Friday, October 17th, 2008

Less than 3 weeks to go till Election Day and mum is the word when it comes to immigration.

Yet, looking at the mathematics of the likely voter, it is increasingly clear that Hispanic, Asian and other new immigrant voters will play a significant role in the race to the White House. In 2006, more than 15 million naturalized immigrants were eligible to vote – this will be their first presidential election. Record interest in attaining citizenship will increase that population by more than ten percent by November 4th.

Immigrant voters, magnified by Hispanics for whom the immigration debate influence their ballot box decision, are likely to determine the presidential election in four of the six states President Bush carried by five percentage points or less in 2004: New Mexico, Nevada, Florida and Colorado. These voters will also influence the outcome in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan—all vital states for winning the presidency.

President Bush realized the importance of the immigrant vote, and the issue of immigration reform. Over the course of the past 8 years, President Bush delivered primetime speeches on four topics: The War, The Economy, Hurricane Katrina and Immigration Reform.

The war in Iraq and the spiraling economy deserve top tier discussion and debate, and they have received it in the current contest for the White House. Disaster relief – and the treatment of the poor by our government – has been addressed (although, I would argue, not enough).

However, for the candidates and the media to brush under the carpet of nationally televised debates an issue that underlies nearly every domestic policy issue is irresponsible. Quite simply, the candidates and the media have ghettoized the immigrant community and the issue of immigration, which, in English at least, has been ignored.

Recent history has proven that special interests will use anti-immigrant arguments to attack policy proposals aiding the middle class and American workers. Broaden health care coverage? Opponents will argue citizen children of immigrant families don’t deserve to be included. Help workers keep more of their income? They’ll say immigrants are stealing low-wage jobs. Make sure our schools educate the leaders of tomorrow? Immigrant children don’t deserve a public education, some argue. Crisis on Wall Street? Must be the fault of the immigrant homeowner. Energy independence and the environment? Immigrants drain our resources.

And so on.

The same vocal minority that opposes meaningful immigration reform will use the lack of it to block anything they don’t like.

Barack Obama and John McCain have both spoken repeatedly to immigrant groups (and are buying Spanish language attack ads) in a sterile effort to woo the immigrant voter. Both have promised to fix the immigration system; both have promised to secure the border (sometimes in reverse order). Both realize that without a modernized immigration system, our culture of family first will be fractured and the vitality of our economy will be further drained.

Yet, neither candidate prioritizes immigration as they offer their agenda to help the middle class and heal our economy.

To win the election and move a domestic policy agenda, the winning candidate needs the immigrant vote firmly in their camp. For the millions of first-time immigrant voters, the candidate and the party that demonstrates a commitment to fix our dysfunctional immigration system will get their vote.

This Post was written by Ali Noorani, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum

Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT3) lost his Republican primary to first-time candidate Jason Cheffetz, a former campaign manager and aide to Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. (R) by a twenty-point margin.  Rep. Cannon has been the target of national anti-immigration advocacy groups because of his moderate views on immigration.  Over the last two election cycles they have been going after him and they will no doubt be crowing about his defeat.

 

Rep. Cannon is Member of Congress who, breaking with most of his Party, seems to get the idea that a legal immigration system that works and allows hard-working immigrants to contribute to the economy above board is a good thing; that policies that put immigration back on the foundations of law and order should be the goal; and that the cheap politics of immigrant bashing is neither effective nor constructive.  It appears even his opponent learned that immigrant bashing is not the most effective tool in the arsenal for getting elected. According to Congressional Quarterly (CQ Politics),

 

 

Chaffetz did not make immigration the centerpiece of his attacks on Cannon, as previous primary challengers in 2006 and 2004 had done.

 

Chaffetz went after Cannon for approving Bush’s “No Child Left Behind� program that expanded the federal government’s oversight of local school systems, something Chaffetz said a “true� conservative would never support. He said he would advocate repealing the law and favors abolishing the U.S. Department of Education, arguing, “The federal government should not be in the public education business.�

 

He also criticized Cannon for supporting the 2003 measure that greatly expanded Medicare by creating a prescription drug benefit program, and associated the incumbent with what he described as fiscal irresponsibility practiced by Congress.

