Hope did not win this election for Barack Obama. Demographics did. Compared to 2008, the president lost ground with the female vote, the youth vote, and the overall electorate; the Hispanic vote was the only group that actually moved more in favor of Obama in 2012. While many people rightly wonder how sweeping a mandate Obama has won, a more basic question is what he actually has a mandate to do. And demographics, not hope, provides an answer.
There were strong hints in Obama’s victory speech that comprehensive immigration reform will be the next big domestic item on the president’s legislative agenda. The issue — unlike health care — is one where, succeed or fail, it’s still a win-win for the Democrats, substantively and politically. The party has no interest in helping Republicans figure out the way to square their fierce no-amnesty instinct with the public’s overwhelming willingness to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Immigration reform is more than the right policy for domestic and international purposes; it is also salt on the wound of a party that bet way too heavily on angry white guys.
Comments
Yes; and he ought to hurry up by filing legislation within days, before Christmas. This issue should be long in the past before the 2014 mid-term elections. Workers ought not be competing against each other based on the ability of employers to find workers vulnerable to under-the-table and low wages, including no workers compensation.
This comment has been removed.
The presidency was thus saved by angry brown Hispanics. And once again, this Democratic columnist sees further special inerest pandering as the key to future Democratic electoral success. The problem with granting amnesty to illegals is that it attracts MORE illegals like a magnet. For reform to be serious and successful, those who granted legal status must be done only for people who are here now. It cannot be extended to the millions who will come seeking similar treatment.
Romney was right about self deportation. If you remove all the incentives to come, the illegals will leave voluntarily. But it was too sharp a way to put it. But he is correct in stating that keeping illegals out must come before grating any rights to current illegal immigrants.
This comment has been removed.
You have to realize Richmond that if Republicans had any interest in enacting real penalties for hiring undocumented workers (people, is another word you could use) they've had every opportunity to do so. They certainly put forward plenty of iterations in their attempts to make sure these same people can forever only access healthcare through the emergency room. The nationalID would be another road to possibly take. There are plenty of Democrats out here who would be absolutely fine with the national ID.
The President needs to be more proactive about making proposals that the Republicans in the House would have to openly deny or openly come up with reasons the President's ideas won't work, or why they are not wanted. One of the reasons that Republicans don't want more legal workers is that small business would have to pay them more. They won't come out and say that but legal worker is a more stable worker and with the Affordable Care Act, small businesses won't have to deal with so many health care concerns. It is a more stable and fluid system at the same time.
Any elected President has a mandate for his ideas, the man won. Yet immigration has never been a Democratic or reall a Republican problem. It has been a Tea Party problem. These cranky old losers are afraid of their own shadows. This election has made their fears manifest, yet the Republican Party has to find a way to address the issue or become irrelavent. The Presdient must put a bill forth and let the Republican's decide which way they choose to go. There is no way out of this without some form of amnesty and a restructuring of immigration and employment rules. People can go on about the "secure our border" nonsense and any other silly thing they want, but the fact is we've got 12 million or so people we have to intergrate legally into the country. You're not going to throw them out.
So in the end this is a Republican problem both in terms of legislation and politics. The demographics speak for themselves. So Mr. President submit a bill and we can all sit back and watch the Tea Party types slowly twist in the wind.
This comment has been removed.
That is making one heck of an assumption regarding how "amnesty" works out if properly implimented. This idea that one Party wants to do nothing but let everyone in and the other keep everyone out is just the reality.
We let 1 million legal immigrants each year into this country and many wait years to come here. Well if Pres. Obama grants amnesty to 11 million illegals then immigration should be stopped for the next 11 years. Also, no more anchor babies...in fact an article in WSJ said that Hong Kong is stopping all pregnant woman from China from entering because if the baby is born there they are entitled to all the benefits of education etc. how come we have anchor babies but no other countries do. Close the borders and have e-fy for companies when I worked I had to show two IDs for citizen status. At least those new immigrants want to succeed and do work hard...not like some of our inner city generation after generation on welfare. I can't wait for them to take on the union jobs, because with affirmative action they will have to be let into the unions and displacing americans that were born here...what will the unions do then. Don't worry native indian Elizabeth Warren who used affirmative action to get her jobs will help the new illegal immigrant new citizen to get theirs.
You know I can agree with your e-verify in fact I think most people agree. Where you run into the problem is when you start into this "old white guy" whine. You set up an us vs them scenario. They are not merely immigrants, not merely Latino's, they are people seeking work just like the white guy seeks work. The demographics say more and more Latino's are seeking work and there will be some better qualified and some will get the breaks white's used to get. But I hate this idea that groups are in competition. The demographics themselves will eventually lead to the decline of affirmitive action and competition will be straight up. So the issue isn't who gets the job the issue is what do we do vis a vis immigration. Then you get into this "innercity" rant.
This kind of stuff is why the Party will become irrelavent. We cannot go on and on dissing other people, insulting them, denigrating by implication. E-verify is a solid policy the rest merely alienates large groups of people who if we ever wish to win an election.
This comment has been removed.
Juliette, you made a number of interesting observations here, but I am left wondering what really defines the Hispanic demographic, and who defines their priorities. As you mentioned, twenty years ago, Republicans received their fair share of the Hispanic vote. The party message of the Reagan years was about prosperity and opportunity, something every immigrant can agree on. But back then, that voting block wasn't clearly defined, and was a smaller percentage in relation to the overall population. This aspect was reflected in everyday American life twenty years ago. It wasn't necessary to run political ads in Spanish on Spanish-only TV and radio stations, and publish documents in two languages, or press 1 for English. Today, everyday life in the US has changed with the growth of this demographic. Furthermore, we're told that this voting block is more clearly defined, and their driving issue is "immigration reform".
