Why Immigration is Problem for Democrats

The Democratic Party is a coalition party, much more so than the Republican Party. The advantage of a coalition party is that it can add new members to the coalition. The disadvantage is that members of the coalition can be turned against each other. We have seen it happen with civil rights for Afro-Americans, women's rights, guns, gay rights, religion, the Vietnam War, and now immigration.

Each of those issues have caused, at various times, internal problems for the Democratic Party by turning members of the coalition against each other. In most cases it was white working class males, working class as being defined as people who do not have a four-year college degree, who were angered by postions taken by other members of the Democratic coalition.

It can be seen in the states of the Old Confederacy going from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican starting in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act. It can be seen in the voting pattern of so-called "Reagan Democrats" in both 1980 and 1984. Now it is being seen in immigration.

The Washington Post did a report dated October 23, 2007 on a special election held in Massachusetts that pitted the widow of the late Senator Paul Tsongas against a Republican. The Republican started hammering on the fact that Mrs. Tsongas came out in favor of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. This is a quote from the article:

Then, just two days before Tuesday's balloting, Tsongas said illegal immigrants should each be allowed to get a driver's license. The final radio ad of the Ogonowski insurgency intoned, "And now for something truly incredible. You already know Niki Tsongas supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, but today we learned Niki Tsongas would go even further. Tsongas told the Boston Herald she wants to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants."

The result was that in a special election, in a district where Democrats were used to getting 57% of the vote, she only got 51% and won by about 5%. Now there is one big caveat in that result and that is the fact that it was a special election. The turn-out in special elections is usually much lower than in other elections, and often can be swayed by advocates of a certain position mounting a drive to get their supporters out to vote. Still the result indicates how much of a hot topic the idea of illegal immigrants getting goverment benefits and services may be in the 2008 election.

The issue of driver licenses for illegal immigrants came up in this week's debate for Democratic presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton seemed to waver on whether she supported a plan by Governor Spitzer of New York to allow illegal immigrants to get driver licenses. The idea behind the plan is to get illegal immigrants to get insurance by allowing them to get licenses. Clinton's position at the debate was described by her opponents as muddled, although, according to the Washington Post, she now supports Spitzer's plan. Keep an eye of the issue of illegal immigrants receiving government benefits in 2008 because it could be big.

Different Attitudes About Illegal Immigration in the U.S.

CNN did a poll about American attitude toward illegal immigration and found out that there is a noticeable racial attitude toward illegal immigrants between blacks and whites. This is from a report on the poll:

Blacks and whites differed over whether the number of illegal immigrants should be increased, with 14 percent of African-Americans saying it should, versus 3 percent of whites.

Nineteen percent of blacks said they thought all illegal immigrants should be removed from the country; 35 percent of whites said that.

Blacks and whites overwhelmingly oppose state governments issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, with 76 percent of blacks and 83 percent of whites taking that stance, the poll said.

The races differed more on whether state and local police should turn over illegal immigrants they encounter, even if the immigrants have broken no state or local laws. In such cases, 45 percent of blacks and 61 percent of whites said they believe police should turn over illegal immigrants.

Asked whether people who cannot read or write English should be allowed to vote, 54 percent of blacks said they should, versus 43 percent of whites.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 eliminated voting barriers such as a literacy test.

The only area in which there was close to agreement was on the issue of drivers' licenses being issued to illegal immigrants where the spread was seven percentage points.

What is also interesting about this poll were the answers to the question about whether there should be more or fewer illegal immigrants. Here is a quote from the poll:

Seven percent of those polled said they would like to see the number of illegal immigrants increase, 22 percent said they would like the number to remain the same, 16 percent want it decreased "a little" and 22 percent want it decreased "a lot," according to the poll of 1,212 adult Americans

Now, if you add up the above figures, you only get 67% expressing an opinion on the subject of whether they wanted a change in the number of illegal immigrants. That would apparently mean that about 33% had no opinion. Given all the media attention on the subject of illegal immigrants, that's suprising.

Working Class Males, Democrats, & Illegal Immigration

MCDAC recently received a response to a fundraising letter it had sent out to Medina County Democrats who have either contributed to prior political campaigns, signed up to receive literature from Democrats, or who are otherwise engaged in the political process. The response said that both he and his wife no longer considered themselves Democrats and wished to be removed from the Democratic Party mailing list. The reason given was that Democrats are for amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Now, the person sending this letter is no right-wing crank. He has supported MCDAC in the past, he has been an elected public official, and is active in his community. The point of this entry is not to deplore the policies of the national Democratic Party, but rather to point out how the perception of such policies can affect Democrats in local campaigns.

MCDAC has not really done much on the illegal immigration issue, one way or the other. To the extent that this blog has posted on illegal immigration, it has been to advise Democrats not to try and end the filibuster over the recent immigration bill. Yet, this local Democrat has the perception that the Democratic Party is the party of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Where is that perception coming from? Probably from news organizations like Fox, maybe from news reports, or from conversations with others, who knows? The point, though, isn't that the perception is particularly valid, the point is that it is out there and Republicans will use it in 2008 to villify Democrats and the Democratic candidate for President.

Such efforts, by the way, won't be limited just to Democrats running for President. Voters paint with a broad brush. They don't make fine distinctions between national Democrats and local Democrats, as shown by the response described above to the recent MCDAC mailing.

Democrats need to figure out now how they are going to respond to this attack, because it is coming. Thinking about it next October will be too late.

Brown, Voinovich Vote Against Cloture for Immigration Bill Debate

During the last week, we have highlighted how Ohio's two United States Senators split over raising the average fleet mileage standards for vehicles sold in America and over the 2007 Employee Free Choice Bill. Yesterday, (6/28/2007), Ohio's two Senators voted in unison to defeat a cloture motion on the immigration bill. (You can see the vote here.)

We actually think this bill is a bad idea and would cost the Democratic Party in states like Ohio, Pennslyvania, and Michigan. We also think that it would allow employers to create a permanent group of workers who would act as a way to make sure that employees don't organize or seek better wages.

In an earlier post we suggested linking free trade treaties to support for the Employee Free Choice bill which would make it easier to form unions. Absent such a linkage we thought, for what it was worth, that the trade treaties with South Korea, Peru, Panama, and Columbia are bad deals for the American middle class.

Those bills, however, would not be near as damaging as the immigration bill that would basically allow guest workers to come in, stay for a period of time, and then return to their native counties. That idea is just crazy.

Those who read this blog know that we have advocated for a policy of "Bring the Troops Home from Iraq and Put Them on the Border." Once Americans saw that the government was serious about protecting border security, and serious about cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, they would be much more willing to accept some changes in the status of the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

So congratulations to both of Ohio's United States Senators for standing up for Ohio's workers on this flawed piece of legislation.

Democrats Should Let Immigration Bill Die

According to this report from the Washington Post in the June 12, 2007 edition, Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, is considering allowing the immigration bill to go back on the Senate's calendar. Our advice, for what it is worth, is "Don't."

Democrats need to focus on trying to get white working class families to support its 2008 nominee. This group, especially white males, is important to our party. We should have their support because on economic issues we are far ahead of the Republicans, but we often lose their support because of our party's stand on social issues.

Although cast as an economic issue by its sponsors, the status of illegal immigrants is a social issue because it affects the social make-up of our country. By siding with Bush and his corporate buddies to pass this bill, we run the risk of alienating millions of working class males who see this bill as threatening the economic well being of their families. We run the risk of giving the Republicans another populist issue to use against Democrats in 2008.

Right now it is clear to Americans of Hispanic descent who is responsible for this bill's defeat and that is the Republican Senators, most of whom voted against cutting off debate on this bill. There is a good possibility that the Hispanic backlash will be against them and not against Democrats. Continuing to push this bill, however, runs the risk of identifying our party with Bush. Given his horrible poll numbers, this would be a mistake.

What Do Paris Hilton & Illegal Immigration Have in Common?

Here is a question: What is the link between Paris Hilton and illegal immigration? No, it's not the argument that the Hiltons use illegal immigrants to take care of their California home. It is the fact that both cases represent a sense by Americans that others don't play by the rules. With Paris Hilton it was her sense that somehow she is being treated unfairly. With the recent immigration bill it was the sense of millions of Americans that illegal immigrants were being given unfair advantages.

Americans have long prided themselves on the idea that all citizens are equal before the law. Obviously, given the issue of slavery in this country followed by the unfair treatment of Afro-Americans, this ideal was often violated. (Indeed, cynics could argue that the reality was that white Americans with access to good lawyers were equal before the law, and the rest of Americans, including poor white Americans, had to take their chances.) The fact, though, that a cultural belief may be a myth doesn't mean that the belief doesn't have power.

The idea that Paris Hilton should somehow receive special treatment ticked off most Americans, including the judge who had sentenced her. The idea that a young, rich, and beautiful Paris Hilton shouldn't have to go to jail even though she had violated the terms of her suspended sentence didn't sit will with Americans. In her case, Americans apparently believe that the rules apply to everyone, including the rich and infamous.

Likewise, Americans opposed to the immigration bill seized on the word amnesty to describe the bill's provisions to allow illegal immigrants a way to get American citizenship. To such opponents, these provisions would allow illegal immigrants a way to "jump ahead" of those who have entered the United States legally. These provisions were seen as giving an unfair advantage over those who came to this country legally and played by the rules.

Paris Hilton didn't receive the support of even her fellow Hollywood celebrities when the judge put her back in jail. As the Washington Post article linked to above shows, Paris is learning quickly from her recent experiences. Now she is telling us, through her public relations staff, how much she is "learning and growing" from her experiences. It is still an open question whether the supporters of the recent immigration bill will be as quick to learn as Paris.

If Bush & Business Want Immigration "Reform" Tell Them We Want Easier Unionization

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read a short critique by Nathan Newman of the proposed immigration law that is being talked up in the media. This bill is being hailed as a compromise and apparently has the support of Sen. Ted Kennedy. As Newman points out in his critique, however, this bill will allow 450,000 "guest" workers a year into the United States. These workers have the potential to become a second-class labor force with no intent on becoming American citizens and with the potential to undercut American workers' ability to organize.

Here's our suggestion: tell our Senators and Representatives that Democrats want an easier way for unions to organize. There is a bill in the Congress right now that is being pushed by Democrats that would do away with the need for union representation elections if a majority of a workforce signed cards indicating that they want a union. This would stop employers from conducting campaigns where they intimidate workers by bringing them in for meetings, firing organizers, and hiring expensive law firms whose business is stopping workers from organizing.

Don't make the mistake of thinking of the issue of illegal immigrants as separate from the issue of labor rights. Such division is how the right beats the left. Leftist organizations become too interested in protecting their own interests and fail to see how their interests mesh with the interests of other progressive organizations.

N.Y. Times Story: Illegal Immigrants Taking 20% of Construction Jobs

The New York Times ran a story in the April 17, 2007 edition in the Business section about how the housing slowdown in America is impacting illegal immigrants in America. the interesting statistic in this story is that illegal immigrants are taking up to 20% of all construction jobs, including jobs that pay $25.00 to $35.00 an hour. This is a far cry from how Bush and other Republicans portray illegal immigrants. The refrain from the Republicans and Bush is that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that no one else will do such as farm labor. As this story makes clear, however, illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans would do if they knew about the jobs or had an opportunity to apply for them.

The reason why employers hire illegal immigrants is that it is cheaper to hire them. They won't apply for benefits like unemployment insurance or workers' compensation. They don't complain about being subjected to unlawful working conditions. Because they are often paid "off the books" their compensation doesn't show up for tax purposes. This means that employers don't have to pay for Social Security or Medicare benefits. For the employer, they are a great deal. For the rest of America, however, employing illegal immigrants isn't such a great deal. In fact, its a lousy deal. ________________________________________________________________
Click on the link in the title to read the New York Times article.