUALIFICATIONS about Immigration are those who show their IGNORANCE
There is NO SUCH WORD AS ‘ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT” in Blacks Law Dictionary, or In Merriam Websters Dictionary. Get Educated .
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday that the claim by some conservative activists that illegal immigration is to blame for all of the state’s fiscal problems is ignorant and bigoted.”
Arturo E. Ocampo of Tracy has been a practicing attorney since 1985, In the 20-plus years I have spent studying, lecturing and litigating immigration issues, two things have always amazed me. The first is the amount and intensity of hate spewed against undocumented workers. The second is the amount of misinformation that is published about them.
On this second point, the quote from Mark Twain is illustrative. “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” I suppose this may be true in part because misinformation, like a lie, requires no accuracy, validation or research; all of which are time-consuming practices.
The recent letters alleging that all undocumented workers are “criminals,” and specifically Veronica Suarez, whose plight was written about in the Tracy Press recently, is a criminal are factually incorrect.
According to the facts (as stated in Sharon Franceschi’s Sept. 7 commentary) Saurez entered the U.S. on a valid visa, overstayed her visa when it expired, resulting in her unlawful immigration status. None of these acts, as stated by Franceschi, constitute a crime under federal or state law. Overstaying a valid visa under the Immigration and Naturalization Act is a civil violation of the law, not a criminal violation. Being in the U.S. in under undocumented status is not a criminal violation, but a civil violation of the INA.
The facts, as stated by Franceschi, do not indicate that Suarez has committed any crime. To call her a criminal is erroneous at best, and libelous at worst.
Furthermore, it is an Americanism that a person is innocent until proven guilty. So until Suarez (or any other undocumented person) is charged and found guilty of a crime, it would be inappropriate to call them “criminals.”
It is important to note that there is a very large difference between civil and criminal violations of law. The distinction is so important that the law makes the erroneous allegation that one has committed a crime of slander or libel, (which means liability is automatic even without proof of damages). One who violates the civil law is no more a criminal than someone who has breached a contract or accidentally damaged another’s property.
It is true that entering the United States without inspection is a misdemeanor under the INA. The misdemeanor is completed once an individual’s entry is complete. Suarez, according to Franceschi, did not enter without inspection; she entered with a valid visa. According to U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services statistics, about 40 percent of undocumented persons enter legally and overstay their visas (which, as stated above, is not a crime). Consequently, at least 40 percent of the undocumented population has committed no crime in regards to their immigration status.
Therefore, one cannot assume that a person has committed a crime simply because they are undocumented.
Franceschi is also in error in her allegation that getting married and having children while being undocumented in the U.S. is a violation of the law. It is not. Franceschi goes on to say that Suarez “apparently bought a house illegally.” It is unlikely that Franceschi knows exactly how Suarez purchased her home. Consequently, any allegation of illegality is, at a minimum, irresponsible.
It is also important to note that the Immigration and Citizenship Services doesn’t consider all undocumented persons criminals. When the Immigration and Citizenship Services publishes information about its enforcement activities involving undocumented workers, it are always sure to make a distinction between “criminal” and noncriminal aliens.
Another myth is that the term “illegal aliens” is a term of art or is legal jargon. This term is not found anywhere in the INA or in Blacks Law Dictionary. The INA refers to undocumented persons as either an EWI (entered without inspection) or as someone who has overstayed their visa. “Illegal aliens” is a term invented by anti-immigrant groups designed to put undocumented persons in the worst possible light and to instill fear in Americans. It is intentionally designed to associate undocumented persons with criminality.
This xenophobic view that undocumented persons are “simply criminals” comes from the historical stereotype that the foreign-born, especially undocumented immigrants, are responsible for higher crime rates. This misconception has deep roots in American public opinion and popular myth. This myth, however, is not supported empirically and has repeatedly been refuted by scientific studies. Both contemporary and historical data, (including U.S. governmental studies) have shown that immigration is associated with lower crime rates.
The studies have uniformly shown that recent immigrants (including the undocumented) are less likely to be involved in violent crime, and that when there is an increase in immigration patterns, violent crime decreases. This has been shown to be true in large cities with heavy immigrant populations.
In the most recent of these studies, The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation (2007), from the Immigrant Policy Institute, it was found that among men age 18 to 39 (who are the vast majority of inmates in federal and state prisons and local jails), immigrants were five times less likely to be incarcerated than the native-born in 2000.
During the Proposition 187 debate, then-Gov. Pete Wilson published statistics that stated that
12 percent to 15 percent of the state prison population had Immigration and Citizenship Services holds or potential holds. The Department of Corrections analyst who compiled these numbers said Immigration and Citizenship Services holds are placed on inmates who were born outside of the U.S. (therefore 12 percent to 15 percent of the prison population was immigrants). The immigrant population at the time in California hovered at about 25 percent, showing immigrants were much less likely to be incarcerated than the native born in California.
In short, the data shows you are much safer if your neighbor is an immigrant.
Franceschi owes Suarez an apology. I am also surprised that the Tracy Press allowed a commentary to run without checking the facts. Although commentaries are designed to allow for the expression of differing opinions, the First Amendment is not as generous with misstatements of facts — especially when the facts can be libelous.
For the immigration debate to be a healthy one, we should strive for a debate based on facts, not myth or tired stereotypes. We should also not let our position on this topic strip us of one of the great qualities we possess as people — the ability to be compassionate.
Arturo E. Ocampo of Tracy has been a practicing attorney since 1985, with an expertise in immigration rights and class action lawsuits on behalf of immigrants, including the way the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was implemented, Border Patrol’s raids and Proposition 187. He is director of diversity and equal employment opportunity for the San Jose/Evergreen Community College District.Ignorance is Bliss: Those who have NO CLUE or QUALIFICATIONS about Immigration are those who show their IGNORANCE
College District.
[Reply to this Comment]
September 26th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Daniel Griswold: Immigration law should reflect our dynamic labor market
Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington. His writings on immigration can be found at http://www.freetrade(DOT)org; e-mail him at dgriswold@cato(DOT)org.
Daniel Griswold, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, says he believes that the key to immigration reform is a guest worker policy. He also explains that the competition between U.S. citizens and immigrants over low skilled, low paying jobs will not escalate since the number of U.S. citizens with a high school diplomas is rising. This means that the pool of native citizens who work as low skill laborers will become smaller
Before balming the Undocumented Immigrants consider two thoughts:
One, if low-skilled, illegal immigration is the single greatest cause of California’s woes, how does the author explain the relative success of Texas? As a survey in the July 11 issue of The Economist magazine explained, smaller-government Texas has avoided many of the problems of California while outperforming most of the rest of the country in job creation and economic growth. And Texas has managed to do this with an illegal immigrant population that rivals California’s as a share of its population.
Two, low-skilled immigrants actually enhance the human capital of native-born Americans by allowing us to move up the occupational ladder to jobs that are more productive and better paying. In a new study from the Cato Institute, titled “Restriction or Legalization? Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform,” this phenomenon is called the “occupational mix effect” and it translates into tens of billions of dollars of benefits to U.S. households.
Our new study, authored by economists Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer, found that legalization of low-skilled immigration would boost the incomes of American households by $180 billion, while further restricting such immigration would reduce the incomes of U.S. families by $80 billion.
That is a quarter of a trillion dollar difference between following the policy advice of National Review and that of the Cato Institute. Last time I checked, that is still real money, even in Washington.
Among its many virtues, America is a nation where laws are generally reasonable, respected and impartially enforced. A glaring exception is immigration.
Today an estimated 12 million people live in the U.S. without authorization, 1.6 million in Texas alone, and that number grows every year. Many Americans understandably want the rule of law restored to a system where law-breaking has become the norm.
The fundamental choice before us is whether we redouble our efforts to enforce existing immigration law, whatever the cost, or whether we change the law to match the reality of a dynamic society and labor market.
Low-skilled immigrants cross the Mexican border illegally or overstay their visas for a simple reason: There are jobs waiting here for them to fill, especially in Texas and other, faster growing states. Each year our economy creates hundreds of thousands of net new jobs – in such sectors as retail, cleaning, food preparation, construction and tourism – that require only short-term, on-the-job training.
At the same time, the supply of Americans who have traditionally filled many of those jobs – those without a high school diploma – continues to shrink. Their numbers have declined by 4.6 million in the past decade, as the typical American worker becomes older and better educated.
Yet our system offers no legal channel for anywhere near a sufficient number of peaceful, hardworking immigrants to legally enter the United States even temporarily to fill this growing gap. The predictable result is illegal immigration
In response, we can spend billions more to beef up border patrols. We can erect hundreds of miles of ugly fence slicing through private property along the Rio Grande. We can raid more discount stores and chicken-processing plants from coast to coast. We can require all Americans to carry a national ID card and seek approval from a government computer before starting a new job.
Or we can change our immigration law to more closely conform to how millions of normal people actually live.
Crossing an international border to support your family and pursue dreams of a better life is not an inherently criminal act like rape or robbery. If it were, then most of us descend from criminals. As the people of Texas know well, the large majority of illegal immigrants are not bad people. They are people who value family, faith and hard work trying to live within a bad system.
When large numbers of otherwise decent people routinely violate a law, the law itself is probably the problem. To argue that illegal immigration is bad merely because it is illegal avoids the threshold question of whether we should prohibit this kind of immigration in the first place.
We’ve faced this choice on immigration before. In the early 1950s, federal agents were making a million arrests a year along the Mexican border. In response, Congress ramped up enforcement, but it also dramatically increased the number of visas available through the Bracero guest worker program. As a result, apprehensions at the border dropped 95 percent. By changing the law, we transformed an illegal inflow of workers into a legal flow.
For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid “amnesty” and still offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they’ve committed. They can be required to take their place at the back of the line should they eventually apply for permanent residency.
The fatal flaw of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was not that it offered legal status to workers already here but that it made no provision for future workers to enter legally.
Immigration is not the only area of American life where a misguided law has collided with reality. In the 1920s and ’30s, Prohibition turned millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans into lawbreakers and spawned an underworld of moon-shining, boot-legging and related criminal activity. (Sound familiar?) We eventually made the right choice to tax and regulate alcohol rather than prohibit it.
In the 19th century, America’s frontier was settled largely by illegal squatters. In his influential book on property rights, The Mystery of Capital, economist Hernando de Soto describes how these so-called extralegals began to farm, mine and otherwise improve land to which they did not have strict legal title. After failed attempts by the authorities to destroy their cabins and evict them, federal and state officials finally recognized reality, changed the laws, declared amnesty and issued legal documents conferring title to the land the settlers had improved.
As Mr. de Soto wisely concluded: “The law must be compatible with how people actually arrange their lives.” That must be a guiding principle when Congress returns to the important task of fixing our immigration laws.
Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington. His writings on immigration can be found at http://www.freetrade.org; e-mail him at dgriswold@cato.org.
[Reply to this Comment]