immigration

For months, members of the 21st Century Border Initiative have been busy cultivating a network of stakeholders throughout the Southwest and capturing their thoughts about the state of the U.S. - Mexican border region. Today we're proud to announce the release of a 21st Century Border Initiative YouTube page, a great portal for hearing directly from those in leadership positions – Mayors, Sheriffs, businesspeople – about the extraordinary progress made along the border region in recent years.

Through a new and better strategy, more resources and greater cooperation with our Mexican partners, the border region is much safer today. Crime is down, illegal migration has slowed, seizures of illegal drugs, guns and bulk cash has soared, all while trade and legal border crossings have increased. Despite the very real challenge of the cartel violence, the US side of the border has seen great progress in recent years. The voices on our new site testify to the progress which has made, and the to the very real challenges which remain.

Our inaugural 21st Century Border Project event was held over a year ago, and featured CPB Commissioner Alan Bersin and the Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan discussing the merits of the United States and Mexico working together to create a true 21st century border, one where more good things happen – trade, legal migration – and fewer undesirable things - flows of illegal guns, drugs, people and bulk cash. The video can be seen here. The full transcript of the event can be read here.

Some of the people featured on the new site:

Mayor of Nogales Arturo R. Garino, AZ: Mayor Garino is a former City of Nogales Firefighter and a former Law Enforcement Officer both in the City and Santa Cruz County. He Served over three and a half years as Public Works Director for the City of Nogales under Mayor Cesar Rios, Mayor Marco Antonio Lopez Jr., Mayor Albert Kramer. He is currently the Mayor of Nogales Arizona. In his video Mayor Garino talks about the importance of how the Nogales border is safer then ever.

Vice Mayor of Tucson Richard Fimbres, AZ: Richard Fimbres is a lifelong resident of Ward 5 and Tucson, graduate of St. Ambrose and Tucson High Schools and a 20-year veteran of the Pima County sheriff's Department. He is a Vietnam-era veteran of the United States Army having served as a military policeman, patrol and narcotics dog handler. In his video the Vice Mayor Fimbres talks about the importance of Mexican tourism to Arizona's economy.

El Paso Mayor John F. Cook, TX: John Cook is Mayor of El Paso, Texas. Cook formerly served as president of the El Paso Health Care Facilities Financing Corporation and El Paso Housing Finance Corporation.In his video Mayor Cook discusses the importance of legal migration for the economies of border cities.

Sheriff Tony Estrada, AZ: Sheriff Tony Estrada was first sworn into office on January 1, 1993. Sheriff Estrada was born in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, immigrated with his family as an infant and grew up in Nogales, Arizona. In his video Sheriff Estrada talks about how the border in Arizona is safer then it has ever been.

Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, AZ: Clarence W. Dupnik has served as the Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona, since his appointment in February 1980. County voters endorsed the choice nine months later by electing him to his first four-year term and ratified that decision by re-electing him six additional times. In his video Sheriff Dupnik talks about the dangers of the political rhetoric surrounding the border.

Sheriff Lupe Trevino, TX: Guadalupe "Lupe" Trevino is Sheriff of Hidalgo County, Texas. He currently serves on the State of Texas Homeland Security Office Mass Migration Committee and on the Executive Committee of the Texas Radio Interoperability Coalition. In his video Sheriff Trevino discusses how the border is much safer then political figures would have you believe.

Ruben Barrales, CEO SD Chamber of Commerce, CA: Ruben Barrales is President and CEO of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. He served in the White House for five years as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush, where he was the President’s liaison to state and local elected officials. In his video Ruben talks about the importance of economic security along the southwest border.

Marco Rubio: Latino friend or foe?  That's the question posed in today's Al Dia:

Líderes hispanos y activistas de inmigración esperaban que Rubio tomara una postura más moderada en vistas de una campaña electoral, pero en su lugar, el republicano ha tomado una postura de mayor oposición al DREAM-Act, y se refiere a cualquier medida que no esté relacionada con la seguridad fronteriza y al verificación de estatus migratorio para trabajar, como “amnistía”.

In short, activists continue to hope that Senator Rubio's position on immigration will evolve...back to what it was.  From Scott Wong at Politico:

as a state lawmaker in 2003 and 2004, Rubio co-sponsored a bill providing an in-state tuition break for high-achieving children of illegal immigrants. As speaker of the Florida House, Rubio blocked several bills from coming to the floor, saying it was Washington’s responsibility to solve the immigration problem.

But rather than stepping up on the issue, Rubio has stepped back.  From Politico:

...backed by grass-roots tea party activists on the campaign trail, Rubio tacked right on the immigration issue and never looked back. He endorsed Arizona’s controversial immigration law that is being challenged by the Obama administration in the courts. And he opposed an earlier version of the DREAM Act that was twice filibustered by Republicans in the Senate.

“My position is unchanged from the campaign that I ran on,” Rubio said. “I’m not here to break campaign promises.”

Marco Rubio is undoubtedly smart and charming.  His future is bright.  He has an opportunity here to demonstrate leadership and to act as a bridge between disparate communities.  Instead, he is playing it safe.  That is the real crisis of leadership. 

Rubio's name is freqently mentioned as a Republican vice-presidential candidate.  The implication is that having a Hispanic on the ticket makes it easier for Republicans to win in the Sunbelt.  But a last name isn't enough to woo Latino voters.  While Rubio carried the Cuban vote, he did not carry the non-Cuban vote in his own state.  If Rubio wants to be a national player he will need to take up the mantle of reform for his people, for his party, for America.  If he doesn't, it will be a big loss for him, for his party and for the people who sent him to congress. 

This weekend, singer Shakira was honored by the Harvard Foundation for her artistic and humanitarian work.  After the ceremony, Shakira offered a message of hope to the Latino community:

The Grammy Award-winning singer...said Latino immigrants in the U.S. facing various anti-immigrant bills will have "justice" as public awareness about their plight grows.

"Justice will come. I'm sure," Shakira told The Associated Press after the award ceremony. "Wherever there is ... a kid, who could be the son or the daughter of a Latino immigrant, who cannot attend a school in the United States of America, that kid should be a concern to all of us and our responsibility."

Shakira's sentiment is on-point with the results of a Pew Research poll released just last week which show that despite a rise in extreme rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants, including the emergence of a campaign to change the 14th ammendment, a majority of Americans oppose such radical proposals.  According to Bruce Drake at Politics Daily:

Proposals to deny citizenship to what immigration hardliners call "anchor babies" born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant parents are unpopular with the public. Fifty-seven percent oppose changing the Constitution's 14th amendment that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Thirty-nine percent favor changing the amendment and 4 percent are undecided.

Pew also released a different set of research last week - one examining the digital habits of Latinos and African-Americans.  The study found that Latinos have less home broadband access than black Americans but share similar rates of Internet and mobile use. Other key findings include both groups using mobile technology for internet access in the absence of home broadband.  Unsurprisingly, more acculturated Latinos reported greater online usage than their less acculturated peers.  In addition, when researchers controlled for income and education, the numbers were consistent across racial groups.  Jill Duffy has a good rundown of the data here.   

Finally, Chuck Raasch uses the scene in Wisconsin to examine the difference between Millennials and other generation when it comes to cooperation and combat.  You can read it here.

In the last few days I've done a slew of interviews with reporters discussing the politics of SB1070 and the decision by the Department of Justice to declare the law unconstiutional.  The national GOP has gone into big time spin mode on this, declaring from the reporters I've spoken to the DOJ suit is political death for "Democrats in the West."   While that scenerio is possible of course, lets look at what we know about how this debate has played out in recent years. There two things we know for sure:

1) When Latinos are demonized by the GOP there is a backlash.  In California in the 1990s, and in national politics in this past decade, when Republican leaders launch a sustained anti-immigrant, anti-Latino Latinos respond, applying for citizenship in higher numbers, registering in higher numbers, voting in higher numbers, and voting aggressively against the Republican Party.  Given that Latinos now make up 15 percent of the national population, and large percentages of the voting population in major states - CA, FL, TX and key Presidential states - AZ, CO, NM, NV - a big shift in the Hispanic vote can dramatically alter the politics of a community, state and the nation. 