What has not been clearly defined todate is what really constitutues "immigration reform", and if the development of this policy by the White Hpuse impacts all immigrants and Americans in a fair manner, or is tailored specifically to appease a certain demographic. I'd suggest the Obama administration be cautious about presenting a fair and impartial solution in order tyo avoud a potential backlash.
This comment has been removed.
I wonder why minorities vote overwhelmingly for Democrats? Hmmm...that's a tough one. Unfortunately and obviously, Republicans will have to seduce minorities just as aggressively as Democrats if they want to win future national elections. This will be good for the minorities, but not so good for everyone else.
How is it that what is good for minorities isn't good for the nation. We are not a nation of "white folks" vs minorities and I don't think women are a minority. This kind of thinking has to end if the Republican Party is to make a comeback.
So blanket amnesty, anchor babies, in-state tuition, emergency room medical care, EBT cards, higher crime rates, tax evasion, etc. are good for the nation?
This comment has been removed.
"kitch' The nation can be as fragmented as one wants it to be or as it is. However, the bottom line is you cannot ignore the reality just because you don't like it. The Republican Party has an obligation and a need to address this issue sanely and without all the "illegal immigrants" as evil people language unless the Party has a death wish.
The question is how do we address the problem Saying throw the bums out will one not work and two alienate a growing population from the Repubican Party and more importantly and modern conservative movement forever. I prefer to find a solution as opposed to gripipng about what is.
This comment has been removed.
"kitch" Amnesty by any other name is still amnesty. It will be the answer to the immediate problem. However, I consider myself a classic "conservative" not this nonsense that passes off for conservatism today. There are conservative answers to this problem and like it or not a form of amnesty will have to be a part of it for purely political purposes. Certainly "liberals" won and deserve to get their way in a lot of things. However, that does not mean "conservatives" have to live with this "religious right", "Tea Party", anti-Hispanic, anti-minority, anti-woman, crop of fruitcakes. For too long I've had to listen to this religious nonsense being foisted upon the conservative movement. For too long I've had to listen to the "southern" wing of the party which is nothing more than the old "dixiecrats" lecture conservatives on what we're supposed to believe. I'm sorry but I have an education. I'm not a red neck nor am I anti-anything not even progress. It is not required that I be to be a conservative.
To be a conservative all I have to believe in is that government does not interfere in the actions of the individual if he hurts no one besides himself. That we approach the governments finances in a fiscally responsible way, in other words if people want these benefits then they must pay for them.
So how does this help the jobs and wages of the Union members that Tom Menino's "Machone" worked to get Union members to vote for Elizabeth Warren? I got a postcard from the SEIU I did not Vote for Elizabeth. She is NOT going to protect my job and my wages.
This comment has been removed.
Who says these Latino's won't become union members making the Unions even stronger. This is the problem with the us vs them viewpoint. You can't see the possibilities.
Kitch -Will not happen. Latinos will DEMAND wholesale amnesty. Obama will deliver wholesale amnesty. Latinos will then DEMAND government help. Obama and his liberal State partners will open the taxpayers wallet. ESL teachers will be hired, Section 8 vouchers printed, public schools fundedjust look at Lawrence Public Schools to get a picture of the tsunami to come), etc., etc., 12 million new folks on the payroll - the fiscal conservatives are cooked.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this has to be true. The "conservative" movement got sold this Norgquist bill of goods which basically philosophically tied the party's hand. What is a better argument, "We will cut benefits or we support benefits but you will have to pay for them." Don't blame liberals for our failure to demand payment. It was decided that as opposed to offering benefits we decided we'd offer tax cuts. However, both of these have limits. We never argued regarding the limits. We never said as "conservatives" should say, "If these are the benefits that you desire then they must be paid for." Caught up in our obligations to the corporate special interests we sold our principles and our arguement for fiscal sanity down the river. The public would support a "socially neutral", fiscally responsible "conservative" movement. They will not support a "religious right", morally oppressive, anti- all segments of society version. I say return to our roots and fight from there.
When a pretty simple issue like a gay person wanting to sponsor a same sex partner from another country for immigration can not be resolved I lose faith that more complex issues would ever be tackled.
http://www.immigrationequality.org/
Legal immigration went out the window years ago. What we have now is migration,pure and simple! And as a result,we have a very divided country..
It is not going to happen - the Democrats want to hang onto a winning issue for 2016.
Obama had a 'mandate' with his 2008 win to fix immigration reform: but then Massachusetts finds Obama's aunt & uncle living illegaly in this state - AFTER - they both had received, 'deprtation orders.'
So why is there ANY talk about America going over a "Fiscal Cliff"? The "Fiscal Cliff" talk is a complete red herring. Juliette clearly does not want the US government to reduce spending in any fashion. And definitely Barack Obama is just throwing rhetoric. He has NO INTENTION of reducing govenment spending. He just wants to increase it, and raise taxes (on EVERYBODY) to pay for it. "Immigration Reform" == Higher Taxes on the Middle Class and higher government spending, fewer jobs for Americans. And ANOTHER $1 Trillion per year increase in the US debt. (Bankrupt) California, here we come!
Also, from today's WSJ "The Hard Fiscal Facts" What the Obama Administration won't tell you. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578113033115035920.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop