A Journal of the Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center
Summer 2013
Congress and Immigration Policy
The Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center Established in 1979 by the Oklahoma Regents for Higher Education and the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, the Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center is a nonpartisan institution devoted to instruction and scholarship related to the United States Congress. The mission of the Center is defined broadly in terms of academic inquiry into the history, structure, process, personnel, and policies of the Congress, and the relationship between the Congress and other agencies and actors in the American political system. In the most general sense, the Center is concerned with the problems of modern representative democracy, as exemplified by the Congress. In pursuit of this goal, the Carl Albert Center performs four principal functions. The first is the development of academic programs in congressional studies at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, which are sponsored in cooperation with the University of Oklahoma’s Department of Political Science. At the graduate level the Center offers a four-year, specialized fellowship program leading toward the doctoral degree. Each Fellow receives a fully financed program of study. At the undergraduate level the Center sponsors a research fellowship program designed to foster collaborative research between faculty and undergraduates. Second, believing that professional research is the foundation upon which its academic programs rest, the Center promotes original research by faculty members and students into various aspects of politics and the Congress. The Center encourages
publication and provides its faculty and students with institutional and financial support to travel for research purposes and to present research findings at professional conferences. The third function of the Center is the development of resource materials related to the Congress. The Center’s Congressional Archives, which are among the largest in the country, include the papers of more than fifty former members of Congress. Such prominent Oklahomans as Speaker Albert, Dewey F. Bartlett, Page Belcher, Mickey Edwards, Glenn English, Robert S. Kerr, Sr., Fred Harris, Steve Largent, Dave McCurdy, Mike Monroney, Tom Steed, Mike Synar, and J. C. Watts have donated their papers to the Center along with such distinguished non-Oklahomans as Dick Armey, Helen Gahagan Douglas, and Carl Hatch. Fourth, the Center actively strives to promote a wider understanding and appreciation of the Congress through various civic education programs. The Center sponsors conferences, speakers, television appearances, and the biennial Julian J. Rothbaum Distinguished Lecture in Representative Government. The Center also publishes Extensions, a journal which focuses on issues related to the Congress. Taken together, these diverse aspects of the Carl Albert Center constitute a unique resource for scholarship and research related to the United States Congress.
Summer 2013
extensions
A Journal of the Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center
Contents
Director and Curator Cindy Simon Rosenthal Associate Director Glen S. Krutz Regents’ Professor Ronald M. Peters, Jr. Managing Editor and Assistant to the Director LaDonna Sullivan Assistant Director for N.E.W. Leadership Lauren Schueler Archivist Robert Lay Bailey Hoffner National Advisory Board David Albert Richard A. Baker David L. Boren John Brademas Richard F. Fenno, Jr. Joseph S. Foote Jess Hay Joel Jankowsky Thomas J. Kenan Dave McCurdy Frank H. Mackaman Thomas E. Mann Chuck Neal Michael L. Reed Catherine E. Rudder James C. Wright, Jr.
Summer 2013
Editor’s Introduction Congress and Immigration Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Ronald M. Peters, Jr.
Special Orders Immigration Reform: Is Now the Time? . . . . . . . . 5 Lina Newton
ON THE COVER: Immigrants on the steerage deck of an ocean steamer passing the Statue of Liberty, depicted in wood engraving, 1887. (Image from Library of Congress)
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Immigration Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Walter C. Wilson Public Opinion and the Path to Immigration Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Allyson F. Shortle
For the Record News from the Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 LaDonna Sullivan
Extensions is a copyrighted publication of the Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center. It is published twice each year and distributed free of charge. To receive copies of Extensions, or to obtain permission to reprint, please contact the managing editor, LaDonna Sullivan, at (405) 325-6372 or e-mail to ljsullivan@ou.edu. Extensions may also be viewed on the Center’s web site at www.ou.edu/ carlalbertcenter.
Hon. Tom Cole 4th District, Oklahoma ex officio
extensions
Summer 2013
1
Editor’s Introduction
Congress and Immigration Policy Ronald M. Peters, Jr. On June 27, 2013, the United States Senate passed S. 744, the “2013 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” by a vote of 68-32. In this issue of Extensions, we explore the politics and policy surrounding this important legislation. Twenty-five years ago my colleague Arturo Vega and I undertook a study of the roles of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) and House Majority Leader Jim Wright in the enactment of the SimpsonMazzoli Immigration reform bill.1 Our interest lay in exploring the role of party leaders in the passage of important legislation that did not array along strictly partisan lines. The enacting of Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986 was the culmination of several years of legislative effort involving the Reagan White House and congressional Democrats and Republicans. The political momentum on immigration was due to public and elite concern over the steady flow of illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico, into the United States. The legislation aimed to stem that flow primarily by imposing sanctions on employers who hired undocumented workers. The legislation proposed to provide amnesty for illegal immigrants, and federal financial subsidies to states bearing the costs associated with large immigrant populations. A guest worker program for seasonal farm workers was added to the legislation.2 The politics of immigration reform in the 1980s did not break down along party lines. Much of the momentum for reform came from Republicans, and the opposition from Democrats. But both parties were divided. The House Hispanic Caucus was staunchly opposed to employer sanctions, fearing discriminatory effect as employers might be reluctant to hire Hispanic workers. They sought a robust agricultural guest worker program. Caucus members pressured Speaker O’Neill to keep off of the House floor any bill that appeared punitive to Hispanic interests. Agricultural interests favored a guest worker program. Many Republicans favored employer sanctions but some business interests opposed the onerous verification procedures. President Reagan supported the legislation, believing that the Republicans would gain credit for immigration reform. Speaker O’Neill did not want Reagan to steal the issue, but faced internal divisions. As we reported, he mostly wanted the issue to go away. Majority Leader Wright took a more active role, negotiating toward a centrist compromise. Looking back on the six-year effort to enact Simpson-Mazzoli in light of the current debate over immigration policy, one can-
2
not but be struck by both the inherent similarities in the policy dilemma, on the one hand, and differences in the specific issue set and the political environment, on the other hand. Immigration is always a matter of who should be allowed into the country and who should be kept out. It has always been an issue that arrays along regional, economic, and ethnic lines more than along partisan lines. This is because it divides the base constituencies of both political parties. Among Democrats, the fault line has been between organized labor, which perceives immigration as a threat to employment opportunities and union bargaining power, and the rising Hispanic population, whose support the party needs. Among Republicans, the fault line lies between the many employers who need immigrant labor, and ideological conservatives and nativists who regard illegal immigrants as law-breakers first and foremost, and perceive the immigration tide as a threat to the national culture.
“I
mmigration is always a matter
of the
who
should
country
kept out.
”
be
and
allowed
who
into
should
be
Several dimensions to the current immigration debate distinguish it from its predecessors. At the core remains the question of what to do with more than eleven million undocumented workers now residing in the United States. In 1986 the Congress, facing similar numbers, opted for an accommodating policy that essentially amnestied millions of resident aliens. Today the word “amnesty” is taboo, and instead both parties have embraced a “path to citizenship” that is either more (Republican) or less (Democratic) onerous depending on party position. A second issue is the border security, more central to the debate now than was the case with Simpson-Mazzoli. Border security arose as an element of the immigration debate in the 1990s, once it became clear that the employer sanctions approach taken by Simpson-Mazzoli had been ineffective
Summer 2013
extensions
in staunching the flow of Senate bill knowing that illegal immigrants across it would likely pass in the the Mexican border. The House with more Demot would thus seem that the political construction of virtual and cratic votes than Repubphysical fences along parts lican. incentives of both parties are aligned in of that border have not If Speaker Boehner stopped illegal immigration favor of immigration reform as they scramble decides to do that, he either, but it has become a would be following in the core element of the Repubfor the Hispanic vote. steps of Speaker O’Neill. lican position to insist on In 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli further enhancements as a initially passed in the condition of any new “path Democrats are now a rare breed, and the House by a vote of 216-211, to citizenship” policy. A third dimenmost conservative Democrat is now more with Republicans in favor 91 to 73 and sion of the current debate focuses on the liberal than the most liberal Republican. Democrats against 125 to 138.4 But it is “high end” of the immigration spectrum, The partisan divide is most noticeable in not clear that Boehner has the flexibilthe need for more highly trained workthe House of Representatives, where it ity to do now what O’Neill did then. In ers to support the technology economy. has given rise to a form of party govern1986 the Democratic Caucus was closely Commercial interests press for skillsment in which, under Republican condivided on immigration, and even the based, rather than family-based immigratrol, the “majority of the majority” often Hispanic Caucus split its votes. O’Neill’s tion priorities. A fourth aspect, at issue dictates what the leadership can bring dilemma was also his opportunity. When in 1986 but more so today, is the pressure to the House floor. Because the House the votes are split 50-50, the party leadthat has developed in state legislatures to Republican conference is now dominated ers cannot be accused of playing favortake independent action to shun illegal by recently elected, hard-core conservaites. Boehner, by contrast, would likely immigrants. tives, Speaker John Boehner may be confront a Republican conference in Alongside these policy differences forced to choose between torpedoing which the decided majority of members reside two important changes in the the immigration reform effort or bringoppose any deal the Senate can reach. political environment. One is the rising to the floor a Senate-passed bill that If he puts the bill on the floor he risks ing importance of the Hispanic vote in can only pass in the House with mostly further alienating conservative members American politics. In 1986 the Hispanic Democratic votes. who are already distrustful of him. Caucus fought on behalf of a constituSeeing this possibility on the horizon, This issue of Extensions offers three ency whose influence on presidential and Boehner has chosen to allow the Senarticles that get to the heart of the immicongressional elections was negligible. In ate to go first, while House negotiators gration debate in Congress. In her article 2012 Barack Obama carried 71% of the develop their own bill. Thus, two “gangs “Immigration Reform: Is Now the Time?” Hispanic vote, which in turn comprised of eight” have been at work, one in the Ina Newton arrays the complexity of 10% of the national electorate.3 Post Senate and the other in the House. The the current policy debate. While noting basic architecture of the Senate bill that each party has an incentive to reach election narratives suggested that the provides for increased border security, accord, immigration policy still produces Republican Party’s hard line position on an “Everify” system for employer verifimultiple and cross cutting fissures that immigration policy had strongly influcation of employee immigration status, are difficult to bridge. Every policy soluenced Latino voters. As the most rapidlya “pathway to citizenship” for resident tion creates a new potential issue. No growing electoral demographic, the but undocumented workers, and adjustsolution is likely to be cost-free, and trend represented a plain threat to the ments to visa quota criteria to provide for Republican Party in national elections most policy proposals carry substantial increased numbers of workers in areas of and in many Senate and House races. implementation costs to federal, state, need. Meantime, the House negotiators Democrats, of course, have every reason and even local governments. Austere have been unable to bridge disagreeto cater to Hispanic voters in order to Republicans will cast immigration policy ments on border security, verification, retain their recent loyalty to the party. in fiscal terms. The private sector now and health insurance coverage for immiIt would thus seem that the political demands an adjustment to the familiesgrants who might be made eligible for incentives of both parties are aligned first policies that have hitherto prevailed, the path to citizenship. Speaker Boehner in favor of immigration reform as they while those families will fight to retain has indicated an intention to follow scramble for the Hispanic vote. There is, their preferential status. Will the politiregular order, which would entail a however, a second factor that makes the cal impetus spawned by the Latino vote House-passed bill and a conference with politics of immigration reform different allow space for new immigration criteria the Senate to resolve differences in the now than in 1986: the polarization of that will favor Asians and Indians? And two versions of the legislation that would the two congressional parties. The biparmight the ethnic politics that is driving result. If the House Republicans are not tisan support for Simpson-Mazzoli was the immigration debate end up underable to pass immigration legislation, then enabled by a much more accommodating mining the opportunity to create a ratioBoehner would be faced with the decicongressional environment than is the nal immigration system that serves the sion to allow House consideration of the case today. Centrist Republicans and nation’s economic future?
