As the country begins to turn to the general election next November,
immigration remains a difficult issue for both political parties. During the
early Republican primary debates, candidates talked enthusiastically about mass
deportations and expanding, doubling, and even electrifying the U.S. southern
border fence to keep people out. As the field has narrowed, the leading
contenders have continued with a hard-line. Romney in particular, though widely
seen as a centrist candidate, has taken an unyielding stance on immigration,
supporting Arizona’s and Alabama’s restrictive laws and aligning himself with
their architect - well-known anti-immigrant official Kris Kobach.
The tone got so strident in the lead up to the Florida primary on January 31
that Florida Senator Marco Rubio (who many say is a potential candidate for Vice
President) chastised the Republican candidates for “harsh and intolerable and inexcusable”
anti-immigrant rhetoric.
The Democratic Party’s discourse has been more measured. Though all condemn
illegal immigration, most speak of immigrants as “folks ... just trying to
earn a living and provide for their families,” no different from so many
forebearers. But in concrete terms, President Obama has little to show
immigrants - and more importantly Hispanic voters - from his three plus years in
office.
During his time in the White House he failed to pass the Dream Act (which
would give undocumented individuals that came here as children the chance to
come clean by enrolling in a college or enlisting in the military), much less a
more comprehensive immigration reform. What the administration has done is
increase deportation to record levels, though now it is working to remove
otherwise law-abiding, unauthorized individuals from the deportation queue.
These conflicting positions and heated debates show that the politics
of immigration has changed little since the failed 2007 Comprehensive
Immigration Reform Act, championed at the time by Senators Edward Kennedy and
John McCain. Yet immigration itself has changed dramatically.
For over a decade, Mexicans have represented roughly a third of all
U.S.-bound migrants. In the mid-2000s roughly half a million Mexicans joined the
U.S. population each year (fairly evenly divided between legal and
illegal entries). But since then, migration from our southern neighbor has
declined greatly, to the point that in 2011 net inflows neared zero. The change
isn’t only happening with Mexican migrants. Inflows from other countries such as
China, and the Philipines show declines as well.
Many factors are behind this shift. One is economic - the downturn in the
U.S. economy and economic resilience in other places has altered the
cost-benefit analysis of leaving home. Particularly in countries such as
China, India, Korea, and Brazil, anecdotal evidence suggests that economic growth is luring back migrants, who
bring with them new skills and resources.
The decline in migration also comes in part from increased border
enforcement. Since 2004, the border patrol has doubled to some 20,000 strong,
with annual budget outlays reaching nearly $3.5
billion. The increased manpower have made at least some immigrants think twice
about facing the mortal danger of crossing through the desert.
But perhaps the most important shift, at least for Mexican immigration, is
demographic. Forty years ago, the average Mexican family had six children. This
number dropped steadily throughout the 1980s and 1990s, until by the turn of the
21st century they averaged just over two per
family (similar to the United States). This means that going forward, each year
fewer Mexicans will be coming of age and looking for jobs. Combined with rising
high school and college enrolments, fewer Mexicans need or want to come to the
United States - a trend likely to continue for the forseeable future.
This doesn’t mean that U.S.-bound migration will end, as economic
opportunities and family ties will still draw many north. It also doesn’t apply
to every country. Flows from Central America, Africa, and from other
places around the world continue unabated. But it does fundamentally change the
nature of U.S.-bound immigration, likely permanently. This has yet to feed into
U.S. political debates.
Politicians today are looking for ways to attract the now over twenty million
potential Hispanic voters, roughly 10 percent of electorate. Both Republicans and
Democrats face challenges in rallying this growing demographic. Republicans need
to cut into Obama’s wide margin (more than two-thirds) among Latino voters,
finding some way to gain their trust and backing. Democrats need to get out this
favorable Hispanic vote, as they are still the least likely of the main ethnic
groups to go to the polls.
Latinos have the potential to swing a close election. In fact, some analysts
suggest that Obama will likely win or lose a second term based on the turnout and electoral support he gets from this
constituency in the battlegrounds of Florida, Nevada, Colorado and New
Mexico. And though surveys show that Hispanics care most about the economy,
education, and healthcare, immigration matters to them as well -
particularly when it stirs worries of broader discrimination.