2) The Republicans have not shown that their anti-immigrant position works outside a Republican primary audience.   The polling on immigration has been consistent over the past five years.   About 15-20 percent of the country want the undocumenteds to leave and consider immigration a voting issue.  They are largely base Republican voters.  Hispanics too view immigration as a voting issue.  The rest of the country sees immigration as a second tier issue, trailing way behind more important issues like the bad economy, need for better health and foreign policy matters.  And for most of those who view it as an issue of secondary importance they are comfortable with the solution Congress has been proposing called comprehensive immigration reform (in this recent WaPo poll, for example, 57% support allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the US permanently while also giving majority support to SB1070).

So what this means in campaign terms is that a hard-line anti-immigrant stance can work well in a contested Republican primary - think Jan Brewer - but has not shown the capacity to motivate non-Hispanic general election voters in battleground races.  The Republican Party will have a hard time naming a single race the last several elections where a hard-line anti-immigrant candidate won purely on this issue, and virtually no GOP campaign has spent money on the issue in the last month of any race we've studied. In fact, I've argued before, that the emphasis the GOP has put on immigration has actually been a big negative with swing voters for it reinforces the worst attribute of the GOP of recent years - their willingness to put poliitics over problem solving.  For many their obsession with anti-immigrant politics looks feckless, partisan and helps reinforce their lack of seriousness as a party.  For while immigration matters, of course, it is just not as important as some of the more wild-eyed immigrant haters want to believe it is.  Most Americans are just way too smart for that.

Sometimes ithe anti-immigrant stance doesn't even work in a Republican primary audience.  In the 2008 Presidential election, the most liberal Republican on immigration, John McCain, won his party's nomination.  The anti-immigrant candidate, Tom Tancredo, never received more than 1% in any poll taken during the primary season.  And of course Senator McCain was then beaten by someone much more liberal than he on immigration reform, Barack Obama, who despite his pro-immigration reform stance received the largest vote share a Democratic Presidential candidate had received in 44 years. 

Unfortunately, Politico bought this GOP spin about how the GOP candidates will turn support of SB1070 into a winning regional issue and published this largely unsubstantiated and disapointing piece yesterday. Already, this morning we have a clear repudiation of the national GOP narrative in the largest state in the West, California, where Republican Gubernational candidate Meg Whitman has launched billboards in Spanish proclaiming her opposition to SB1070.  Newsweek has published this thoughtful essay making the case that the DOJ suit is smart politics for Obama. My gut is that this piece is closer to the truth than Politico's slightly hysterical initial take.

Whatever the politics of the DOJ suit are I think the government did the right thing.  Once SB1070 was passed, the federal government had to act.  If SB1070 succeeds we could end up with 50 different immigration policies in the US, not a single federal one.  The President was right last week to challenge Congress to quit kicking the can down the road on immigration reform and step up to build a better immigration system.  The Department of Justice was also right to challenge SB1070, a serious threat to the integrity of our federal immigration system. 

So what do we know about the politics of SB1070? Here is my take:

1) It will make it more likely that there is a large Latino vote against anti-immigrant candidates in the heavily Mexican-American West.

2) Outside of Arizona, I have serious doubts that a hard-line anti-immigrant stance will work for the GOP.  Most anti-immigrant voters in the West have already been motivated by many of the anti-Democratic messages of this cycle, and there just isnt a lot of data or experience to indicate that in this tough economy the GOP will be able to make the issue pop with non-Hispanic audiences beyond their base.  There is evidence and experience, however, which shows that if GOPers continue to talk about the issue deep into the fall it can actually hurt them, as it will help brand the GOPer as one those "more extreme" Republicans, a political brand which has been serially rejected by the American people over the past five years, and a positioning that today remains remarkably unpopular.

3) As the legal, economic and societal costs of SB1070 become better understood, it is very likely that the popularity of SB1070 - an extreme approach to a very real problem - will begin to drop.  From a policy standpoint SB1070 is a bad idea, and overtime I think most folks "in the West" will come to agree. 