“I
”
extensions
Summer 2013
3
“I
f the
House Republicans are not able to pass immigration legislation, then Boehner
would be faced with the decision to allow that it would likely pass in the
This question reminds us of the new power of the Latino vote, which is reflected in the new leverage enjoyed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. When Art Vega and I studied the Hispanic Caucus in the 1980s we found a determined group fighting a rear-guard action within the Democratic Party. Its only leverage resided in emotional appeals to the party leadership to back its positions. The Hispanic Caucus did not provide the swing votes in the House nor did it speak on behalf of an electoral block that claimed the attention of party leaders. Not so today. As Walter Wilson reports in his article “The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Immigration Reform,” the current immigration debate is being influenced by CHC priorities. Senator Robert Mendendez and Congressmen Xavier Becerra and Luis Gutierrez have been active participants in their respective gangs of eight. The Hispanic Caucus’s priority is for a comprehensive bill that includes (among other things) border security, a path to citizenship, employer accountability, family reunification, the Dream Act, and new workers programs.5 The CHC thus aims to use its political leverage to push for a comprehensive package that will, by accepting border enforcement provisions, pressure Republicans to accept other CHC priorities. Although the CHC is in a better position today than it was in the early 1980s, the ultimate success of its efforts will depend upon public opinion. In her article “Public Opinion and the Path to Immigration Reform,” Allyson Shortle traces the discourse over immigration. For the past twenty years that discourse has been defined by “anti-illegal immigration” rhetoric. In this discourse, the focus of public opinion (shaped by opinion leaders) has been on the effects of illegal immigration on jobs and public services. The undocumented immigrants
4
House consideration of the Senate bill knowing
”
House with more Democratic votes than Republican.
are law-breakers whose illegal actions cause harm to citizens and other legal residents. This “anti-illegalism” has distorted the immigration discourse, drawing attention away from the fundamental flaws in the legal immigration system that have contributed to the tide of illegal immigration. Yet “anti-illegalism” has been the access point to public discourse, as evidenced by the high priority that the CHC places on border enforcement in its own list of policy preferences. Is the climate of public opinion now changing so as to facilitate comprehensive reform? While it is not clear that “anti-illegalist” attitudes have changed much in those places where they have taken deepest roots, there does seem to be a change in attitude among Republican Party elites, including the likes of Karl Rove and Jeb Bush. Latino Republicans such as Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, both of Florida, are actively involved in the congressional negotiations. These Republican leaders recognize that the GOP cannot hope to be competitive in national elections if the party loses the Hispanic vote. By embracing a comprehensive approach, they may shift the climate of opinion among grass-roots Republicans, thus tipping the balance. But there is one more, and I think deeper, element to this debate, reflected in the analyses in each of our three articles. The United States faces a policy dilemma on immigration that is largely shaped by the forces of globalization. The American economy is today very different from the economy of the mid-1980s. The technological revolution of the mid-1990s had yet to occur. Desktop PCs were just coming into vogue. There were no laptop computers. The Internet had yet to be developed. Silicon Valley had yet to take flight. There was no Google, Yahoo, Amazon, or Facebook, to mention only a few
of the prominent players in the new economy. Globalization has transformed the American economy, and our immigration policies need to reflect that new reality. Thus, the politics of immigration, still deeply rooted in nativist sentiment and ethnic discourse, has trailed behind the policy challenges the country faces. It is this reality, more than anything else, that has caused reasonable Republicans and Democrats to see that the nation needs comprehensive immigration reform to sustain its competitiveness in a global economy. It remains to be seen whether common sense and reasonable accommodation will prevail. Notes 1. Arturo Vega and Ronald Peters, “Principal-agent Theories of Party Leadership Under Preference Heterogeneity: The Case of Simpson-Mazzoli,” Congress and the Presidency 23, no. 1 (1996). 2. Romano L. Mazzoli, “Immigration Reform: The Path to Passage and Beyond,” Journal of Legislation 14 (1987): 41-52. 3. Mark Hugo Lopez and Paul Taylor, “Latino Voters in the 2012 Election,” Pew Research Hispanic Center, November 11, 2012. Accessed on May 22, 2013 at http:// www.pewhispanic.org/2012/11/07/latinovoters-in-the-2012-election/. 4. Vega and Peters, op. cit. 5. Congressional Hispanic Caucus, “Immigration Task Force Priorities.” Accessed on May 25, 2013 at http:// velazquez.house.gov/chc/tsk-immigration. shtml.
Return to Contents
Summer 2013
extensions
Immigration Reform: Is Now the Time? Lina Newton Hunter College, CUNY
O
ne of the first lessons to arise from Republican defeat in the 2012 presidential election was that pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform could be key to winning over new voters. The overwhelming support of Latino and Asian American electorates for President Obama indicated that without more ethnic and racial minority voters, the GOP would endure a numerical disadvantage. Likewise, the party could lose competitive advantage in southwestern swing states where peeling off minority voters from Democrats could yield GOP victories. In order to initiate the change in strategy, Republican pundits, professional strategists, some Republican legislators, and members of the press issued pleas for tonally sensitive discourse about immigrants, and signaled support for immigration policy reform that included a mass legalization program. If the time is ripe for Republicans to support immigration reform, for Democrats it is long past due. During his campaign in 2008, Barack Obama promised to prioritize immigration reform, but then failed to deliver after the election. Those hoping for legalization, Latinos in particular, voiced frustration with the administration’s heavy reliance on enforcement, detention, and deportation.1 From 2008–2012, enforcement programs produced steep increases in the number of immigrants living in detention facilities, and record numbers of deportations.2 On June 15, 2012, in a significant policy shift, President Obama issued a directive to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to halt deportations of immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children.3 While this move would mollify some in time for the November election, the temporary nature of the executive memorandum signaled a need for permanent solutions. extensions
Summer 2013
Lina Newton is an associate professor of political science at Hunter College, The City University of New York (CUNY), where she teaches courses on American politics, public policy and immigration policy. She is the author of Illegal, Alien, or Immigrant: The Politics of Immigration Reform (New York University Press, 2008). Her research on state immigration laws and immigration federalism has also appeared in journals such as Publius and Law & Policy. Professor Newton’s email address is lnewton@hunter.cuny.edu.
5
“W
hile it would seem that the stars have finally aligned in favor of overhauling
a broken system, there are many reasons to remain cautious about the ambitious plans under consideration.
”
In addition to strategic considerations motivating each party to seek compromise, other contextual changes have created political openings for immigration reform. In 2012, demographers at the Pew Hispanic Center announced that migration from Mexico, the largest source country of legal and illegal immigration, had virtually stopped.4 While researchers cite several reasons for this, these findings offer political cover for the Obama administration, which can claim success for its enforcement policies, and shift attention to other needed reforms to the preference system and legalization. Also important are polls that show the public would like to see some form of legalization for the estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S.5 While it would seem that the stars have finally aligned in favor of overhauling a broken system, there are many reasons to remain cautious about the ambitious plans under consideration. For insights into what it takes to achieve reform, we can look at the failed efforts in 2006 and 2007, as well as to 1986 and 1996 when Congress successfully produced immigration reform. Crafting Consensus Across Political Fault Lines The first reason for caution is that immigration reform must make it through a notoriously partisan Congress with historically low public approval ratings and a seeming inability to govern. It is doubtful whether immigration reform can overcome the obstacles that have derailed progress on a variety of pressing economic and fiscal issues facing the nation. However, there is precedent for passage of major immigration legislation in divided government: in the five years from introduction to passage of the momentous 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), a Republican was in the White House while Democrats controlled the House. President Bill
6
Clinton, a Democrat, signed the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) produced by the Republican-controlled House. By contrast, the failures in 2006 and 2007 to produce immigration reform were largely the result of deep fissures within the Republican Party as opposed to resistance from Democrats.6 Partisanship will shape policy design, but intra-party discord and interest group mobilization will have an even greater impact. The reason is that the immigration issue does not divide neatly along party lines – it never has. Immigration policy is instead the dominion of interest groups representing every conceivable range of ideological and partisan orientations. Democrats supporting sweeping reform need to satisfy ethnically-based groups who support maintaining or increasing the family-centric visa preference system, as well as labor unions who, while eschewing their anti-immigrant stances of the past, nonetheless have had different responses to programs designed to legally channel immigrant workers into industries that demand them.7 And neither of these examples approaches the odd alliances of liberal civil rights advocates and libertarian interests that forged alliances in the 1980s and the 1990s to block measures requiring that immigrant and citizen Americans prove, in a range of public or private interactions, their right to work, reside, or move within U.S. territory. In an issue area riddled with fault lines, border security and immigration law enforcement – particularly in the post-September 11, 2001 United States – might seem to offer the most stable ground on which to structure broad legislative support. However, even for backers of an enforcement-heavy approach to immigration policy, the terrain is complex because policing agencies are divided over what their relationship to immigrant populations should be. Since 1996
the federal government has recruited state and local participation in reporting and detaining immigrants without proper documentation. The level of cooperation varies considerably, not only across states but local jurisdictions as well, with some law enforcement leadership refusing to jeopardize community relations for the opportunity to assist in the national goals of apprehension, detention, and deportation of aliens regardless of immigration status.8 In fact, federal enforcement policy and directives are not the only functions causing states and localities to diverge when dealing with their unauthorized populations. Since 2005 the number of states passing their own immigration and immigrant laws has skyrocketed. In many cases, particularly in the area of law enforcement and employment verification, these laws mirror federal immigration policy. In other cases, such as public assistance and access to state and community colleges, the state and municipal governments have rejected federal directives altogether.9 If all politics is local, then varied regional responses to immigrant populations have supplied yet another set of rifts that reformers in Congress must navigate. The Demands of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Comprehensive immigration reform is a concept that is often used but rarely explained in terms of the practical demands it places on lawmakers, or the range of interests that require appeasement for it to pass. Technically, comprehensive immigration reform refers to any significant changes that Congress makes to the 1965 version of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This law removed remaining national origin and racial barriers and established the now familiar system of visa allocation that favors family reunification and skilled immigration. Two other sweeping
Summer 2013
extensions
What to Look for in Debates Ahead Given its complexity, it is easy to forget that immigration policy is ultimately about imposing order on the messy business of international migration. All immigration policies by definition must designate some groups as having desirable traits, while identifying others as
extensions
Summer 2013
Associated Press
reforms, the 1986 IRCA, and 1996 IIRAIRA transformed immigrant employment, the rules for entry, residence and removal proceedings. They also fortified physical and technological security of U.S. borders. Policy-wise, comprehensive reform demands that Congress achieve a single piece of legislation that reconciles complex and, in some cases, opposing goals: increase the possibility for skills-based immigration while maintaining an institutionalized commitment to family-reunification; offer numerically significant expansions in legitimate channels for low-skilled and high-skilled workers in petitioning industries without undermining the wage standards and employment possibilities for native-born workers; provide a legal workforce for industries that have historically flouted employment laws in favor of an undocumented workforce; achieve a secure border and exert rule-of-law, but address the intractable problem of illegal entry and residence of people who are permanently, if not legally, present in the U.S. The task is politically daunting, particularly when considered alongside a history of similar efforts that failed upon implementation. Even the system of legal immigration, which enjoys a broad base of support, demands repair. Applicants for green cards can face decades-long waits to enter the U.S.; highly trained and skilled professionals, some of whom have trained in American schools, face a complex application system if they find willing employers. Some question whether valuation of family ties instituted with the 1965 INA remains the best criteria to assign preferences. Considered from this perspective, it is easy to see why the task is a potential minefield even for the most committed reformers. It also becomes clearer why immigration battles tend to produce unlikely alliances that fall outside traditional partisan and ideological rubrics.
