The conventional wisdom is that Republican immigrant bashing is so obviously racially charged that the Latino vote will simply fall into the lap of the Democrats without much effort. A recent Pew Charitable Trust poll of 2000 Latinos nationwide, reported in the
Associated Press, the
Denver Post and elsewhere, shows something different and frightening: The Democrats' weak response to the Republicans is actually reducing Latinos' connection to the party.
Here is the most revealing number:
Which party has the best position on immigration?
Democrats 35%
Republicans 16%
Neither 25%
Don't know/refused to answer 23%
For the Democrats to be that far south of 50% on an issue that is supposed to be a winner in this community should be a major wake up call. Even more disturbing, this is a drop from two years ago, when 39% of Latinos thought the Dems better on this issue.
Yes, the Republicans have taken an even bigger hit, with the percentage of Latinos that think the GOP is better on immigration dropped from 25 to 16% in the same time period. But this drop hasn't benefitted Democrats; what has happened is that the percentage of Latinos who believe neither party is better on immigration jumped from 7% in 2004 to 25% in 2006.
How did this happen? From my vantage point here in Colorado, it seems pretty obvious that Latino voters who are paying attention to the immigration debate are dismayed by the Democrats' adoption of conservative language to discuss immigration: "toughness," "controlling the border" and all that.
Back in December 2005, the Colorado Democratic Party passed a strong resolution in opposition to what the Party labeled the "Colorado Anti-Immigrant Initiative." That was Initiative 55, supported by Tom Tancredo and Dick Lamm, modeled on California's Proposition 187, that would deny government services to undocumented immigrants. (You may recall that conventional wisdom says Republican support of Prop 187 turned California into a solidly Democratic state.) The CDP resolution recognized that any program to deny public services to undocumented would (1) hurt society as a whole by encouraging people not to seek preventive health care or to call 911 in response to domestic violence or other crime, and (2) encourage discrimation and mass racial profiling of Latinos, regardless of citizenship status:
WHEREAS, if passed, the "Colorado Anti-Immigrant Initiative" would make systematic racial profiling official policy in Colorado and would make it more likely that Latinas/os and other people of color will be questioned about their immigration status in Colorado's schools, hospitals, libraries, government offices, and universities; and
WHEREAS, if passed, the "Colorado Anti-Immigrant Initiative" would create a climate of fear and suspicion in which everyone is routinely questioned about their citizenship status, would be required to carry a birth certificate or passport or evidence of legal immigration status around to do daily business and errands, and would be required to provide personal information to numerous government agencies on a frequent basis, in violation of their right to privacy; and
WHEREAS, mass racial profiling and unfair denial of benefits to citizens resulting from the "Colorado Anti-Immigrant Initiative" could perpetuate many costly lawsuits, clogging the state's legal system;
This resolution was in tune with Latino sentiment. 58% of Latinos interviewed in the Pew poll agreed that the current immigration debate has encouraged discrimination against Latinos generally. From the Denver Post story:
"I have in my entire life never seen this kind of environment," said Centennial resident Jennifer Herrera, an organizer of the Denver immigration marches. "I've had people shouting in my face, 'Go back to Mexico,' which would be difficult because I'm from California."
Juanita Mejia, who was at a library in Aurora on Thursday with her two children, said discrimination makes it more difficult for everyone - even legal residents such as her.
"Even now, they are saying not to rent apartments to people," she said. "People look at you with suspicion and also because of the language."
Fast forward to June 2006, when in a 5-1 decision, the Colorado Supreme Court threw out the Anti-Immigrant Initiative on the ground that it violated the Single Subject rule of the Colorado Constitution. (The fatal error: In addition to the services ban, the amendment would have also changed the Colorado Constitution's guarantee of property rights regardless of citizenship or residency status.)
Instead of joining the opponents of Tancredo in rejoicing, the state Democratic Party leadership panicked, pre-emptively calling for a special session to pass immigration laws -- even though the Democratic-controlled state legislature had already passed a number of immigration related bills during the regular session. Republican Governor Bill Owens issued his own special session call, and the result was the passage of eleven anti-undocumented immigrant bills that add up to a watered-down version of the Tancredo initiative, banning undocumented from receiving public services not mandated by the federal government.
This was correctly reported as a massive victory for the right wing on immigration. State Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald and Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff, both supposedly Democrats, called a press conference to brag about their "toughness" on immigrants:
Democratic State Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald smiled widely when a reporter said at a news conference Tuesday morning that "you're now the party of 'tough on immigration.' "
Fitz-Gerald joked to the press corps: "Thank you, did you all get that?"
The dynamic at play here is called Taking The Latino Vote For Granted. Colorado Democrats knew damn well in December 2005 that Latinos, especially more progressively inclined Latinos who are the most likely to actively promote the party among Latinos, view Republican anti-immigrant proposals as anti-Latino. Yet those concerns were quickly tossed over the side in order to posture as "tough on immigration." The reaction among Colorado Latinos has been angry:
Veronica Montoya, of Denver, is a ninth-generation Coloradan and a longtime Democrat, the party of her parents and grandparents.
There was never a question about her political affiliation - until now.
"I always thought the Democratic Party was the party of Latinos. I thought Democrats were for the people, the common person. I blindly voted Democrat because I thought the Republican Party was for rich people trying to protect their money," said Montoya, a 37-year-old Realtor.
"Now, the line between the Democrats and Republicans has gotten blurred."
She won't switch to the GOP, she said, but she's considering registering as an unaffiliated voter.
Dusti Gurule, executive director of the Latina Initiative Project, a nonpartisan voter registration effort aimed at Hispanic women in Denver and Adams counties, says both parties share the blame.
"Personally . . . I feel betrayed and annoyed, not just by the Democratic Party but also by the Republican Party," she said. "The Republicans came out with their mean-spirited offense, and then the Democrats took credit for what in my view is mean-spirited legislation."
Gurule said she has seen a trend among young voters to not register with either major party.
One of them, Monique Bejarano, an 18-year-old recent graduate of Thornton High School, said registered as unaffiliated because she didn't think either party offered a humane solution to illegal immigration.
Democrats in the swing states of the Southwest need to remember that a major reason those states are in play is the presence of a large Latino population that traditionally leans Democratic. Moving to the right on immigration is a loser with this critical component of the base. Democrats apparently believe it is enough to point to Republican insanity on immigration, which is tempting when you consider that one Colorado Republican legislator denounced the fact that Democrats refused to deny food aid to undocumented under the age of 18 by saying Democrats were feeding "the next generation of terrorists." But the Pew poll shows that Democratic posturing as "tough on immigrants" signals to Latinos that Democrats are more interested in accomodating that kind of sentiment than in fighting against it.
The moral of the story is that Republican anti-immigrant craziness is not a winner for Democrats unless they actually stand up for immigrants. The weak me-tooism shown by the Colorado Democrats at best takes the issue off the table, and at worst drives Latinos to be unaffiliated and therefore possibly susceptible in the longer term to Republican recruitment efforts.