4) The way the issue plays in each race in the West will, as Meg Whitman has shown, be determined by how each candidate plays it.   Democrats would be smart to hold firm on demanding a comprehensive national solution and not give into the early politics of this new post SB1070 environment.

That's it for now.  Thoughts welcome of course.  For more on these matters check out my first cut reaction to the DOJ suit and this backgrounder on NDN's work on immigration reform.

I was in Simon's office after my afternoon TV appearance discussing immigration when I got this Facebook message.  Simon suggested that I consider sharing it. 

Alicia, did Harvard and your privileged life make you Stupid or Fucked Blind?

You know...I hate to sound like a low-life person but I just have to tell you that I can't stand fucked Liberals like you!

Look! Why don't you come spend a few days down here on the border trenches and see how these people act and then you can speak up on this issue.

You quoted "drunk drivers are being confused with the undocumented criminal" ...Look, are you stupid or ignorant or shelter, "have you ever lived around these fucken people?"

And I am not talking about the the upper class rich Foreigners you are probably used to! I am talking about the disenchanted poor ignorant bastards who are coming over here raping this country?

Well ...let me enlighten you Alicia, they fucked hate us!

They are behind a lot of fucken crime. I know because I work around a lot of these people. And I can tell you that not one person I have met gives a shit about you, me, our way of life and much-less America.

The only fucken reason you fucken Liberals want to cater to these people is because you can't wait for the day you give them the power to VOTE.

That's right! People do know your fucked up agenda.

The problem with this is: "these people do not want to assimilate and they don't want to be American. They hate us.

Read your fucken History Alicia! Read what the Visigoth and all those other nomads did to Rome over 4 centuries. It took them time to build up their numbers but they finally brought Civilization to the brink of extension by defeating Rome from within.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT!

IS THAT WHAT YOU FUCKEN PEOPLE WILL SCARFACE JUST TO KEEP YOUr FUCKED UP POWER!

PLEASE KNOW THAT I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN OR WHATEVER. I AM JUST GUY DOING HIS PART. AND WHEN I SEE STUPID EDUCATED NAIVE PEOPLE LIKE YOU COME ON TV TAKING OUT OF YOUr ASS...IT PISSES ME OFF TO MY CORE.

I CAN'T STAND PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

SO HAVE A FUCKEN AWFUL DAY AND I PRAY LIFE ROCKS YOU OFF YOUR SHELTERED PRIVILEGED LIFE.

You fucken stupid people!

Once again Ruben Navarette has gotten it wrong…  Read his full article here or better yet don’t, I will summarize it in a single sentence: both Democrats and Republicans are undeserving of the Hispanic vote, because they have taken this voting block for granted.

This is nothing short of nonsense. It has been a difficult year for Democrats, who continue to have to make tough decisions on big issues such as the economy and health care, but there is no ambiguity about which Party has been advocating for the interests of Hispanics.

President Obama and Congressional Leadership remain committed to passing comprehensive immigration reform. It is very likely that if not for the BP oil spill and the totality of the White House’s attention to stopping the flow of oil into the Gulf Coast, there would have been more significant progress on this issue. It is still entirely possible that there will be movement on immigration reform in Congress this summer.

As the administration and Congress have taken some politically difficult steps to rescue the country from a potential second Great Depression, rebuild the economy for the long term and pass health care legislation, they have also worked tirelessly to improve the lives of Hispanics in this country.

In fact, the legislative triumphs on both the economy and health care have been tremendously important not only for the country but for Hispanics in particular.

This Administration and Congress, have extended unemployment and modified eligibility in a way that dramatically effects Hispanics, expanded health insurance for children, which for the first time ever allows states to cover legal immigrant children, signed the Lilly Ledbetter act which ensures that women, including Latinas, receive equal pay, invested heavily in education (which is especially important to Hispanics who are the fastest-growing segment of the public school population and make up nearly one in five public school students), and passed a health care plan which overwhelmingly benefits Hispanics.