The U.S.–Mexican border at Nogales, Arizona. inadmissible. Reform that achieves the major tenets of the Senate’s 2013 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744), demands that lawmakers and the American public let go of cherished ways of thinking about immigration. Therefore, the justification for change will be as difficult, if not more so, than crafting an amended version for congressional and public consideration. As is often the case with public policy, everything old is new again, so we can look to past policy for a sense of what to expect from the months ahead. While the outcome remains unknown, most of the changes under consideration have appeared for other congresses to consider. As a result, the lines of debate are fairly predictable and offer a good indication of how committed each side is to its vision for reform. A good indicator of the potential for passage exists in how well advocates for path-breaking modifications can rationalize the three most controversial elements of the bill: 1) a mass legalization program that will put those unlawfully in the U.S. on a path towards legal residence and possibly citizenship; 2) the plan for securing the border with Mexico; and 3) shifting the priority system for legal immigration away from family preferences and towards skills and labor market needs.
Taxpayers versus Immigrants At a time when budgets and deficits are at the top of local, state, and the federal agendas, the early emergence of a debate over the costs of immigration reform is not surprising. Some opponents of legalization argue against the high costs that may accompany administration of the program, and see expenses down the road for domestic social services. To this point, the Heritage Foundation recently offered its cost analysis in opposition to the Senate plan, claiming it would cost 6.3 trillion dollars.10 While the study has met with heavy criticism from all sides, Heritage’s study was only the first shot fired. The Congressional Budget Office is expected to offer its own cost analysis soon, and programmatic costs will be a central concern given the makeup of the House of Representatives. It will not be easy for balanced-budget conservatives in either chamber to let go of this argument; redistributive policy and government costs have been the target of social conservatives since the tax revolts of the 1970s and early 1980s. Immigration has provided another source for concern that “taxpayers” were asked to shoulder the burdens of people presumed not to contribute to government coffers. The supposed costs of illegal immigration figured heavily in campaign and public support for state initiatives like California’s Proposition 187 (1994) and Arizona’s Proposition 200 (2004).11 Similar arguments legitimated passage of
7
the1996 IIRAIRA, which However, by focusing required that sponsors of on borders crossed and legal immigrants prove trigger measures, those ll immigration policies by definition that they could support pushing for security could family members at 125% miss an opportunity to must designate some groups as having of the federal poverty remind DHS, and Ameridesirable traits, while identifying others as rate for ten years. Several cans as a whole, that a measures in the IIRAIRA substantial source of illicit inadmissible. barred both legal and immigration comes from unlawful immigrants from the temporary visa and federally funded programs visa waiver systems (made (including education at public universiexpensive and ineffectual so long as up primarily of visitors, tourists, and ties and colleges). uninvited people and contraband manstudents). Congress has known for years Currently, S. 744 includes a partial age to cross, defense of territorial boundthat managing agencies easily lose track schedule of monetary penalties and aries is the prerogative of a sovereign of program participants, yet problems application fees, which suggests that nation. Therefore, do not expect comwith this system account for an estimated the bill’s authors anticipate very real mittee hearings or debates to question forty percent of the current unauthorized government overhead. For opponents of whether more funds and equipment are population.13 These immigrants never legalization, however, this is not about needed by DHS. jumped the southern border, or, for that accounting. By focusing on fiscal costs, Instead, expect debates to focus on matter, ahead of those waiting in line for opponents of integrative immigrant polihow the agency will define and set secugreen cards. Therefore, too obsessive a cies try to cast the issue as dividing “taxrity goals because S.744 calls for making focus on closing the U.S.– Mexico border payers” from those presumed to freeload. legalization contingent upon DHS havto unauthorized immigration can distract According to this ideological strain, ing achieved specific security milestones from needed alterations to the temporary legalization is merely another expensive (the so-called “triggers”). The proposal visa system. Recent discoveries about the federal program, and, those who argue calls for regularization of qualifying foreign students who may have disposed against legalization as too pricey also see immigrants in stages, and no stage kicks of evidence related to the April 15, 2013 immigrants – particularly those who are in without congressional approval of bombing of the Boston Marathon only here unlawfully – as undeserving of any DHS plans and/or review of the agency’s amplify the need for lawmakers and the benefits. security accomplishments. nation to give their fullest attentions to Supporters of mass legalization might Expect rancorous debate about linking tightening this avenue of immigration find congressional battles over the 1986 border security with legalization. Advoabuse. IRCA’s program instructive in preparing cates of the approach view it as political The Fight over Families a counter-argument: during the numercover – after all, the U.S. offered mass The Senate bill involves a radical ous floor debates that preceded the legalization with the 1986 IRCA, which shift in the preference structure that has passage of that law, several senators and now is referenced as a failed attempt to governed the distribution of green cards representatives argued that regularizing reduce the resident undocumented popusince 1965; the proposal would shift prithe status of undocumented immigrants lation. By making any legalization proority away from family ties and towards would have them contributing payroll gram contingent upon border security, the human capital and employment prostaxes instead of working off the books.12 S.744 sends the message that the overall pects of applicants. To meet the need for goal is stop illegal immigration for good. workers with low skills in certain indusThe enforcement provisions added to tries, the bill provides both a new visa Enforcing the Border the bill at the last minute reinforce this classification and a temporary worker Since the 1980s, lawmakers have message. program; economic sectors demanding channeled considerable material, finanOpponents of these trigger measures specialized and/or highly skilled workers cial, and human resources into enforcing will try to de-couple them. The arguthe U.S. – Mexico border. The 1996 can sponsor skilled immigrants, while a ment for doing so will focus on the IIRAIRA significantly expanded fortinew category of merit-based visas appear humanitarian goals of legalization, which fication and deployed advanced operain S. 744. While the bill requires that are diminished when made contingent tional and surveillance technologies Citizenship and Immigration Services upon the unknown political imperatives along the southern border, a strategy that (USCIS) clear up its infamous backlog of future congresses or the somewhat continues to this day. However, because of applicants before some of the new catfuzzy mandates for “effective control” of porosity in our borders implies weakegories materialize, ultimately these new the border. Furthermore, if the practical ness in our national security efforts, we visas come at the expense of those once purpose of legalization is to pull people should expect ample debate over Title I reserved for parents and adult siblings out of the shadows to live fully integrated of the S.744, which mandates that DHS of existing legal residents and citizens. in American society, possible interrupachieve“effective control” of the southern Attempts to redesign the preference tion of this process would leave millions border. system away from family ties failed in in procedural limbo. Although border security is also very the 1980s and 1990s because the system
“A
”
8
Summer 2013
extensions
enjoys both a broad base of public support and a strong and well-organized network of humanitarian/religious and ethnic-based groups that mobilizes to protect the status quo. The clash over the preference will focus on which immigrants contribute to the economy. The immigrant family (headed by a father and a mother) is iconographic – its considerable symbolic power in our national mythology comes from a suggestion of constancy and stability amidst the highly de-stabilizing and multi-generational tumult of migration, settlement, and acculturation. The immigrant family is appealing for its constancy and its representation of the traditional, and of the possible – hence its universal appeal. By contrast, an equally venerable icon of the American immigrant story is the immigrant worker. The immigrant worker represents the engine of American growth during the industrial era; its successors are the legions of immigrant workers who maintain entire sectors of post-industrial America, both highand low-tech. The immigrant worker stands in contrast to immigrant families, which, despite their nostalgic depiction, can just as easily be portrayed as the worker’s dependents (wives, elderly parents, children who will occupy spaces in classrooms). Safeguards against such dependency persist in the S. 744 sections that restrict those pursuing regularization from accessing government programs, and in the sections that reward work and skill instead of family ties. The nation is considering immigration reform in a context of economic insecurity and government austerity. The notion that in this period we might import more workers is as contentious as the notion that newcomers might compete with the native born for government-supplied benefits. The Politics of Justice and Reassurance In the multi-front battle for immigration reform, lawmakers must assure people that the new policy is just, and that the right people are being rewarded or punished. Those considered hard-working, family-centered, upwardly-mobile taxpayers may enjoy the benefits offered through policy, such as green cards, regularization of status, permission to
extensions
Summer 2013
work, and reuniting with family. For this reason, we should observe the current legislative debates on legalization, border security, and the preference system as good indicators for the likelihood of passage. Once the contents of a reform bill filter through various lawmakers, interest group leadership, and media outlets, then the political battle for immigration reform truly begins. Notes 1. Mark Hugo, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, and Seth Motel, “As Deportations Rise to Record Levels, Most Latinos Oppose Obama’s Policy” (Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Hispanic Center, 2011). Accessed on January 14, 2012 at http://www. pewhispanic.org/2011/12/28/as-deportations-rise-torecord-levels-most-latinos-oppose-obamas-policy/. 2. Doris Meissner, Donald M. Kerwin, Muzaffar Chishti, and Claire Bergeron, “Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery” (Washington, D.C.: Migration Policy Institute, January 2013). Accessed at http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/enforcementpillars.pdf. 3. See President Barack Obama, Remarks on Immigration, June 15, 2012. Transcript available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2012/06/15/remarks-president-immigration). 4. JeffreyPassel, D’Vera Cohn, and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, “Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero – and Perhaps Less” (Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Hispanic Center, April 23, 2012). Accessed at http://www.pewhispanic.org/ files/2012/04/Mexican-migrants-report_final.pdf. 5. Michael Dimock, Carroll Doherty, Rob Suls, “Most Say Illegal Immigrants Should Be Allowed to Stay, But Citizenship Is More Divisive” (Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center, March 28, 2013). Accessed on March 28, 2013 at http://www. people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/3-28-13%20Immigration%20Release.pdf. 6. Robert Pear and Carl Hulse, “Immigrant Bill Dies in Senate; Defeat for Bush,” New York Times, June 29, 2007. 7. Notably, in 2007 Service Employees International Union supported Senate proposals for a broad guest worker program, while the AFL-CIO voiced strong opposition to programs they felt brought in what amounted to indentured workers with few protections. 8. Paul G. Lewis and Karthick Ramakrishnan, “Police Practices in Immigrant-destination Cities: Political Control or Bureaucratic Professionalism? Urban Affairs Review 42(6), 874–900. See also Paul G. Lewis, Doris Marie Provine, Monica W. Varsanyi and Scott H. Decker, “Why Do (Some)
City Police Departments Enforce Federal Immigration Law? Political, Demographic, and Organizational Influences on Local Choices,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 (2013): 1-25. 9. Lina Newton, “Policy Innovation or Vertical Integration? A View of Immigration Federalism from the States,” Law and Policy 34 (2012): 113-137. 10. Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, “The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer” (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, 2013). Accessed on May 7, 2013 at http://www.heritage.org/research/ reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer. 11. The 1994 California initiative barred undocumented immigrants from accessing public services like education and emergency medical care. The 2004 Arizona initiative was modeled on California’s, but removed education from the list of programs that unauthorized immigrants could not access. Its voter identification requirements are currently under Supreme Court review. 12. Lina Newton, Illegal, Alien, or Immigrant: The Politics of Immigration Reform (New York: New York University Press, 2008), 89-103. 13. The percentage may actually be closer to 45%–50% since, as a 2004 GAO report noted, flaws in DHS’s collection and categorization of its data may actually produce significant undercounts of the number of visa overstays. See U.S. General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, “Overstay Tracking: A Key Component of Homeland Security and a Layered Defense” (Washington, D.C., 2004, GAO-04-82). Accessed on May 6, 2013 at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0482.pdf. Laws Cited Arizona. SB 1070, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-1051, as amended by HB 2162. Arizona. Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2004, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-166(F) California. Prop. 187 §§ 1-10. S. 744–113th Congress: Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (2013). In www.GovTrack.us. Retrieved May 4, 2013, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/ bills/113/s744. United States. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996). ---. Immigration Reform and Control Act, Pub. L 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (1986). ---.Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965).
