Immigration -- Why Now?
Granted, immigration has shot up the charts from time to time throughout the history of the nation so it's not a great shock to see it there again. And, you know, there's this big debate going on about it in Congress – full of passion, sensitive feelings, raw nerves and even voting. So there's no doubt about it's validity as a story. The bigger question may be, why now?
As I said, it's an issue we've been dealing with really since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock (actually, it was the native Americans with the immigration problem back then). So, in the middle of a war (pick yours – war on terror, war in Iraq, war on Easter, war seems to be pretty much everywhere) and plenty of other issues looking for a place on the agenda (political corruption, budget deficits, leak investigations, crime at Duke and did I mention war?), what makes immigration such an important issue to discuss at this particular moment in time? Summers are traditionally pretty slow, why not put it off until then?
Here's what I think -- the answer, as it so often seems to be, can only be politics. I'm not talking about the gay-marriage kind of politics, where one side or another claims an issue to be of such paramount importance to the nation that it must be dealt with immediately (but really only helps them politically). No, this has more to do with real political pressure it appears, the inconvenient kind coming from the constituents. The kind a whole lot of our elected "leaders" would just as soon leave alone.
First, a brief history of how the issue has played out over the past decade or so. Illegal immigration, which is the root of what we're talking about here, was a red-hot issue not all that long ago. Back in 1994, you see, it dominated the political discussion in California where Proposition 187 took a popular idea and turned it into a political nightmare.
What you have to remember about California and it's ballot initiative process is that in many instances over the past half-century, it has served as an early-warning system for political movements destined to sweep eastward. In 1978, Proposition 13 signaled the rise of the anti-tax crusaders, a wave that helped a certain governor of the state surf into the White House just two years later. The state's "three strikes" law toughening penalties for repeat criminal offenders came in the form of an initiative, and battles on cultural issues, the environment, education, health care and many other issues have been fought through the process.
It's almost direct-democracy: gather enough signatures to get your proposition, pass it at the ballot box, and you've made a law. That's what groups concerned about the impact of illegal immigration in California sought to accomplish with Prop. 187, which was aimed at denying state social services (like emergency room care) to undocumented aliens. The year was 1994, and California Governor Pete Wilson (R) was running for re-election in a what was expected to be a very tight contest. Prop. 187 passed with nearly 60% of the popular vote that year. Relying heavily on his support for it, Wilson was re-elected but the seeds sown in that victory soon grew into a tumor on his political legacy that helped signal the end of an otherwise successful career.
As popular as Prop. 187 appeared to be among California voters who went to the polls that year, fissures began tearing the Republican Party wide open. Many prominent national party leaders publicly opposed the measure, as did many Republican businessmen in the state. Hispanics who had supported the GOP in large numbers began deserting the party and Republicans began losing seats at every level in the state. To top it off, the law created by Prop. 187 was declared unconstitutional.
Wilson himself was scarred by television ads he ran during the campaign featuring grainy footage of illegal immigrants streaming over the border, images that raised the issue of race in a derogatory manner. When Wilson attempted a run for president in 1996, the issue and the wreckage of Prop. 187 haunted what proved to be a bid that ended almost before it even began.
Republicans in particular, and politician in general, had to have seen the California story as the way not to deal with the issue of illegal immigration, lest they risk electoral disaster. Better not to really deal with it at all. Since 1994, the Hispanic voting bloc has become the fastest growing and most sought-after group of votes for political professionals. Unlike many other demographic groups, like African Americans, Hispanics aren't historically anchored to one party or another. It's a diverse community, with many subsets. Second or third generation voters, new citizens, Cubans, Latin American immigrants, Mexican-American immigrants, Cubans, etc, all with different wants, needs and set of issues important to them.
No politician or party wants to risk alienating the majority of that bloc, however, by making an issue out of race – and that has inevitably been a part of the current debate over immigration. Add to that the sort of fractures in the Republican Party that happened in California – pitting ideological conservatives against big businesses that depend on immigrant labor for instance – and it does make you wonder why the Republican Congress wants this issue on the agenda at all, let alone heading into an election year.
But the party has been getting increasing pressure from its traditional base – a base it desperately needs energized in order to stem looming losses this fall. Remember hearing about the Minuteman Project? Made up of a group of volunteers concerned about lack of enforcement, they kicked up quite a bit of dust last year by staging vigilante-type border control operations of their very own. They quickly became stars in some conservative circles, and the group's founder, Jim Gilchrist, even waged a high-profile but losing campaign in a special congressional election in California (he came in third in a GOP primary). Democrats have a stake in this issue as well. A law that would eventually allow some 11 million immigrants already in the country to become citizens might prove helpful to the party given credit for it, and there are some fissures in their current coalition as well. But Republicans seem to have the most at risk here.
The Minuteman Project was a public airing of the concern over the issue but there have been smaller debates taking place in many states over the past few years. In Arkansas, yes Arkansas, a bitter debate occurred over a proposal to require anyone registering to vote to prove citizenship and those seeking state aid to prove legal residency. Arizona has similar laws. Other states have addressed the issue in different ways, many immigrant-friendly.
Those seeking stricter enforcement and/or reforms in immigration law also have a vocal champion in Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), whose long public battle on the issue may serve as a launching post for a presidential bid in 2008. There are other members of Congress, particularly in the House, who are not hurt by being just as tough on the subject either. With his Texas history as a calling card, President Bush may have once had an opportunity to accomplish something on the issue, but after September 11th and with the war in Iraq having dominated his plate, it's been left to others. In any event, the issue seems to have arrived.
So, it appears this is an issue that has simply gotten to the point where political leaders have more to risk in ignoring the issue than they do in trying to address it. Make no mistake, even the possible solutions are full of things that make one group or other very unhappy (you have seen pictures of those 500,000 protesters in Los Angeles haven't you). That's a major reason why I think it's popped up onto the top of the nation's agenda. But if you think this is bad, wait until we get to that Social Security debate in about 15 years.