People often forget that Hispanics have the highest percentage of uninsured people in the country. There are as many as 9 million, that do not possess health insurance. Under the new health reform measure, Hispanics are eligible for coverage, this includes subsidies for low income families and tax credits so that small businesses can expand health coverage to their employees.

On the subject of Immigration Mr. Navarette, notes that, “Latinos have the right to be disillusioned by the failure of both parties to address the immigration issue.”

This is a common misunderstanding.  Democratic Leaders have put forth a plan, it may not be the plan that Mr. Naverette likes, but certainly it is better than no plan at all, which is what the Republican leadership has proposed. By focusing on enforcement measures, the White House is addressing many of the objections that Republicans have raised before they will come to the negotiating table on immigration.  And yet, Republicans continue to refuse to deal with comprehensive immigration reform.

Comprehensive immigration legislation will require many different types of reform, spanning several different agencies and branches of government. Taking the time to position all of the relevant pieces before engaging in what will be a long difficult process, seems not only to be intelligent but necessary to ensure the passage of legislation that truly addresses all of the problems facing our nation’s broken immigration system.

Finally, while immigration is important to Hispanics it is in no way the only important issue for this diverse population of Americans. A recent poll of Hispanics shows that the weak economy, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, low quality of public schools and the lack of access to health care all poll as important issues to Hispanics.  What Mr. Navarette does not seem to understand is that the Hispanic community is not a one issue voting bloc, that they are diverse and passionate about the well being of their country as a whole.

It would seem that any President and Congress, Democrat or Republican, that focuses on the economy, health care and education would be doing what is best for both the country and the Hispanic community. Imagine that.

For those who follow NDN's demographic research or the work of our amazing fellows Mike Hais and Morley Winograd, you won't find many surprises in Damien Cave's New York Times piece "A Generation Gap Over Immigration" (aside, of course, from the surprise of having someone actually write on immigration using a generational lens: thank you Damien Cave!)

Inspired by recent polling, which reflects a generational gap in support for AZ SB 1070, as well as larger questions of current and future flow, Cave's interviews and analysis boil down to some of the most basic and obvious generational characteristics:  Millennials' are shaped by the group-centric, diverse worlds in which we were raised, while Boomers, as Cave writes, "came of age in one of the most homogenous moments in our country's history."  Thus, it is hardly surprising that Millennials would be more progressive on an issue like immigration than an older generation. 

In Cave's article, some argue that this divide might slow reform.  I believe, to the contrary, that studying this divide might hold the key to refining a pro-reform message.  We will likely never get Boomers as a whole to Millennials' place of acceptance, but we can more effectively message to this older generation by speaking to their resistance - namely that the America they know and love will change as a consequence of allowing a new group of immigrants to earn citizenship- rather than avoiding the root of their resistance simply because it makes us uncomfortable or angry.

The recent passage of Arizona's SB 1070 has shed due national light on immigration as an issue that affects all Americans and needs to be addressed.  At NDN, we have said for five years now that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed.  That it has taken a draconian measure such as the passage of this bill to give this important issue the attention it deserves is unfortunate but not surprising.  The legislative arm of our government has had a beefy calendar trying to address healthcare, jobs and the economy, environmental concerns, and education. 

In a democratic bureaucracy that was designed to work slowly so as to prevent any person or group from taking over quickly or easily, we must strategically inspire our leaders to take action.  Issues such as education, which affect more people more directly, are often addressed in a timelier manner because constituents put more pressure on their leaders to do so.   In the Fall of 2008, according to the Census, 55.8 million children were enrolled in elementary school through high school - that's nearly 20% of the population. 

The slow rate at which our government works is not its only downfall.  In addition, issues such as education and immigration are often addressed with tunnel vision, eliminating the chance to account for factors outside the issue's scope.  Most education policy only directs money towards schools.  Most proposed immigration policy focuses on toughening the border, providing pathways to citizenship for immigrants already in the country, and managing future flow.  The DREAM Act is an exception that takes a two pronged approach, providing an educational incentive for immigrants by qualifying undocumented youth to be eligible for a six-year long conditional path to citizenship that requires the completion of a college degree or two years of military service. 