Return to Contents 9
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Immigration Reform Walter C. Wilson University of Texas – San Antonio
P
erhaps the most striking aspect of current immigration reform efforts in Congress is the extent to which the substance of the policy debate reflects the priorities of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC). As recently as last spring, Republican presidential candidates competed to present the most conservative immigration platform to GOP primary electorates, and Democrats did not seriously discuss liberalizing immigration policy beyond the widely popular DREAM Act, which proposes an expedited pathway to citizenship for undocumented child immigrants. Few would have predicted that by April 2013, key provisions of a bipartisan Senate plan, S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer (D–N.Y.), would include an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, strengthened employee verification procedures, special citizenship pathways for undocumented child immigrants and agricultural workers, greater prioritization of family reunification, improved employee protections for native workers, and enhanced labor rights for immigrant workers. The parallels between CHC priorities and the immigration agenda in the 113th Congress are more than mere coincidence. The CHC played a key role, especially since the 109th Congress (2005–2006), in setting an agenda on immigration reform that structured the content of policy proposals currently being debated, articulated Hispanic immigration preferences, and defined the strategic options available to partisan negotiators. This article1 discusses the CHC’s organizational role in Congress, its participation in debates over immigration policy since the 1980s, and its influence on current efforts to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. 10
Walter Clark Wilson is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio where he teaches classes in American government, Congress, legislative process, and political inquiry. His research focuses primarily on Latino representation. He is the author of “Descriptive Representation and Latino Interest Bill Sponsorship in Congress,” Social Science Quarterly 91(2010): 1043-1062; and “Latino Representation on Congressional Websites,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 34 (2009): 427-448. Professor Wilson is a former Carl Albert Graduate Fellow who obtained his Ph.D. in political science at the University of Oklahoma in 2008. He lives with his wife Lizzy in downtown San Antonio. His email address is Walter.wilson@ utsa.edu.
Summer 2013
extensions
Although CHC members have long cial Services, Manufacturing, and Comin the effort to pursue and maintain an participated in immigration policy merce; Healthcare; and Immigration. effective and united coalition on a broad debates, until recently the organizaThe legislative interests and expertise of Hispanic agenda. tion lacked consensus on immigration task force members tend to correspond The CHC pursues a host of coordiissues, limiting its influence. The CHC with the policy orientations of CHC task nated activities to influence committee consensus that immigration reform be forces. For example, recent chairs of the agendas, shape the tone of policy dispursued as a “comprehensive” package, Civil Rights task force include former cussions both in congressional debate addressing both security issues and legalRep. Charles Gonzalez (D–Texas) and and in the media, maintain a cohesive ization procedures for undocumented Rep. Linda Sanchez (D–Calif.), both of policy coalition on Hispanic issues, build immigrants, began to emerge during coalitions with non-CHC members of whom are attorneys. the 109th Congress. This allowed the the House and Senate, negotiate partThe influence of the CHC over the group to pursue a serious agenda-setting nerships with the president on certain legislative process, particularly with strategy on immigration for the first time policy initiatives, and even influence regard to decision-making in the House, during the 110th Congress. Since then, federal agency actions. While these types is constrained by its small size, the fact the organization has communicated a of coordinated actions often influence that Hispanics exercise limited electoral consistent and disthe direction of ciplined message legislative debates that enabled the and outcomes, their immigration reform impact is not always debate to shift decivisible. There are lthough CHC members have long participated sively in its favor few major laws, for following the 2012 example, where in immigration policy debates, until recently the elections. Although responsibility for the outcome of policy developorganization lacked consensus on immigration issues, immigration reform ment or legislative limiting its influence. efforts in the 113th success is directly Congress is far from traceable to CHC certain, one can see efforts. This means that the growing that understanding need for Republicans to cultivate Histhe role of the CHC on immigration influence outside districts represented panic support and the unwillingness of and other Hispanic issues often requires by Hispanic members of Congress, and most Democrats to concede significant expanding the aperture through which the organization’s all-Democrat memground on key immigration issues has policy development is viewed, beyond bership. Although its members form a brought privilege to policy priorities and the activity surrounding the legislative cohesive coalition on a wide variety of preferences long advocated by the CHC.2 end game. The following sections discuss Hispanic issues in recent congresses, the participation of CHC members in CHC priorities are often too narrow immigration debates since the 1980s, The Congressional Hispanic to garner widespread enthusiasm, even Caucus Organization and illustrate the gradual development of among Democratic members of Congress. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus is CHC consensus on immigration policy CHC members rarely find themselves an official member organization founded that allowed the organization to increase in a position to cast deciding votes as in 1976. It has enjoyed the broad (though its influence on the issue. a block. When they do, it is likely to not universal) membership of Hispanics occur through the use of negative agenda in Congress for nearly four decades. CurDisunity: The CHC and power to block bills or amendments rent membership includes twenty-four Immigration Policy during the when Democrats control the House. U.S. Representatives, one Senator, and 1980s and 1990s Given its limited ability to advance two non-voting House delegates from The members of the CHC have been or “veto” congressional policy proposPuerto Rico and the Northern Mariana important players on immigration policy als, the CHC expends considerable Islands, all Democrats of either Hispanic effort attempting to influence pre-voting since the 1980s. But agreement on or Portuguese descent.3 stages of the legislative process. The fundamental elements of immigration The CHC is designed to function as organization meets weekly in the Capipolicy and cohesive legislative strategies a forum that will better enable Hispanic tol basement to share information on came slowly to the organization. legislators to advance a national Hismajor policy developments relevant to Consideration of the Simpson-Mazzoli panic legislative agenda. The organizaHispanics, strategize about how to shape immigration bill provides some good tion divides policy responsibilities among various legislative agendas, and to forexamples. Members of the CHC seven task forces associated with Hismulate their messaging. Caucus members unanimously opposed the bill in 1983, panic issue priorities: Civil Rights; Divercollectively rely on the insights and influencing Speaker O’Neill’s decision sity and Inclusion; Education and Labor; expertise of their CHC colleagues, makto pull it from floor consideration.4 Health and Retirement Security; FinanBut CHC members did not oppose ing the organization a critical resource
“A
”
extensions
Summer 2013
11
12
Associated Press
the legislation for the same reasons.5 While most members supported amnesty provisions of the bill, at least one member preferred conservative limitations on the legalization of undocumented immigrants. And while most CHC members opposed significant penalties for employers who knowingly hired undocumented immigrants, either out of concern for migrant workers or business interests, Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez (D–Texas) supported the sanctions.6 When the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) finally passed in 1986, CHC members split their votes, indicating the substantial divisions within the caucus over immigration issues, and the weakness of the organization as a legislative coalition. Ultimately, the major issues at stake during that debate – the fate of undocumented immigrants and imposition of employer sanctions – would continue to shape the tenor and substance of immigration reform debate in subsequent congresses, and limit the CHC’s cohesiveness on immigration for more than a decade. In 1990, CHC members7 attempted unsuccessfully to remove employer sanctions from IRCA after a number of the members became concerned that the provision had resulted in discrimination against Hispanic workers by employers. CHC had greater success opposing a provision of the Immigration Reform Bill of 1990 that proposed a pilot program for a tamper-proof driver’s license that would have been used for employee verification purposes. Although CHC concerns likely centered on the possibility of employment discrimination against Hispanics, documented or not, the winning argument tied the program to fears of a Big Brother government.8 In 1996, Congress passed the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act as part of H.R. 3610, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1997. The bill, which was originally considered under a restrictive rule as H.R. 2202, substantially curtailed government services available to undocumented immigrants and expanded grounds for their deportation. A number of CHC members protested being shut out of the amendment process by Republicans, and all but two voted against the bill.9 As expected, deporta-
Supporters of the DREAM Act took part in a demonstration in front of the White House on June 29, 2011. tions of undocumented immigrants increased steadily after implementation of the bill, reaching record levels in 2010.10 The most recent major immigration bill signed into law, the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996, helped draw the battle lines over which all subsequent immigration battles have been fought, and produced policy outcomes that gradually drew CHC members into cohesive coalition on immigration. From Tactics to Strategy: The CHC and Immigration Policy since the 109th Congress Leading immigration reform proposals in Congress became increasingly conservative following the terrorist attacks of September 2001. The apex of this trend came with the House passage of H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. Among its more controversial provisions, H.R. 4437 sought to declare undocumented presence in the United States a felony, and criminalize an estimated 11 million people.11 Although the bill never became law, it catalyzed mass demonstrations across the country that involved hundreds of thousands of Hispanic participants.12 The bill was opposed by all but one member of the CHC. Articulating the concerns of many
CHC members, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D– Calif.) argued on the House floor prior to the vote that the bill “opens the door for witch hunts of anyone who looks foreign and…erodes basic civil liberties and human rights for migrants, legal immigrants, and even citizens.”13 The political fight over H.R. 4437 coincided with the beginnings of an appreciable coalescence of CHC preferences on immigration issues, and of a more proactive agenda-setting strategy on immigration by the organization. For example, growing CHC support for penalizing employers who knowingly hired undocumented workers was evident during the 2005 debate over H.R. 4437. Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez (D–Texas), who like his father and predecessor favored stiff penalties for employers who failed to comply with employee verification, sponsored legislation to impose a civil penalty of $50,000 per violation, and later introduced similar language as an amendment during the markup of H.R. 4437. Gonzalez argued the proposal was essential to addressing illegal immigration because lax enforcement of employee verification encourages the hiring of undocumented workers, and therefore illegal immigration.14 Republicans viewed Gonzalez’s proposal as a threat to business interests,15 and the amendment was soundly defeated. But it attracted
Summer 2013
extensions
