ELECTIONATE JUNE 15, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
This morning, the Obama administration announced its intention to halt deportation and allow work authorization for nearly one million undocumented immigrants: those who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16, are younger than 30 years old, and have graduated from high school or have military service. The election year decision is certain to appeal to Latino groups, who overwhelmingly support the DREAM Act while opposing the Obama administration’s expansive deportation efforts.
While the recession has disproportionately harmed Latino communities—and many Latinos are disappointed with Obama’s failure to vigorously pursue comprehensive immigration reform—the president already commands near-2008 levels of support among Latino voters, perhaps due to Romney’s hardline immigration positions. Given that Obama is already near his 2008 standing among Latino voters, it is unclear whether he has much more room for growth. So how much of an effect will today’s announcement really have?
While Obama already possesses an overwhelming share of the Latino vote, enthusiasm and turnout are still a challenge. Latinos vote at a substantially lower rate than the rest of the country; Gallup’s tracking poll has consistently shown Hispanic voters less likely to indicate that they will “definitely vote,” compared to other racial/ethnic groups. Although there is some evidence that Hispanics were already beginning to tune into the race, there is still plenty of room for the president to benefit from rejuvenated Latino enthusiasm.
Increased Latino turnout is the most likely benefit that Obama could derive from this position, but don’t discount the possibility that Obama could make additional gains among Latino voters, even beyond his impressive 2008 performance. McCain had a moderate reputation on immigration issues, even if he abandoned comprehensive reform in pursuit of the GOP nomination. Romney’s stances on immigration are even less palatable to Latino voters, and it’s unclear whether most Latino voters are aware yet of Romney’s most controversial stances. Most polls suggest there are more undecided Latino voters than other racial/ethnic groups, and Romney is generally polling below McCain’s eventual standing among Latino voters. If Obama won an outsized share of undecided Latino voters, he could perform better among Latinos than he did in 2008, even if that seems unlikely given the economic circumstances.
This places Romney in a dangerous position. The Romney campaign recognizes the danger of losing an outsized share of the Latino vote, and there was already chatter about a Rubio-led GOP version of the DREAM act. Obama’s new policy has preempted such a move, and Romney now faces the delicate task of appeasing conservatives while avoiding alienating the Latino vote. Romney’s criticism might focus on Obama’s decision to exercise executive authority, rather than pass a bill through Congress—but voters are uninterested in process and Latinos will likely interpret opposition as opposition.
The next few weeks represent one of Obama’s best opportunities to consolidate the Latino vote. Even if Romney emerges unscathed from today’s news, the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on Arizona’s controversial immigration law might again place him on the defensive. The timing of today’s move allows Obama to ameliorate Latino concerns about his commitment to immigration reform before the Court rules on the divisive Arizona law, which Romney depicted as a potential “model for the nation.”
If Romney loses the election despite a historic performance among white voters, the Latino vote could be considered the decisive factor. Bush won 40 percent of Hispanic voters in 2004; if Romney was doing that well today among Hispanics, his standing could be as much as a net-2 percentage points better nationally. Since Obama’s historic candidacy dooms Republicans to only the smallest sliver of the African American vote, Latinos will stand out as the group that could have provided Romney the presidency, if only Republicans had managed modest gains in an extremely favorable political and economic climate.
9 comments
It's hard to view this in isolation - Romney's main goal is to convince swing voters that Obama is bad for the economy. If adding 1,000,000 low skill workers (yes, they're already here in-part, but now they are unfettered plus this move will empower employers to hire many outside the description) reinforces that narrative, it helps Romney even if it doesn't turn up as an "immigration issue" in the polls per-se. Similarly, if it dampens enthusiasm in young people, who are facing an extremely tough job market, it hurts Obama.
- Lymon1
June 15, 2012 at 6:55pm
lymon, I don't see this in either case. You are talking about Latinos who have lived here there entire life, speak English, have gone to the same schools...few young people are that dickish as to think that the reason they did not get a particular job is due to a Latino. Remember that at lower income levels blacks and latinos are fighting for the same shit jobs, and no way in hell are young blacks going to turn on Obama. At higher income levels how would a person even know if this thoroughly assimilated hispanic is here illegally? And Obama can always point out the net migration from Mexico is dead zero, which is the first time it has ever been so.