The recent wave of education activists that have pioneered immigrant charter schools provide another example of efforts that address the multi-dimensional world in which we live.  These schools, such as the Twin Cities International Elementary School in Minneapolis, MN and the Folk Arts-Cultural Treasures Charter School in Philadelphia, PA work to provide a rigorous education in a culturally sensitive environment.  In Stanford University's 2009 study of charter school performance in 16 states, results suggested that over a third of charter school students performed at a lower level than their public school counterparts.  While this is somewhat disconcerting considering the increasingly substantial role of charter schools in education reform, there were two subgroups in the nationally pooled sample that fared better in charter schools than in the traditional system: students in poverty and English Language Leaners (ELLs).  It should be noted that not all ELL students are immigrants and that the study did not focus solely on immigrant charter schools, but even with these variables, one can reasonably hypothesize that immigrant charter schools would likely be a good place for immigrant students. 

After teaching two years of elementary school, I feel I can say that, students at the elementary school level need more nurturing than those in middle or high school.  As with most people, if they are uncomfortable for any reason, they are less likely to reach their full learning potential.  It seems, then that these immigrant charter schools are a fantastic idea - but only to a certain point.  In the middle school years, when most children are more influenced by their peers than by their teachers, it would be limiting and perhaps debilitating for students to remain in an immigrant charter school.  If we want our children to achieve their dreams in this country, they must not only be able to read, write, and compute.  They must also be woven into the cultural fabric of American society.  There is no better way to do this than to be immersed in it, and an immigrant charter school seems not to be able to provide that opportunity.  Additionally, if this model became pervasive, wouldn't we face the danger of once again segregating our schools?

Ultimately, I believe in doing what it takes for students to succeed, and I support immigrant charter schools.  However, I encourage policy makers, education activists, entrepreneurs, and the like to approach these innovative models with a long term focus and to lead periodic conversations, reflect on positive and negative implications of their work, and make adjustments as they are necessary.

Simon was recently quoted in Christina Bellantoni's piece for Talking Points Memo "Inside Democrats' Election-Year Immigration Push," Walter Shapiro's Politics Daily piece "Immigration Fight: Has Arizona's Get-Tough Law Changed Everything?" and Dick Polman's The Philadelphia Inquirer Piece "The American Debate."

Also be sure to check out Andres' thoughts in Anjeanette Damon's piece for the Reno Gazette Journal "GOP immigration views may cost Hispanic votes."

My Fox appearance from this morning with Former Congressman and US Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth is forthcoming!

Talk about a home run...

New York, NY, Friday, April 30, 2010 ... The following statement was issued today by Major League Baseball Players Association Executive Director Michael Weiner regarding the immigration law recently passed by the state of Arizona.

"The recent passage by Arizona of a new immigration law could have a negative impact on hundreds of Major League players who are citizens of countries other than the United States.  These international players are very much a part of our national pastime and are important members of our Association.  Their contributions to our sport have been invaluable, and their exploits have been witnessed, enjoyed and applauded by millions of Americans.  All of them, as well as the Clubs for whom they play, have gone to great lengths to ensure full compliance with federal immigration law.
 
"The impact of the bill signed into law in Arizona last Friday is not limited to the players on one team.  The international players on the Diamondbacks work and, with their families, reside in Arizona from April through September or October.  In addition, during the season, hundreds of international players on opposing Major League teams travel to Arizona to play the Diamondbacks.  And, the spring training homes of half of the 30 Major League teams are now in Arizona.  All of these players, as well as their families, could be adversely affected, even though their presence in the United States is legal.   Each of them must be ready to prove, at any time, his identity and the legality of his being in Arizona to any state or local official with suspicion of his immigration status.  This law also may affect players who are U.S. citizens but are suspected by law enforcement of being of foreign descent.  
 
"The Major League Baseball Players Association opposes this law as written.  We hope that the law is repealed or modified promptly.  If the current law goes into effect, the MLBPA will consider additional steps necessary to protect the rights and interests of our members.

"My statement reflects the institutional position of the Union.  It was arrived at after consultation with our members and after consideration of their various views on this controversial subject."