the votes of eight Hispanic Caucus grant worker program that would address that Democrats could pass immigration members.16 Two years later the Security U.S. labor requirements, provide flexible reform on their own. He estimated that cap on foreign workers, increase labor through Regularized Immigration and a at least 60 Republican votes would be Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act, a comprotections, address visa backlogs and needed in order to pass a reform package, prehensive immigration reform proposal streamline the immigration process, and had already expressed his hopes to endorsed by the CHC and cosponsored provide an earned path to citizenship for top Bush administration officials that the by 18 of its members, included similar undocumented immigrants, and incorWhite House would provide a Republiprovisions. porate the DREAM Act.18 Rep. Gutierrez can whip operation should immigration Also in 2005, four members of the introduced the bill with support from reform make it to the House floor. To CHC, including Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D– 29 original cosponsors, including six the chagrin of the CHC members, it Ill.), co-sponsored H.R. 2330, the Secure Republicans and a high-ranking member became increasingly clear that passing America and Orderly Immigration Act, of the Democratic leadership team. To immigration reform under this scenario a comprehensive immigration reform generate momentum, the CHC pursued would require major concessions on core bill that included a pathway to legalizacosponsors aggressively, and in just over CHC immigration principles including tion for undocumented immigrants.17 a month had won the endorsement of an the DREAM Act, prioritization of famSponsored by Republican Jim Kolbe additional 49 members, mostly Demoily reunification, and the process and (R–Ariz.), the effort was notable as an crats. outcome of status adjustment for undocuearly example of a truly bipartisan immiWhile immigration reform was a top mented immigrants. The sobering recoggration reform nition that policy effort. Since the success might 109th Congress, come at a cost CHC members the CHC has ince the 109th Congress, the CHC has increasingly were unwilling to increasingly purpursued an agenda-setting strategy that has included a pay marked the sued an agendabeginning of the setting strategy consistent push for ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform end of comprethat has included hensive immia consistent push legislation and efforts to reach across the partisan gration reform for “compreaisle. efforts in the hensive” immi110th Congress.20 gration reform Although the legislation and efforts to reach across the partisan aisle. CHC’s efforts failed to produce immigrapriority for CHC members at the start of These strategies are based on assumpthe 110th Congress, many others were tion reform in the 110th Congress, their tions that legalizing the estimated 11 wary of the issue. The tenuous 233-seat efforts established a base from which the million undocumented immigrants in organization continued to advance its Democratic majority included a large the country is politically impossible as a agenda. Along with a bipartisan group number of new “majority makers” who stand-alone proposal, and that necessary of 91 original cosponsors, including most represented competitive districts. DemoRepublican votes can only be attracted CHC members, Rep. Solomon Ortiz cratic leaders desired to shield them from by legislation that also promises border (D–Texas) sponsored H.R. 4321, the controversial votes.19 The situation made security. issues like immigration politically unatComprehensive Immigration Reform for In spring 2007, there was great optitractive. Still, the apparent willingness America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP), midway through mism among CHC members that the of the Bush administration to embrace a the 111th Congress. The legislation, organization would assume greater comprehensive reform plan offered what which eventually garnered 103 cosponprominence and influence as Democrats many considered a unique opportunity. sors, proposed a set of policies similar to took control of Congress. President Those political dynamics were on Bush appeared receptive to compromise those in the STRIVE Act. On the other display during an informal June 2007 on immigration and was viewed as a side of Capitol Hill, Sen. Robert Mendez strategy meeting between CHC mempotential legislative partner. Led by sponsored S. 3932, a companion bill to bers and Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Rep. Gutierrez, the CHC backed the H.R. 4321. Although neither bill saw the Rahm Emanuel (D–Ill.), a STRIVE STRIVE Act, which included provisions cosponsor. In Emanuel’s view, divided legislative light of day, observable progthat have generally defined the policy government offered a fleeting opporturess was made on one key CHC immigrapreferences expressed by the organizanity to pass immigration reform. Only tion priority during the December lame duck session of the 111th Congress. By a tion ever since. The nearly 700-page bill under cover of the Bush administration’s margin of 216 to 198, the House passed sought to increase border enforcement endorsement could Republican votes be a motion to amend a Senate amendment capabilities, improve interior enforcesecured for immigration reform. And to H.R. 5281, the Removal Clarification ment of immigration laws, ensure given that more than 30 Democrats compliance with employee verification Act of 2010, to incorporate DREAM Act had supported HR 4437 in the previous requirements, create an orderly immiprovisions into the compromise bill. The Congress, Emanuel held out little hope
“S
”
extensions
Summer 2013
13
Associated Press
In 1984 these House and Senate conferees met at the start of their first session on the immigration reform bill. From the left are Sen. Edward Kennedy (D–Mass.), Sen. Alan Simpson (R–Wy.), Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D–Ky.), Rep. Hamilton Fish (R–N.Y.), and Rep. Peter Rodino (D–N.J.). It took some time, but Congress finally passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act) in November 1986. bill later fell just five votes short of the 60 needed to defeat a Senate filibuster. Although the DREAM Act came tantalizingly close to passage in the 111th Congress, the return of Republican control in the 112th Congress offered little hope for progress on the CHC’s immigration agenda. Rather than expend precious resources on a doomed legislative effort, the CHC spent time criticizing Republican immigration policies at all levels and clarifying Hispanic immigration preferences. Cases in point include press releases and events opposing Alabama’s HB56, which requires police during any legal stop, detention, or arrest to determine the legal status of any person suspected of undocumented presence,21 and criticism of anti-immigrant rhetoric by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R–Calif.)22 and of presidential candidate Mitt Romney for his opposition to the DREAM Act.23 As the winds for immigration reform shifted perceptibly in the days following the 2012 Election, the CHC released a platform of nine core immigration reform principles. The document reaffirmed policy positions that the CHC has pursued since its failed effort to pass the STRIVE Act in 2007. But while the CHC immigration reform agenda generally fell on deaf ears in recent congresses, there is
14
mounting evidence that the organization’s core principles for comprehensive immigration reform have finally penetrated the congressional policy agenda. The CHC and Comprehensive Immigration Reform Efforts in the 113th Congress Unlike previous years, CHC members have taken a back seat to the president and members of the Senate in the public debate over immigration during the current Congress. Other than a late January meeting with the president, during which CHC members reiterated their positions, the organization has kept low profile, emphasized bipartisan cooperation, worked behind the scenes to negotiate a compromise, and taken steps to ensure that emerging Hispanic political clout continues to add urgency to the debate. An example of this last point is the CHC’s use of its financial arm, the Building Our Leadership through Diversity political action committee, or BOLD PAC, to bolster the organization’s political position. BOLD PAC helped elect nine new CHC members in 2012. Immigration reform efforts are providing opportunities to raise unprecedented sums for upcoming 2014 races, helping to back up the CHC’s conciliatory rhetoric
on immigration with an electoral big stick.24 As debate over comprehensive immigration reform legislation begins in earnest, the press will likely focus on a handful of mostly Republican legislators. A divided Congress and past GOP opposition to proposals that grant “amnesty” necessarily mean that achieving compromise on immigration requires a substantial number of Republicans in both houses to embrace liberalized immigration policy. Major public efforts by CHC members are unlikely and largely unnecessary given that their positions are already reflected in the leading Senate proposal. In fact, major CHC involvement could damage reform efforts in the House, where Republicans who support reform will require maximum political cover in order to avoid damaging their images with conservative primary electorates. Despite the fact that CHC members are unlikely to play leading roles in upcoming immigration policy negotiations, their influence is already evident. Just eight years after a Republicancontrolled House of Representatives passed an immigration reform bill that the CHC vocally opposed, spawning the nationwide ire of Hispanics, the immigration agenda has shifted decisively. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act lays out terms making clear that immigration debate in the 113th Congress will occur on the CHC’s turf. It is difficult to overstate the obstacles facing successful comprehensive immigration reform. Major battles over guest worker provisions, future visa programs, and most pointedly, the triggers that must be tripped prior to moving forward on an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, are all but certain. Republicans in Congress, particularly in the House, lack electoral incentives to embrace policies like the DREAM Act or a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and may invite primary challenges by doing so. Although congressional Republicans stand to gain few short-term electoral advantages from helping to pass comprehensive immigration reform, they appear to have few other options if the Republican Party is to have future success
Summer 2013
extensions
“A
lthough congressional
Republicans
stand to gain few short-term electoral
advantages from helping to pass comprehensive immigration reform, they appear to have few other options if the voters.
”
with Hispanic voters. As Republicans witnessed last summer when Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fl.) sponsored a Republican alternative to the DREAM Act, legislation that compromises key Hispanic preferences on immigration fails to blunt Democratic advantages with Hispanics. For their part, Democrats have little, if anything, to lose by demanding the inclusion of key liberal immigration priorities. This situation suggests that movement toward comprehensive immigration reform that reflects CHC principles may be more a question of when, than if. Whether passage is secured during the 113th Congress or not, the need to satisfy a growing Hispanic electorate will not dissipate. The CHC played an instrumental role over the past eight years in defining Hispanic interests on immigration policy and providing a set of reform policies that Hispanics embrace. It seems increasingly likely that the next major immigration policy signed into law will embrace those policies as well. Notes 1. This article draws partly on my experiences and observations as an American Political Science Association Fellow in the office of former representative, and recent CHC chair, Charles A. Gonzalez (D–Texas) in 2007. During the fellowship I worked closely with Rep. Gonzalez’s CHC staff liaison. The task afforded opportunities to observe the inner workings of the Caucus, work directly with staffers for other CHC members, and interview a number of representatives and congressional staffers associated with the organization. 2. Seung Min Kim, “Gang of 8 Looks to Defend Guest Worker Plan,” Politico, May 13, 2013, http://dyn.politico.com/print-
Republican Party
is to have future success with
story.cfm?uuid=4F760423-1BD2-4DB1-80FA0D445308EC8C. 3. Hispanic Republicans, of whom there are eight in the current Congress, severed ties with the CHC in the mid-1990s over differences of opinion with Caucus Democrats regarding U.S.–Cuba relations. They formed their own member organization, the Congressional Hispanic Conference, in 2003. 4. Arturo Vega and Ronald Peters, “Principal-agent Theories of Party Leadership Under Preference Heterogeneity: The Case of Simpson-Mazzoli,” Congress and the Presidency 23, no. 1 (1996): 15–32; Maurilio Vigil, Hispanics in Congress (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1996). 5. Vigil, Hispanics in Congress. 6. Ibid., 89. 7. Rep. Gonzalez withdrew from the CHC in 1987 according to Vigil (1996, 92). 8. Vigil, Hispanics in Congress, 90. 9. Congressional Record – House (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1996). 10. 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Table 36 (Department of Homeland Security, 2010), http://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2010. 11. James Sensenbrenner, H.R. 4437, The Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. 12. Teresa Watanabe and Hector Becerra, “500,000 Pack Streets to Protest Immigration Bills,” Los Angeles Times, March 26, 2006, sec. A. 13. Linda Sanchez, Congressional Record – 109th Congress, 2005–2006 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office). 14. Charles A. Gonzalez, House Amendment No. 16 to H.R. 4437, Congressional Record (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2005). 15. James Sensenbrenner, House Amendment No. 16 to H.R. 4437, Congressional
Hispanic
Record (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2005). 16. Charles A. Gonzalez, “Final Vote Results for Roll Call 658,” December 16, 2005, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll658. xml. 17. Jim Kolbe, “Bill Summary & Status – 109th Congress (2005–2006) – H.R. 2330 Cosponsors”, THOMAS (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 2005). 18. Luis Gutierrez, “Bill Summary & Status – 110th Congress (2007–2008) – H.R.1645,” THOMAS (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 2007). 19. Ronald Peters and Cindy Simon Rosenthal, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the New American Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 107. 20. Personal notes of the author, June 21, 2007. 21. Congressional Hispanic Caucus, “Rep. Gutierrez Travelling to Alabama for HB56 Protests,” Press Release, October 21, 2011, http://chc-hinojosa.house.gov/press-release/ rep-gutierrez-travelling-alabama-hb56protests. 22. Charles A. Gonzalez, “CHC Chair on Rep. Duncan’s Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric,” Congressional Hispanic Caucus Press Release, November 2, 2011, http://chchinojosa.house.gov/press-release/chc-chairrep-duncan%E2%80%99s-anti-immigrantrhetoric. 23. Congressional Hispanic Caucus, “Romney’s Plans to Veto DREAM Act,” Press Release, January 3, 2012, http://chc-hinojosa. house.gov/press-release/romney%E2%80%99splans-veto-dream-act. 24. Eliza Newlin Carney, “Rules of the Game: Hispanic Caucus Leverages Latino Power,” Roll Call, March 24, 2013, http://www. rollcall.com/news/rules_of_the_game_hispanic_caucus_leverages_latino_power-223401-1. html?zkPrintable=true.