- blackton
June 15, 2012 at 9:47pm
blackton - nice talking to you again (really!). and, as usual, there's lots to unpack in your comment. First, you're just factually wrong - even before the recession working class jobs were being lost to illegal immigrant Latinos and not just "shit jobs." Arianna Huffington was paying her illegal immigrant nanny in the $40's before she got caught, Zoe Baird was paying $12/hour in 1992. But even for the "shit jobs" have you missed all the young AND older workers who are seeking such jobs? More importantly, a glut of workers for such jobs has a ripple effect and depresses wages in skilled jobs. Witness the 1990s, when there was significant demand at the low skill end of the job spectrum: income inequality trends slowed in general and for the first time in my life African-Americans narrowed the economic gap. Then there's the "net migration is now zero" trope: yes many illegal immigrants moved back when the economy slowed (not just Mexico but since it's the largest contributor it's convenient shorthand - still come to Chicago and you'll find plenty of "overstayed visas" from Poland and elsewhere), but they didn't take with them all the generations of now legal U.S. citizens. For every one of those "thoroughly assimilated hispanics" competing for higher income jobs there more that are still in the low skill workpool. And, of course, that equilibrium at the border will change the moment the economy picks up. Note: I don't blame any of these people, I don't wish to deport them, but I do acknowledge the terrible effect they've had on the working class and African-American underclass particularly. And it's not just jobs but stress on social services like education (though interestingly I've seen studies saying that health care is an exception to this). I think Mickey Kaus is right: if you first secure the border (including a water-tight employment verification with draconian penalties to employers who violate it) you could have one last amnesty for everyone here - this strikes me as the sensible compromise rather than the special-interest driven proposals out there. Until then, that competition you mention, I'm on the side of the African-Americans seeking those jobs - I think after all this nation's history with African-Americans, the least it owes them is a fair shot at that work and to protect them from competition from the rest of the world (not to mention their fair share of voting power - as a result of illegal immigration African-American voting power has been greatly diluted, something hidden by the fact that both groups have to-date been more aligned than not). Young African-American unemployment is over 40% and we're choosing this moment to empower their competition (actually we're not choosing it at all - one person using executive power in the way I and other liberals decried last decade is choosing it). By the way, if these illegal immigrants were primarily from Arab nations like Algeria and Yemen and held the same negative views about Jews as polls have shown Mexicans have about African-Americans (remember Vincente Fox? Even Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson couldn't overlook his rank racism), I suspect this debate would look very different. Second, the point of Nate's article is the political effect. In a close election, it's not just the relative percentages of what groups vote for who but turnout, so anything that dampens enthusiasm can be critical. Also, you look at this too narrowly: even if that unemployed young person isn't "so dickish," their parent might be, or it may simply contribute to the larger narrative Romney is pushing. Doesn't the fact that Obama did this on a Friday indicate they had *some* concerns about the negative political effect?
- Lymon1
June 16, 2012 at 7:54am
I think it should also be considered that people like me (white, male, employed) who support Obama, might like the fact that he's (finally!) moving more decisively in support of his preferences/goals with what power he has. I think this also energizes his base and will have indirect impact on everyone in his camp: "Now he's taking charge over the howls of those do-nothings in Congress." A tangled web to be sure.
- csherbak
June 16, 2012 at 2:08pm
"By the way, if these illegal immigrants were primarily from Arab nations like Algeria and Yemen and held the same negative views about Jews as polls have shown Mexicans have about African-Americans (remember Vincente Fox? Even Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson couldn't overlook his rank racism), I suspect this debate would look very different." But Lymon, it should be pointed out that the illegal immigrants that are the subject of this particular discussion are Americans in every way except formal citizenship. Most of them speak English far more expertly than Spanish, they often have no memory of, or real connection with, the countries they left as children, and their mindset and culture are entirely those of their U.S. non-immigrant peers. Apart from that, it defies logic to suggest that a counterfactual projection of particular attitudes is or should be a factor in evaluating what is good or bad policy. What Vicente Fox did or didn't say is entirely irrelevant as we are not talking about Mexican kids; these are individuals who are, as the president put it, Americans in their heart.
- ironyroad
June 16, 2012 at 7:19pm
lymon: I don't wish to deport them but then what the hell is your solution, a shadow life, not even second class citizens but people who have a status not much better than animals? I mean this literally. Republicans will never go for real hardcore verification, employers profit too much. Don't get me wrong, I am for e-verify and real enforcement, but it will never solve all of the issues because we simply don't have anywhere enough ICE agents. One other thing: but they didn't take with them all the generations of now legal U.S. citizens. I mean, what the hell? So your solution is if you are born a US citizen to illegal immigrants you should fuck off and die because your existence is inconvenient to blacks? I simply don't get this idea of yours that the economic pie is fixed, that there are only limited amount of jobs and no more. In the 90's we have globalization and record low unemployment. And I simply don't believe that black youths who live in Newark are aching to go to Atlanta and pick peaches. And for that matter, we stole most of America from the native Americans, most Mexicans have far more native American blood in them than most people, we stole half of Mexico away from them in the 1800's (granted what they claimed to own themselves was not truly theirs either in the sense that the early government was a Spanish descended aristocracy) And the middle east is not our neighbor, Mexico is. A more prosperous Mexico is good for America. Personally I would prefer we open the borders from Panama on up as long as those countries liberalize their own land use laws. Obviously I don't think we can open it up to everyone as we don't have the room or resources, but North America does. You think your fellow humans are a liability, I don't.
