Thread: Victory on Arizona Immigration Law Could Cost Republicans in the Long Run

Victory on Arizona Immigration Law Could Cost Republicans in the Long Run
A green light from the Supreme Court could produce laws that worsen the GOP's problems with Hispanic voters.
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email More Sharing Services

By Beth Reinhard
Updated: April 24, 2012 | 4:13 p.m.
April 24, 2012 | 4:10 p.m.





Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, accompanied by by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., talks to reporters in Aston, Pa., Monday, April 23, 2012. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
If the Supreme Court rejects the Obama administration’s challenge to the Arizona immigration law, the ruling would be widely viewed as a victory for the Republican Party, whose leadership spearheaded the law in the state and championed its spirit nationwide.

But at what cost?

(RELATED: Could the Immigration Case Turn Ariz. into a Blue State?)

Vindicating Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration could embolden other Republican-led states to pass similarly tough laws -- as Georgia, Utah, Indiana, Arizona, and South Carolina have already done – and further the perception that the GOP is hostile to immigrants, and indirectly, to the Hispanic community.

That would put the party on the wrong side of demographics. Hispanics comprise the fastest growing share of the U.S. electorate and wield the power to swing elections in key battleground states, including Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Virginia. These states helped put Obama in the White House and will determine the majority party for decades to come.

(RELATED: The Making of an Immigration Deal?)

“For the long-term political health of the Republican Party, it’s absolutely critical that we do substantially better among Hispanic voters,’’ said GOP pollster Whit Ayres, who has done surveys on immigration issues. “Numbers don’t lie, and the numbers are clear: The percent of the electorate that is white is declining -- and declining rapidly. If we had the demographics in this country in 2008 that we had that we had in 1980, John McCain would be president of the United States.’’

The percentage of the electorate that is white has fallen from 88 percent under Ronald Reagan to 74 percent when the first African-American president was elected. Ayres added,“We’re not talking about differences at the margins. We’re talking about fundamentally different electoral outcomes.’’

(PICTURES: Stakeholders in the Ariz. Case)

No wonder, as polls show Romney lagging behind Obama among Hispanic voters, the presumptive Republican nominee has started to retreat from the hard line against illegal immigration that he took in the primary campaign. He recently told supporters at a fundraiser in Florida that the Republican Party needs to come up with its own version of the Dream Act, which would offer citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who enroll in college or the military. In another sign that Romney is worried about his image with Hispanics, his campaign pushed back on the perception that he praised the Arizona law in a nationally televised debate earlier this year, insisting last week that he was referring to the state’s electronic database for employers to check legal status.

“If the party as a whole continues to take a hard line on immigration, we look like the bad guys,’’ said Hispanic media strategist Lionel Sosa, a former adviser to Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign. “The Republican Party does not want to write off the Hispanic vote.’’

(PICTURES: Where the Presidential Candidates Stand on Immigration)

Some political analysts question whether the crackdown on illegal immigrants in Arizona and other states could fuel a Democratic backlash like the one that followed Proposition 187 in California, a GOP-led initiative in 1994 that sought to bar illegal immigrants from receiving public services. It was declared unconstitutional, but the uproar in the Hispanic community helped turn the largest state in the country, home to Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon, from red to blue.

If Arizona saw a similar backlash, a state that has voted for only one Democratic nominee since Harry Truman could suddenly be in play. So could other reliably Republican states with growing Hispanic populations.

“Proposition 187 was suicide for Republicans in California. It remains to be seen if the same thing happens in Arizona, but the ingredients are there,’’ said Arizona-based political analyst Michael O’Neil. “Take these trends out another 20 years -- Texas could become Democratic, and then you have a whole new ballgame. We’re moving to a point where this country will no longer be majority white, and if Republicans don’t get a foothold among Hispanic voters, they’ll be dead.’’

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American often mentioned as a possible running mate for Romney, could help the party bridge the gap. The hotshot freshman senator sought the middle ground at a University of Phoenix/National Journal forum last week when he said that although he thinks the Arizona law is constitutional, he does not see it as a “model.’’ He also touted a possible alternative to the Dream Act that would offer legal status and work visas, but not citizenship, to people brought to the United States illegally as children. Romney, who campaigned with Rubio for the first time on Monday in Pennsylvania, said he was considering the proposal.

The Rubio plan is already being attacked from both sides of the political spectrum, with liberals warning that it would create a permanent underclass and conservatives decrying what they see as amnesty. Republican Rep. Allen West of Florida, a hero in the conservative movement, told Fox News: “I think [Romney] ought to be very careful for being seen as maybe pandering to a certain electorate or sub-electorate. That is a real danger, because you don't want to seem that you're going out and being a politician."

But Ayres, a Rubio adviser who partnered with the Republican-leaning Hispanic Leadership Network to poll on the issue, said there is strong support for the proposal across party and ethnic lines. At a time when the chances of passing sweeping immigration-reform legislation are remote and more states may follow Arizona's example, he said, Republican support for a tougher version of the Dream Act could help realign the GOP with a crucial voting bloc of the future.

Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.



Victory on Arizona Immigration Law Could Cost Republicans in the Long Run - Beth Reinhard - NationalJournal.com


Some would call it pandering

GOP senators boycott Democrat-led hearing on Arizona’s immigration law
By Jordy Yager - 04/24/12 08:21 PM ET

Republicans on Tuesday boycotted a Democratic-led subcommittee hearing on Arizona’s controversial immigration bill.

The GOP senators called the hearing “theater” and said it was a poor attempt to influence Wednesday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the measure.

“I will not participate in today’s hearing because it is strictly political theater,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in a statement. “The timing of the hearing just one day ahead of the Supreme Court’s review of the law suggests that its purpose is either to influence the court’s decision or to garner publicity."

But Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) — who as Democratic chairman of the subcommittee called the hearing — said it was typical of Republicans to pull a no-show, given that they have been largely absent from the debate on immigration reform.

“None of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came to this hearing. That’s not surprising,” Schumer said. “They’re absent from this hearing just as they’ve been absent from every attempt we’ve made to negotiate a comprehensive solution to our immigration problem.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the ranking member of the subcommittee, said the hearing was “election-year theater” that would do nothing to help reform the country’s broken immigration system.

“This is not an attempt at having a sincere hearing on the merits," Cornyn said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the Democrat majority seems to have embraced President Obama's ‘mañana’ approach to immigration reform.”

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce (R) is the architect of the controversial law, which requires Arizona law enforcement officers to verify legal status if, after stopping a person for violating a law, they suspect the person of being in the country illegally.

An officer cannot stop someone based solely on the suspicion of being an illegal immigrant, but Democrats and civil rights groups are concerned the state measure will lead to racial profiling.

Pearce testified before the subcommittee on Tuesday in favor of the law and said he was “disappointed” that Republicans didn’t show up to support it. He said he would have liked a heads-up from Cornyn or Kyl about the boycott.

“I kind of would have appreciated a phone call,” said Pearce to reporters after the hearing, adding that he was sure the Republicans had their reasons for not attending. “But I’m not one to run from what is the right thing to do.

“We knew this was mostly politics. [Congress doesn’t] have a vote and the Supreme Court does.”

None of the subcommittee’s other Republicans, including Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah) or Jeff Sessions (Ala.), attended the hearing.

Schumer and Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) were the only Democratic members to attend. Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of the full committee, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) were also no-shows.

The Supreme Court plans to meet Wednesday for oral arguments on whether it is constitutional for a state to craft its own immigration laws — an act historically reserved for the federal government. The Obama administration sued Arizona after the measure was signed into law in 2010.

Safeguarding against the possibility that the Supreme Court could move to uphold the Arizona law, Schumer said he plans to introduce a measure that would bar states from enacting their own penalties for violators of federal immigration laws.

Schumer’s bill would also prohibit state and local law enforcement from stopping or holding violators of immigration law, unless the officers have been trained as part of a federal enforcement effort.

The New York Democrat's measure would force lawmakers to take a tough vote on immigration in an election year when both parties are eager to court Latino voters.

Republicans in the upper chamber would likely vote to uphold the Arizona measure despite the strong opposition of Latino groups.

But the GOP could try to turn the tables on Schumer by arguing his bill is another example of Democrats voting to expand the size and power of the federal government at the expense of state and local governments.

Even if it made it out of the Senate, Pearce said there’s no way Schumer’s bill would pass the House’s Republican majority.

Pearce said he supports the vision of de facto Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. But Romney, who said earlier this year that the Arizona law was a “model” for the country, has walked back those comments. His campaign says the former governor was referring to only one of the Arizona law’s 10 provisions, regarding the use of E-verify for employment screenings.

Pearce said he “absolutely” took Romney’s comments at face value.

— Updated at 8:21 p.m.




GOP senators boycott Democrat-led hearing on Arizona



Wonder where the "yeller" went!!!! Guess they don't want to make a stand publicly I would call it pandering in the highest form our country be damned !!!!