Return to Contents extensions
Summer 2013
15
Public Opinion and the Path to Immigration Reform Allyson F. Shortle University of Oklahoma
T
o understand how public opinion affects the climate of the immigration debate today, it is important to look to recent changes in the public’s attitudes on immigration. The American public has consistently opposed lenient immigration reforms over the past decade. However, the historically restrictive American public has wavered in its opposition lately, opening the door to immigration reform in 2013. The trend away from opposition does not mean that there has been a large increase in support for immigration reform, but rather that most Americans have become ambivalent about the issue of immigration. In other words, many Americans do not exhibit unwavering support for all lenient immigration reform measures; nor do many Americans uniformly support restrictive immigration reform measures when presented with these options. Rather, the American public tends to hold a diverse mixture of lenient and restrictive beliefs about immigration. Taken together, we can therefore understand the public’s ambivalent feelings about immigration reform as the result of an American public that has gone from opposing most lenient reforms, to opposing some lenient reforms while supporting others.1 Given the new mixture of public attitudes that involves the occasional support for leniency, the climate surrounding the immigration debate seems to be more favorable for immigration reform than it has been in previous decades. How has public opinion contributed to this apparently mixed climate surrounding the immigration reform debate?
16
Allyson Faith Shortle is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma where she teaches classes on public opinion, political psychology, immigration politics, religion and politics, and American government. In her American politics research she specializes in public opinion, political psychology, and immigration and politics. She is the co-author of “Divine Boundaries: How Religion Shapes Citizens’ Attitudes Toward Immigrants,” American Politics Reasearch 39 (2011), 205-233.Professor Shortle can be contacted by email at allysonshortle@ou.edu.
Summer 2013
extensions
officials have used anti-illegal immigrant types of anti-illegality sentiments exertWhile there are many factors that rhetoric to convince the public to suping an influence on the immigration affect the immigration debate’s current port restrictive immigration measures reform talks now in 2013. climate, two characteristics of public (i.e., measures that would increase According to the anti-illegality logic opinion have been particularly influthat is used to justify restrictive immirestrictions on legal immigrants and ential. The first is the public fixation gration attitudes in America, illegal illegal immigrants alike). Another way of on illegality, which has placed curbing immigrants deserve punishment because viewing illegality’s influence is through illegal immigration2 at the top of the reform agenda and accounts for most of a democratic representation framework: they reside in the nation while refusing the public’s hostility. The second is an political officials have merely responded to abide by the ‘rule of law.’ Followers of increasingly influential Latino/Hispanic to the public’s anti-illegal immigrant this logic have often voiced the opinpublic opinion, which has placed more ion that illegal immigrants’ actions are preferences in order to represent their lenient reforms onto the agenda and disrespectful to the American way of constituents’ interests. Regardless of accounts for much of the public’s favorwhich factor predominates – democratic life. This narrative, and the widespread ability towards achieving comprehensive representation or political manipulation public support this narrative has received reform. As a result of the public’s varied – the public’s anti-illegal attitudes play in the U.S., has led to an immigration attitudes toward this important politian important role in the current envidebate that has been relatively one-sided cal issue, lawmakers have developed an ronment that surrounds the debate on over the last decade, similar to the situaagenda of immigration reform that sends immigration in America. tion surrounding the widespread approvcontradictory messages to the nation’s Not that long ago, the public’s antial of the Arizona law. Extending beyond immigrants. Some immigrathe Arizona example howtion issues that are debated ever, the public’s illegality are restrictive in character, fixation has led to a hostile whereas other issues are climate overall that has more lenient. not favored reform unless The comprehensive immireform entails imprisons a result of the public’s varied gration reform bill passed ment, deportation, or large by the Senate offers a good fines. This hostility colorattitudes toward this important political example of the diversity ing the immigration debate issue, lawmakers have developed an agenda of of reforms characterizing over the last decade has today’s debate. For instance, been further aggravated by immigration reform that sends contradictory the bill includes a proposed political elites, particularly path to citizenship for by political officials using messages to the nation’s immigrants. immigrants residing in the the public’s distaste for illeU.S. illegally. The bill also gal immigrants to garner public support. emphasizes the importance It is not just one partisan of securing the border with group in America that employs the use Mexico before other reforms can be illegality attitudes played heavily into of anti-illegality rhetoric. Both Demoadopted.3 The Senate bill overall reflects the policy debate surrounding Arizona’s a mixed method approach to handling cratic and Republican officials have used SB 1070. Initially passed in April 2010, immigration, one that has both lenient the rhetoric of illegality to garner public the controversial bill was heralded as the and restrictive elements. What explains most restrictive immigration law passed favor. These officials have done so by this new approach to fixing the nation’s in recent decades. SB 1070 granted lending their support to measures that broken immigration system? By looking police officers the right to ask an inditreat illegal immigrants severely. On the to the current shape of American attividual whom they suspected of residing Republican side, such illegality tactics tudes on immigration, we can begin to in the U.S. illegally to provide proof of were evident during the 2012 Republican understand why policymakers are sendlegal residence. Suspects who could not primary debates. Rather than debating ing mixed messages on how to reform do so could be detained, and ultimately the merits of lenient versus restrictive the immigration system. deported to their nation of origin. Overreform efforts, the Republican contendall, the legislation gained widespread ers engaged in a back-and-forth over who (Il-)legality public approval because it took aim at was the toughest on illegal immigraOpposition to illegal immigration, the nation’s illegal immigration problem, tion.5 Meanwhile, on the Democratic or anti-illegality, has been an enduring side, such tactics were apparent with the despite also affecting legal immigrants trend in public opinion from the 2000s massive deportations conducted by the through statutes that allowed fines to to the present, and has had a large influObama administration. In its first term, be imposed for failing to carry proper ence on the policy debate over the past the Obama administration set a record identification at all times.4 Although this several years. One way of viewing antipolicy debate occurred three years ago, for the largest number of deportations illegality’s influence is through a politithe ultimate adoption of Arizona’s SB of illegal immigrants carried out under a cal manipulation framework: political 1070 into law continues to reflect the single president.6 In Republicans’ support
“A
”
extensions
Summer 2013
17
This loss of talent is problematic, as recent forecasts indicate a labor shortage in areas of he problem with this bipartisan science and technology over the effort to get ‘ tough ’ on illegal next two decades.8 immigrants has been that these actions The problem has become aggravated have signaled a failure of the debate to by the newfound opportunistic meaningfully address the wide range recruitment of of issues that the multi-faceted issue of these same highly skilled degree earnimmigration actually encompasses. ers by neighboring Canada. Starting in the spring of 2013, Canada began an immigrant recruitfor restrictiveness and Obama’s presiding ment program that offers citizenship to over an unheralded expansion of deporimmigrants educated at U.S. institutions tation proceedings, it seems clear that who would be made to leave the U.S. both Republicans and the Democrats immediately upon earning their valuable have gone to great lengths to try to demdegrees.9 onstrate to the public that they could be The criticism of business interests, and “tough” on illegal immigrants. the new Canadian use of U.S. immigraThe problem with this bipartisan effort tion system’s downfalls to advantage to get “tough” on illegal immigrants has Canada’s own economy, are factors that been that these actions have signaled a suggest America’s competitive economic failure of the debate to address meaningadvantage worldwide would improve as a fully the wide range of issues that immiresult of reforming the nation’s treatment gration actually encompasses. Even when of legal immigrants. Why then haven’t officials claim to address illegal immigrapolitical elites in the immigration debate tion concerns in order to represent their been quick to respond to these imporconstituents’ (anti-illegal immigrant) tant problems of legal immigration, even interests, following the public’s illegality when faced with increased clamoring fixation has ultimately caused officials to from business interests in the U.S.? The ignore important issues of legal immigraanswer comes back to the fact that polittion. Specifically, officials have failed ical actors in the immigration debate to address problems associated with the have been caught up in the public’s prenation’s flawed legal immigration system. occupation with securing the border – a Many critics of the nation’s current symptom of the public’s pervasive and immigration practices claim that the influential anti-illegality stance. Simply omission of legal immigrant problems put, public opinion has influenced the from the immigration debate could hurt agenda on immigration reform in 2013 the nation’s economic growth, especially by causing the agenda to focus heavily if lawmakers continue to ignore the need on curbing illegal immigration into the to reform the nation’s procedures for U.S. In doing so, public opinion also dealing with highly skilled immigrant continues to relegate legal immigration students.7 According to this argument, to a secondary concern. the current federal system does not supThis rank ordering of illegal immiport a means through which the nation gration problems over legal immigracan keep its most talented immigrants tion problems is apparent in the recent already being educated in the U.S. Senate debates, with the bipartisan bill Instead, the national policy dictates that promising fully operational border securiimmigrants earning highly specialized ty programs as a prerequisite to adopting degrees must leave the country immeany other reforms. The Senate’s promise diately upon finishing their educations.