- blackton
June 17, 2012 at 1:55am
Blackton, tell me you write these things just to frustrate me. My hands aren't strong enough to unknot all of this. You want to talk "literally"? There are literally tens of millions of people in the world who would gladly exchange places with American illegal immigrants. No war zone, infinitely better employment prospects, kids get education legal protections undreamed of in their countries and emergency room care and subsequent generations will be full U.S. Citizens. Does that mean that American illegal immigrants have it good? No, but spare me the "not much better than animals" righteousness. Or go rant about the monstrous nature of every other nation on the planet. Second offensive piece of crap: "So your solution is if you are born a US citizen to illegal immigrants you should fuck off and die because your existence is inconvenient to blacks." You mean my advocating a reform law that would give their parents complete amnesty = "fuck off and die"? Because I dared to mention the economic impact they've had on blacks? A reform law that you apparently SUPPORT but say "the GOP will never let it happen. Oh, and the euphemistic "inconvenient to blacks" (aka, deny an escape from a violent, jobless hell of an existence they would otherwise have). "I simply don't believe that black youths who live in Newark are aching to go to Atlanta and pick peaches." How about to the suburbs to work as a nanny? In any event, read Harvard's George Borjas about the effect of illegal immigration on African-American employment and spare yourself the guesswork. Third, I gave you my solution - the consequences of a solution that DOESN'T secure employment is something like John Edwards' "Two Americas" speech on steroids. But as to this particular action, you forget that the DREAM ACT looked like it was going to pass (or at least had GOP support in the senate) until Louis Guitierez bloated it beyond recognition. I'd have added some sort of national service program in addition to the army and would have preferred a stricter education requirement. (Ironyroad - hi - for the reasons you state I'd have been ok with something like the above - one reason President Obama's plan is worse is it strikes me as more susceptible to fraud, plus it includes Guiterez' "anything short of a felony is ok" - in my state spousal and parental abuse is a misdemeanor.) Fourth, I love how you ignore the executive power aspect of this. So now we have a decade bipartisan principle established: Presidents can ignore their oath of office and ignore whatever laws they don't want to enforce. Hey, what could go wrong? Fifth: Oversimplification: there's not a "limited amount of jobs and no more" but there IS a limited amount of unskilled job that the economy can support at the minimum wage. ANd they're going down all the time. The cliche "no skill" job used to be pumping gas. Do you disagree with President Obama that the globalization and automation of the 90's has had effects on the current economy? Finally you misunderstood my point about the Middle East. Illegal immigration goes beyond economic power and includes political power. For decades African-Americans were disenfranchised directly and then indirectly (Jim Crow, gerrymandering, etc.) Again, I dare to claim that the U.S. government owes them their rightful share of political power - that "we're a nation of immigrants" argument doesn't work here. My point is that if you substituted Algeria and Yemen for Mexico and Guatemala there'd be an uproar we don't hear in the current debate, not because of "Islamic terrorism" but because of political power. Call me crazy but I don't think the New Republic would be cheering the creation of an "anti-AIPAC" voting block with twice the power came quickly into existence via a quasi-open border policy.
- Lymon1
June 18, 2012 at 3:59pm
I don't have the time or inclination to "unpack" your arguments Lymon, but it seems to me you are conflating the general issue of illegal immigration, on the one hand, with the issue of how to deal with the "DREAM Act" population, on the other. The issues are related of course, but they involve different considerations. One could favor shooting people at the border, and a draconian boots on the ground campaign to deport 10 or 11 million people, while at the same time favoring conferring legal status on the "DREAM Act" population. Whatever negative impact illegal immigration has had on the employment opportunities of young blacks (and I wonder whether George Borjas' conclusions take into account the positive effect of the consumption of goods and services by "illegal" immigrants, etc.), I am not persuaded that young blacks have a moral claim to employment opportunities that is superior to that of other groups of young people who are no different other than that their parents entered the United States illegally. As top the legality of Obama's new policy, my understanding is that he has vetted the issue very thoroughly to ensure that he has the constitutional and legal authority to implement. Indeed, I have not heard Romney or anyone else on the right contend that his new directive is illegal. Dhurtado
- NR143296
June 19, 2012 at 7:38pm
Dhurtado - I addressed the difference between the Dream Act population and illegal immigrants in general (note the support for the original Dream Act with small change). As for the moral claim, fine, you're not persuaded - like I said, this issue turns liberals into the Tea Party, this is another way (I also note how you don't even mention the unfairness of the loss of black political power, or whether you agree that Presidents should be able to ignore laws they don't like regardless of their oath of office to enforce all laws.)
- Lymon1
June 20, 2012 at 6:48pm