 

And while he did not make immigration the central issue of his campaign, as did challenger Jacob in 2006, Chaffetz did echo the well-aired arguments made by critics of the congressman’s position. – “Utah GOP Rep. Cannon Defeated in Primary,� Michael Teitelbaum, CQ Politics, June 25, 2008

 

There appears to be more going on with this race than just the immigration issue.  Cannon is the latest of three incumbent Members of Congress to be defeated in a primary.  He joins Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD) who lost primaries earlier this year.  Rep. Wynn resigned his seat and was replaced by newly minted Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), the woman who defeated him in the February primary, who won a special election June 17 in the heavily African-American District 4.  Edwards, we should note, is an outspoken supporter of comprehensive immigration reform.

 

Rep. Cannon doesn’t seem to have done very well turning out his base and using the power of incumbency in a year that is shaping up to be a tough one for incumbents, regardless of party and certainly, regardless of holding mainstream views on immigration.

Â

Media Matters Action Network released their highly anticipated report on Lou Dobbs, Glen Beck, and Bill O’Reilly.  Fear and Loathing in Prime Time, written by MMAN Senior Researcher Paul Waldman is a must read for immigrant advocates.

 

In addition to taking on the common myths repeated endlessly by these and other TV and radio talkers, they also have a petition, in English and Spanish, which reads:

 

I call on the following hosts to stop feeding anti-immigrant hysteria by repeating myths and misleading claims about undocumented immigrants…Further, I call on the following cable news channels to step up and provide the American public with a fair and accurate portrayal of immigration issues.

 

It also gives you the opportunity to send the petition with a comment.

 

As you might expect from one of the thinnest skins in broadcasting, Mr. Dobbs is not taking the report well.  The next day, Lou called Paul Waldman onto the proverbial carpet as a guest on his show.  The Center for American Progress’ Think Progress blogs about that here, and TIME’s Joe Klein (aka “Anonymous�) blogs about it here.

 

When the National Immigration Forum mentioned Mr. Dobbs in a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Dobbs’s producer was inviting the author on for a dressing down by Dobbs by 4:00 p.m. that day.  The segment was scheduled, but Dobbs apparently backed down because CNN failed to follow up.  Perhaps he had someone better to yell at that day.

 

Don’t miss this item from Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts on the wife of a local policeman, shot to death by an immigrant in the country illegally, who is calling for compromise and comprehensive immigration reform:

 

The woman stepped to the podium and faced a phalanx of television cameras in a room packed with reporters. She had no notes and needed none.

 

“This country,� she said, “is in need of comprehensive immigration reform.�

 

In certain circles, she would be immediately branded a member of the open borders crowd, a traitor who sides with those who seek to turn our country into Mexico.

 

That’s how it is with the illegal immigration debate, where there is black and there is white and there is absolutely nothing in between.

 

You’re either for us or against us; red, white and true blue or a lover of the lawless.

 

And yet there is Julie Erfle, a woman who has more of a right to outrage than any of us. — Laurie Robert’s Arizona Republic Blog, “A murdered officer’s widow speaks out, “ May 24, 2008

 

It is a very powerful story about a powerful messenger.

 

Last but not least, as part of their fantastic series on immigration at AlterNet.Org, today’s postings include an article by Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice, and former Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum.  The article dissects and analyzes what went wrong with comprehensive immigration reform in 2007 and what needs to happen to get it back on the table early in the new President’s term.

Looking at today’s clips, we came across a few stories that everyone should check out.  First up is the Los Angeles Times editorial on the recent revelations about immigrants in detention (see recent ImmPolitic posts here, here, and here).  The Times editorial said, in part:

 

ICE maintains that few people actually die in detention centers, and that may be true, but it doesn’t account for people such as Castaneda, who die after leaving custody. And then, ICE isn’t exactly forthcoming on the subject. When Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) asked the agency for a list of the dead, it told her no. She obtained one from the New York Times. Lofgren has introduced HR 5950, the Detainee Basic Medical Care Act, a bill that would require Homeland Security to establish mandatory standards for basic healthcare in all detention centers. It also would require the department to report deaths to the inspectors general of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice within 48 hours….Mandating humanity shouldn’t be necessary, and Homeland Security could do this on its own, but it won’t, so this bill is needed. Our treatment of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, shouldn’t include watching them die. – “Immigrants detained to death,â€� Los Angeles Times editorial, May 20, 2008.

 

A response to the Washington Post and New York Times stories on immigrant and asylee deaths in detention by Julie Myers, assistant secretary of DHS for ICE, appeared in today’s Washington Post.

 

Must read number 2 (and 3) comes from the Houston Chronicle.  Local columnist Lisa Falkenberg calls our attention to a recent announcement from the Department of Homeland Security that in the case of an emergency evacuation for a natural disaster in Texas, the Border Patrol will use checkpoints to check the immigration status of every evacuee. 

 

Take a moment to recall the chaos.

 

The claustrophobic caravan of cars, trucks and SUVs creeping along a highway evacuation route-turned-prison with hundreds of thousands — by some estimates, millions — of men, women and children trapped in the steamy confines.

 

Recall the overheating engines, gas tanks bled dry, pumps tapped out. I’m still haunted by the image of one woman who carried the limp body of a toddler in her arms as she ran from car to car in search of water.

 

Now take those memories of the 2005 evacuation before Hurricane Rita and add another obstacle: a Border Patrol checkpoint at which each and every car would be stopped, drivers questioned, suspicious vehicles searched while those behind languish in the logjam.

 

That’s the plan, announced last week by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in the event of a hurricane evacuation of the Rio Grande Valley. – “Evacuation hurdles are a threat to all,â€� Houston Chronicle columnist Lisa Falkenberg, May 20, 2008.

 

Sometimes America’s enforcement zeal to deal with the reality that we do not have adequate legal immigration channels is silly, as when House Republicans attached an anti-illegal immigration rider to a Native American Housing Bill.  Sometimes it is just a huge overreach, as with the “No work list� addressed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial below.  This one sounds down right deadly.  Qué negocio!!  What craziness!!

 

Must read number 3 also comes from the Houston Chronicle, which ran a story today about a new Texas study that asks the question: “If we got rid of all immigrants in the country that are here illegally, what would be the damage to our economy?�  The answer, according to the Perryman Group, is that the economy would lose $1.8 trillion in annual spending.

 

These are just some of the findings from a study done by the Perryman Group, a Waco-based economic analysis firm, whose work was commissioned by Americans for Immigration Reform, a group spearheaded by the Greater Houston Partnership.

 

Houston’s business community is trying to revive the politically charged immigration reform debate that has stalled in Congress. It plans to raise $12 million by December to fund a campaign for reform and thus far it says it has raised about 10 percent of that goal in pledges.

 

The government has recently increased enforcement, with raids at work sites and plans to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. But getting rid of all undocumented immigrants would hurt, not help the economy, Charles Foster, an immigration attorney and chairman of Americans for Immigration Reform, said Monday.

 

“If you do that, you would have serious economic upset,” Foster said.

 

He said immigration reform needs to give employers a method of hiring immigrants legally.

 

“We need comprehensive reform that looks at our needs and addresses those needs,” said Ray Perryman, president of the Perryman Group, which examined data for 500 sectors of the economy, Census Bureau surveys and other data to arrive at its conclusions. – “Price put at $1.8 trillion,â€� by Jenalia Moreno, Houston Chronicle, May 20, 2008.

 

Finally, we missed a gem of an editorial last week in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which joined the chorus of those looking at various proposals to mandate national use of the experimental government database known as E-Verify and saying, like many Members of Congress, “Wait a second; It does what??!!??�

 

One House bill would expand nationwide a pilot program, E-Verify, having employers use the Social Security database to verify legal status. It supposes bringing more than 7 million employers online over four years, requiring a one-time verification of an estimated 160 million existing workers and all new hires at a rate of 50 million to 55 million a year.

 

Unfortunately, this bill also supposes that an agency currently underfunded, understaffed and trying to deal with a crushing backlog in claims is suddenly going to become an effective arm of immigration enforcement.

 

Three words: Not gonna happen. Not without exorbitant costs to the federal budget and not without undermining a Social Security Administration that is facing the retirement of 77 million Baby Boomers.

 

Oh yes, the database also has a reported error rate of 4.1% that will ensnare workers who are here legally. In all likelihood, businesses will cut these employees loose rather than patiently wait for resolution. – “Permission to work, sir,� Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial, May 16, 2008.