“T
”
18
to secure the border before all else is evidence that public opinion against illegality is still a main driver of the immigration debate in the U.S., regardless of the secondary promises of reforming the legal immigration system that have appeared alongside the primary promise of border security. In addition to pushing discussions about reforming the legal immigration system to the periphery of the public debate, illegality has also made the current immigration discussion more restrictive. The restrictive tone of the illegal agenda has developed throughout the last decade, because officials have been provided with ample evidence that the public favors stricter policy measures. However, this restrictiveness of the illegal immigration discussion brings about a puzzle concerning the current ambivalence with which immigration is currently debated. According to political experts and recent discussions in the Senate, the climate of immigration debates appears more favorable towards reform than it has been in the past. If the unfavorable portions of the discussion can be attributed to anti-illegality, what then accounts for the more favorable climate that experts claim characterizes the immigration debate today? Overall, the public’s fixation on “illegals” can be understood as a necessary entry point into a public discourse about immigration reform, which is why this factor plays so heavily into the climate surrounding the immigration debate. We have come to expect an initial discussion about heightening border security, because it is widely assumed that the public will not consider any lenient immigration reforms without promising to maintain or increase strict border measures. It should be noted, however, that the portion of the public that requires restrictive assurances before discussing any lenient reform possibilities is the Anglo public, the non-Hispanic white Americans. In contrast to the restrictive discourse that has been spurred by Anglo preferences, the lenient reform possibilities are driven by the changing context in demographics of the nation. Specifically, as Latinos now comprise more than 16% of American residents, Latinos’ attitudes have begun to shape the more
Summer 2013
extensions
favorable climate that proponents of reform now enjoy.10
itself in 2008, as evidenced by the large margin of Latino votes Obama was able to win over McCain.13 Latino influence Latino Influence became a more obvious and painful realAs a result of these demographic ity to the Republican leadership however, changes, experts have increasingly during the 2012 election. looked to Latinos and their political Latino voters played an even larger preferences to explain the direction of role in Obama’s reelection, which set the immigration debates. This trend repRepublicans on a pathway to shifting resents a divergence from past decades, the discourse on immigration reform to when each debate was defined more its current form. Republican presidennarrowly along the lines of the Anglo tial candidate Mitt Romney was clearly public’s interests. However, unable to recapture the Latino with Latinos steadily increasvotes that Bush had enjoyed. ing their share of the vote durInstead, the Latino Republican ing each presidential election, vote dipped even further below hrough the L atino public ’s Latino influence has grown McCain levels. This continued in the discussions surrounding loss of Latino votes triggered newfound ability to influence the stances how to reform America’s brofear on the part of many ken immigration system. Republicans who had already of lawmakers – especially R epublicans The shifting demographic become wary of their party’s – the growth of the Latino public has composition of the American image among the largest electorate has therefore influgrowing group of new voters altered the entire discussion about how enced the immigration debate, in America. The fear was, of although in an unexpected course, that Republicans had to reform immigration in 2013. way. Most notably, the shiftalienated Latinos through caning demographics have caused didates’ vigorous campaigning many Republican officials – against immigration, and that previously stalwarts of immigration oppothe Republican Party had potentially lost of these wishful Republicans, the Latino sition – to attempt to court these same this important group of non-partisanpublic was not willing to support RepubLatino voters they largely ignored before identifying voters to the Democrats, poslican candidates John McCain or Mitt sibly for good. the 2000s, by supporting more lenient Romney to the same degree that they According to most commentators, immigration reforms. Through the Latifavored George W. Bush: only 31% of the reason for Romney’s abysmal showno public’s newfound ability to influence Latinos voted for McCain in 2008, and a the stances of lawmakers – especially ing was clear. The blame was placed paltry 27% of Latinos voted for Romney on his performance in the Republican Republicans – the growth of the Latino in 2012.12 The reason for the double-digit drop primary debates, where he made his public has altered the entire discussion in support from Bush to McCain had infamous stance on ‘self-deportation’. about how to reform immigration in much to do with McCain’s platform on 2013. Looking at the recent history of Self-deportation refers to a policy by immigration, which he adopted over which the government would purposely the three most recent presidential electhe course of the campaign to appeal to make conditions unbearable for unautions sheds some light on why Repubmainstream Republican voters. In adoptlican lawmakers’ have changed their thorized immigrants in the U.S. to the ing a more restrictive strategy, McCain demeanor towards Latinos, which has point where they would be encouraged backed away from his traditionally supalso affected the climate of the debates to ‘deport themselves’ back to their home portive stance on immigration taken as countries. Needless to say, this immigrasurrounding immigration reform in 2013. senator of Arizona. McCain subsequently tion platform won the hearts of most During the 2004 election, Republican lost big with Latinos in the presidenPresident George W. Bush had estabnativists, while causing many Latino tial election that year. The Republican Americans to feel alienated. Romney lished a good rapport with the Latino Party’s failure to match the levels of attempted to back away from his original community. Bush’s reputation was based Latino votes received by George W. Bush on his past experiences as governor of a statements in the general election, but in 2004 and the party’s subsequent defeat border state, coupled with his repeated it was too late. By election day in 2012, by Barack Obama was an initial indicaefforts at pushing immigration reform Latino voters had consolidated their tion to Republican leaders that the Lativotes behind Obama. The Democrats throughout his presidency. As a result of no community was gaining influence in won by an unexpectedly large margin, Bush’s personal efforts to appeal to these American electoral politics. Obama had voters, Bush earned 43% of Latinos’ and pundits claimed that the Latino vote received more than 70% of the Latino played an important role in Obama’s votes in 2004. This level of support from vote, which was no small feat. Latino victory. While it is unclear whether an ethnic minority group was unprecinfluence at a minimum began to assert edented for a Republican candidate, Latinos actually played as large a role as which caused many Republicans to realize there was a potential opportunity to lure Latino voters into their partisan camp.11 To Republicans at the time, this possibility seemed as if it were well within arm’s reach, especially once they considered Latinos’ tendency to be unaffiliated with any one particular political party (i.e., most Latinos identify as “independent” or “non affiliated” when asked “with which political party do you most closely identify?”). To the disappointment
“T
”
extensions
Summer 2013
19
20
Associated Press
Associated Press
the media commentators claimed, Latino voters certainly showed their strength in a couple of important ways in the general election of 2012. First, the election brought Latino voters out in record numbers, comprising 10% of the total vote – for the first time in U.S. history, Latino voters reached double digits. Second, Latino voters played influential roles in important Democratic victories in various swing states, such as Colorado and New Mexico.14 Regardless of whether the Latino electorate was as influential as publicized after the 2012 election, the last three presidential elections led the Republican Party to promote outreach efforts to the Latino community. This outreach has taken shape in the immigration debates, where Republican senators are throwing their support behind a variety of innovative reform efforts. Previously, public officials – both Democrats and Republicans – expressed their unwavering commitment to keeping immigrants out of the nation, in hopes of garnering the support of restrictive Americans. Although there continues to be adamancy about securing the border, the Senate bill seeks to decrease visa wait times, increase the amount of high-skilled immigrants in the U.S., and even allow for a pathway to earned citizenship for illegal immigrants. Given these changes, it is appropriate to conclude that the climate surrounding these debates is more favorable to reform, and that public opinion played a role in driving this new climate of favorability. However, this apparent favorability should not be overstated. American public opinion is diverse, and immigration is a multi-faceted issue. On the one hand, public opinion is essentially supportive of restrictive immigration measures, such as constructing an impenetrable border between the U.S. and Mexico. On the other hand, public opinion has become more supportive of lenient policies, such as offering illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. a pathway to earned citizenship. The debate therefore offers some new lenient elements with the old restrictive ones, and both have been influenced by different aspects of public opinion.
Immigrant farm workers harvest and package cantaloupes in California. Notes 1. Francine Segovia and Renatta Defever, “The Polls – Trends: American Public Opinion on Immigrants and Immigration Policy,” Public Opinion Quarterly 74 (Summer 2010): 375-394. 2. The term “illegal immigrant” is used throughout this piece to refer to undocumented immigrants, unauthorized immigrants, etc. The term “illegal immigrant” is used in order to be consistent with the term most commonly understood by the American public to mean “immigrants who have migrated to the U.S. without going through proper legal channels.” 3. Julie Preston, “Besides a Path to Citizenship, a New Path on Immigration,” New York Times, April 16, 2013. 4. Fernanda Santos, “Arizona Immigration Law Survives Ruling,” New York Times, September 6, 2012. 5. “Republican Primary Debate,” Washington Post, January 23, 2012. 6. Corey Dade, “The Obama Administration Deported Record 1.5 Million People,” NPR News, December 24, 2012. 7. Michael Moritz, “Immigration Lessons from English Soccer,” Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2011.
8. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013. 9. See http://nexusvisa.com/en/ for more information regarding Canada’s new immigrant recruitment opportunities. 10. 2010 U.S. Census. 11. Chris Cizilla, “Why George W. Bush was Right,” Washington Post, January 31, 2013. 12. Cizilla 2013. 13. Sean Sullivan and Aaron Blake, “John McCain, Republican Weather Vane on Immigration,” Washington Post, January 29, 2013. 14. Mark Hugo Lopez and Paul Taylor, “Latino Voters in the 2012 Election,” Pew Hispanic Center, November 7, 2012.
Return to Contents
Summer 2013
extensions
for the record
News from the Center LaDonna Sullivan Managing Editor The National Science Foundation, through its EPSCoR program, has funded $20 million for strategically aligned, innovative research in Oklahoma. Partners in the grant include the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, the University of Tulsa, and the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. Carl Albert Center Associate Director Glen Krutz served on the OU research committee that prepared the proposal. To learn more about this 5-year Oklahoma project, which will advance understanding of how socioecological systems can adapt sustainably to increased climate change and variability, visit the NSF website at http:// www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_ id=128015&org=EPSC&from=news. Carl Albert Center Director Cindy Simon Rosenthal and OU Women’s and Gender Studies Director Jill Irvine have been appointed co-editors of Politics and Gender, a journal published by Cambridge University Press for the Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association.
Professors Rosenthal and Irvine will begin their term of service with the journal in fall 2013. Alumni Karen Kedrowski, who completed her Ph.D. in 1992, was recently appointed dean of the college of arts and sciences at Winthrop University in South Carolina. She has been a member of the Winthrop political science faculty since 1994 and served as department chair since 2001. Archives In February, Archivist Robert Lay copresented a workshop on congressional collections for the Society of Southwest Archivists at University of North Texas. Also in February, Robert met in Dayton, Ohio with other members of the Association of Centers for the Study of Congress along with some representatives from the Kettering Foundation to discuss Phase 2 of the National Issues Forum project.
Capitol Scholars During the spring 2013 semester, 8 undergraduate students participated in the Capitol Scholars program, a public service learning opportunity for a cohort of undergraduates who experience first-hand the process of public policymaking in the state of Oklahoma. The internship experience is enriched through weekly seminars and briefings with leaders from the nonprofit sector. Community Scholars work 20 hours per week in their designated internship where they develop professional experience and skills, gain insights into the Oklahoma legislative process and policy issues, and obtain intimate knowledge of the legislative session and state government. Capitol Scholar Placement Drew Baney Sen. Brian Crain Tracey Bark Rep. Emily Virgin Mitchell Bryant House Parliamentarian Chris Cremin Rep. Eric Proctor Frank George Shawn Lepard, lobbyist Jack Hardwick Sen. John Sparks Ashlyn Scott Sen. David Holt Monrada Yankasikorn Oklahoma Municipal League
extensions
Summer 2013
Archivist Bailey Schreier Hoffner joined the Center’s staff in the congressional archives at the beginning of summer 2013. She received her B.A. in English Writing from the University of Oklahoma with summa cum laude distinction and is currently finishing her master’s degree in library and information studies. Bailey has previously worked at multiple area repositories on projects involving the American Theatre Organ Collections at the American Organ Institute as well as the Film and Video Archives at the Oklahoma Historical Society. She specializes in archival processing, project planning, grant writing, public speaking, outreach and advocacy, and policy creation. The archives hosted visits from two recipients of Carl Albert Center Visiting Scholars grants during spring 2013. Jeffrey Bloodworth from Gannon University accessed the Carl Albert Collection for a new biography entitled Heartland Liberal: Carl Albert and Red America’s Progressive Tradition. Neal Allen from Wichita State University did research in the collections of Carl Albert, Tom Steed, Jeffery Cohelan, Page Belcher, Cornelius Gallagher, and Mike Monroney. Professor Allen’s project is entitled “Successfully Navigating the Politics of Race in the 1950s and 1960s: Future Congressional Leaders and Civil and Voting Rights Legislation.
21
for the record Awards Carl Albert Center Undergraduate Research Fellow Frank George received the OU Honors College Award for Distinguished Undergraduate Research. Frank’s award-winning presentation at Undergraduate Research Day was on climate protection initiatives. His faculty sponsor for the project was Cindy Simon Rosenthal.
Papers Presented Professor Glen Krutz, Carl Albert Graduate Fellow Tyler Hughes, and Carl Albert Undergraduate Research Fellow Samuel Camp presented their co-authored paper at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association in April. Their paper is titled “Behind on the Budget: Exploring Why Discretionary Appropriations Bills Are Not Passed On-Time.” Carl Albert Undergraduate Research Fellow Jan Schlupp coauthored a research paper with OU Political Science Professor Aimee Franklin. In April they presented their paper, “The Civic Engagement Decision and Perceptions of Outcome Efficacy,” at the annual meeting of the Western Social Science Association.
At the Political Science Department annual awards ceremony (from the left), Carl Albert Center Archives Assistant Iuliia Shybalkina, winner of the Hugh MacNiven Award for the most outstanding research paper written by a student in the Master of Public Administration program; Professor Glen Krutz; Carl Albert Center Undergraduate Research Fellow Frank George, who received the Robert Dean Bass Memorial Scholarship; and Carl Albert Center Civic Engagement Fellow Tracey Bark, winner of the John Halvor Leek Memorial Scholarship and the Robert Dean Bass Memorial Scholarship. Unable to attend the ceremony was Carl Albert Center Civic Engagement Fellow Brandon Ranallo, recipient of the June and Oliver Benson Memorial Scholarship.
Undergraduate Research Fellows Six undergraduate students participated in the undergraduate research program this year. Each student collaborated with a faculty member on research of mutual interest: Student Mark Brockway Sam Camp Frank George Patrick McSweeney Jan Schlupp Wesley Wehde
22
Faculty Member Allyson Shortle Glen Krutz Cindy Simon Rosenthal Tyler Johnson Aimee Franklin Alisa Hicklin Fryar
Research Legal distinctions in immigration policy Explaining late appropriations in Congress Climate protection initiatives American media coverage of foreign affairs Citizen involvement in local government Comprehensive university leadership
Summer 2013
extensions
for the record
Politics and Pizza The Carl Albert Center, The Political Science Club, and Pi Sigma Alpha National Political Science Honor society co-sponsored four sessions of “Politics and Pizza” for OU students during the 2013 spring semester. The sessions included an immigration issue forum featuring remarks by Professors Allyson Shortle and Alisa Hicklin Fryar; a forum with Oklahoma Senator Nathan Dahm on Oklahoma gun policy in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy; a session on reaching young voters through political humor, led by Carl Albert Civic Engagement Fellows Tracey Bark and Brandon Ranallo; and a discussion of gridlock in American politics, led by Professors Tyler Johnson and Glen Krutz. Publications An article co-authored by Carl Albert Graduate Fellow Caitlin O’Grady and OU Political Science Professor Tyler Johnson, “Speakers and the Spotlight: Explaining Media Coverage of Congressional Leaders,” has been published in American Politics Research 41 (May 2013). Rothbaum Lectures Plans are underway for the 2013 Julian J. Rothbaum Distinguished Lecture in Representative Government. Thomas E. Patterson, the Bradlee Professor of Government and the Press in the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, will deliver three lectures during the afternoons of October 22, 23, and 24. His lectures will focus on the media’s role in party polarization. The Rothbaum Lectures are free and open to the public. Additional details will be posted on the Carl Albert Center website later this summer. Women’s Leadership Initiative (WLI) The 2013 institute of N.E.W (National Education for Women’s) Leadership was conducted on the Norman campus
extensions
Summer 2013
At the Oklahoma State Capitol, Rep. Kay Floyd talked with the N.E.W. Leadership class of 2013 about her path to public service. and at the state capitol May 17-21. The intensive, five-day institute brings undergraduate students together with Oklahoma’s top women leaders in government, business, and the media. This year’s class was composed of 36 women from 28 colleges and universities throughout Oklahoma. Graduate Assistant Bailey Perkins provided staff support to Assistant Director Lauren Schueler and Director Cindy Simon Rosenthal. This year’s Faculty-in-Residence included Beve rly Felton, executive director of health for the Absentee Shawnee Health System; Risha Grant, CEO of Xposure Inc.; and Elizabeth Waner, councilwoman for the City of Edmond. In April the Women’s Leadership Initiative hosted a Girls’ Voices conference designed to identify strategies for enhancing services to girls in the state of Oklahoma. Conference participants, including representatives from 20 organizations currently serving girls and young women, identified five broad areas of action strategies for future collaborations and program innovations to support girls in leadership development and civic engagement. Joanna Yozzo, WLI project
assistant, organized the conference and presented a survey of 27 organizations. For more information on the Women’s Leadership Initiative, please visit the website at http://www.ou.edu/carlalbertcenter/leadership/newl-about.html.
23
Robert H. Taylor
N.E.W. Leadership — Class of 2013. Front row (left to right): Anna Przebinda, Newakis Girdley, Holly Bates, Emily Bibens, Deanna Christianson, Megan Woody, Kathryn Rawdon, Olivia Pham. Second row: Michelle Strange, Georgianna Dozier, Jessica Vazquez, Elizabeth Rodriguez, Amanda Robinson, Eloise Herbert, Sarah Cochlin, Robin Ladd, Demetra Wilkerson, Robin Francais, Baylee Butler. Third row: Elyssa Szkirpan, Erin Swenson, Jennifer Remy, Sarah Foster, Mia Rojo, Amanda Callender, Abigail Wescott, Mariah Robinson, Kenna Tackett, Trisha Kingsbury, Laramie Ball. Fourth row: Faculty-in-Residence Risha Grant, Beverly Felton, Elizabeth Waner; Ada Bogle, Jeanette McLendon, Ashley Smith, Megan Anson, Morgan Two Crow, Shannen McCroskey; Carl Albert Center Director Cindy Simon Rosenthal, N.E.W. Leadership Assistant Director Lauren Schueler, N.E.W. Leadership Graduate Assistant Bailey Perkins.
Representative Anastasia Pittman shares her experiences as a state legislator with N.E.W. Leadership participants in the Law Library of the State Capitol.
24
N.E.W. Leadership participants learn to understand the strengths of one another and work effectively as a team.
Summer 2013
extensions
The Carl Albert Graduate Fellowship Program ~ A Commitment to the Study of Representative Government ~ Each Carl Albert Fellow pursues a rigorous and individualized program of study while working closely with faculty. The fellowship is a four-year program leading to the acquisition of the Ph.D. degree in cooperation with the Department of Political Science at The University of Oklahoma. Carl Albert Fellows focus their program of study on fundamental issues in representative government. The central focus is in the field of American government and includes institutions, processes, and public policy. In addition, Fellows pursue two additional fields of study selected from among comparative politics, international relations, political theory, public administration, or public policy. The fellowship program values both instructional development and research productivity. Carl Albert Fellows are expected to develop original research leading to professional conference presentation and publication. The Center’s resources enable Fellows to pursue field research where appropriate to the dissertation research design. The fellowship package includes four years of financial support in teaching or research appointments, full tuition and fees, funded research and conference travel, summer support, participation and course work at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, and dissertation research funds. Carl Albert Fellows are introduced to nationally known political leaders and scholars through special guest lectures and seminars. Visitors have included former Ambassador James R. Jones, former U.S. Senator George McGovern, and former Congressmen Dick Armey and Mickey Edwards as well as distinguished scholars James E. Campbell, Morris Fiorina, Jennifer Hochschild, Jack Rakove, and Steven S. Smith.
Former Congressman Mickey Edwards, now director of the Aspen Institute-Rodel Fellowships in Public Leadership, met with Carl Albert Fellows during a visit to the OU campus.
Carl Albert Fellows access a rich and diverse selection of other resources at The University of Oklahoma: • • • • •
Carl Albert Center Archives http://www.ou.edu/special/albertctr/archives Public Opinion Learning Laboratory (P.O.L.L.) http://www.ou.edu/oupoll Political Commercial Archives http://www.ou.edu/pccenter Center for Applied Social Research http://casr.ou.edu Institute for Public Affairs http://www.ou.edu/cas/psc/ipa
Carl Albert Graduate Fellowship Application Deadline: Feburary 1. Apply Online
http://www.ou.edu/carlalbertcenter/student/grad-fellow.html
extensions
Summer 2013
25
Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage
The Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center 630 Parrington Oval, Room 101 Norman, Oklahoma 73019-4031 (405) 325-6372 http://www.ou.edu/carlalbertcenter
PAID University of Oklahoma
Visiting Scholars Program The Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center at the University of Oklahoma seeks applicants for its Visiting Scholars Program, which provides financial assistance to researchers working at the Center’s archives. Awards of $500-$1000 are normally granted as reimbursement for travel and lodging. The Center’s holdings include the papers of many former members of Congress, such as Speaker Carl Albert, Robert S. Kerr, and Fred Harris of Oklahoma, Helen Gahagan Douglas and Jeffery Cohelan of California, and Neil Gallagher of New Jersey. Besides the history of Congress, congressional leadership, national and Oklahoma politics, and election campaigns, the collections also document government policy affecting agriculture, Native Americans, energy, foreign affairs, the environment, and the economy. Topics that can be studied include the Great Depression, flood control, soil conservation, and tribal affairs. At least one collection provides insight on women in American politics. Most materials date from the 1920s to the 1990s, although there is one nineteenth-century collection. The Center’s collections are described on the World Wide Web at http://www.ou.edu/carlalbertcenter and in the publication titled A Guide to the Carl Albert Center Congressional Archives (Norman, Okla.: The Carl Albert Center, 1995) by Judy Day, et al., available at many U. S. academic libraries. Additional information can be obtained from the Center. The Visiting Scholars Program is open to any applicant. Emphasis is given to those pursuing postdoctoral research in history, political science, and other fields. Graduate students involved in research for publication, thesis, or dissertation are encouraged to apply. Professional writers and researchers are also invited to apply. The Center evaluates each research proposal based upon its merits, and funding for a variety of topics is expected. No standardized form is needed for application. Instead, a series of documents should be sent to the Center, including: (1) a description of the research proposal in fewer than 1000 words; (2) a personal vita; (3) an explanation of how the Center’s resources will assist the researcher; (4) a budget proposal; and (5) a letter of reference from an established scholar in the discipline attesting to the significance of the research. Applications are accepted at any time. For more information, please contact: Archivist, Carl Albert Center, 630 Parrington Oval, Room 101, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019. Telephone: (405) 325-5835. FAX: (405) 325-6419. E-mail: cacarchives@ou.edu The University of Oklahoma is an Equal Opportunity Institution
Return to Contents
Extensions is a copyrighted publication of the Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center. It is distributed free of charge twice a year. All Rights Reserved. Extensions and the Carl Albert Center symbol are trademarks of the Carl Albert Center. Copyright Carl Albert Center, The University of Oklahoma, 1985. Statements contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Carl Albert Center or the regents of The University of Oklahoma.