Whoever wins, the real challenge for tomorrow’s President will be how to deal
with the fundamental shifts within the U.S. migrant population. Changing
the rhetoric is a necessary start. Some politicians do see this.
During a CNN debate on national security, Newt Gingrich said "I don't see how the party
that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy
which destroys families that have been here a quarter of a century." But others
don’t.
Mitt Romney’s “self-deportation” solution to illegal immigration ignores the
underlying reality - that millions of America’s undocumented immigrants have
deep roots in American society that go far beyond employment. They won’t
voluntarily leave behind their families and their lives, even if they lose their
jobs. Only by reframing the debate can America hope to find a sustainable
solution that balances economic needs, family and community ties, and respect
for the law.
immigration remains a difficult issue for both political parties. During the
early Republican primary debates, candidates talked enthusiastically about mass
deportations and expanding, doubling, and even electrifying the U.S. southern
border fence to keep people out. As the field has narrowed, the leading
contenders have continued with a hard-line. Romney in particular, though widely
seen as a centrist candidate, has taken an unyielding stance on immigration,
supporting Arizona’s and Alabama’s restrictive laws and aligning himself with
their architect - well-known anti-immigrant official Kris Kobach.
The tone got so strident in the lead up to the Florida primary on January 31
that Florida Senator Marco Rubio (who many say is a potential candidate for Vice
President) chastised the Republican candidates for “harsh and intolerable and inexcusable”
anti-immigrant rhetoric.
The Democratic Party’s discourse has been more measured. Though all condemn
illegal immigration, most speak of immigrants as “folks ... just trying to
earn a living and provide for their families,” no different from so many
forebearers. But in concrete terms, President Obama has little to show
immigrants - and more importantly Hispanic voters - from his three plus years in
office.
During his time in the White House he failed to pass the Dream Act (which
would give undocumented individuals that came here as children the chance to
come clean by enrolling in a college or enlisting in the military), much less a
more comprehensive immigration reform. What the administration has done is
increase deportation to record levels, though now it is working to remove
otherwise law-abiding, unauthorized individuals from the deportation queue.
These conflicting positions and heated debates show that the politics
of immigration has changed little since the failed 2007 Comprehensive
Immigration Reform Act, championed at the time by Senators Edward Kennedy and
John McCain. Yet immigration itself has changed dramatically.
For over a decade, Mexicans have represented roughly a third of all
U.S.-bound migrants. In the mid-2000s roughly half a million Mexicans joined the
U.S. population each year (fairly evenly divided between legal and
illegal entries). But since then, migration from our southern neighbor has
declined greatly, to the point that in 2011 net inflows neared zero. The change
isn’t only happening with Mexican migrants. Inflows from other countries such as
China, and the Philipines show declines as well.
Many factors are behind this shift. One is economic - the downturn in the
U.S. economy and economic resilience in other places has altered the
cost-benefit analysis of leaving home. Particularly in countries such as
China, India, Korea, and Brazil, anecdotal evidence suggests that economic growth is luring back migrants, who
bring with them new skills and resources.
The decline in migration also comes in part from increased border
enforcement. Since 2004, the border patrol has doubled to some 20,000 strong,
with annual budget outlays reaching nearly $3.5
billion. The increased manpower have made at least some immigrants think twice
about facing the mortal danger of crossing through the desert.
But perhaps the most important shift, at least for Mexican immigration, is
demographic. Forty years ago, the average Mexican family had six children. This
number dropped steadily throughout the 1980s and 1990s, until by the turn of the
21st century they averaged just over two per
family (similar to the United States). This means that going forward, each year
fewer Mexicans will be coming of age and looking for jobs. Combined with rising
high school and college enrolments, fewer Mexicans need or want to come to the
United States - a trend likely to continue for the forseeable future.
This doesn’t mean that U.S.-bound migration will end, as economic
opportunities and family ties will still draw many north. It also doesn’t apply
to every country. Flows from Central America, Africa, and from other
places around the world continue unabated. But it does fundamentally change the
nature of U.S.-bound immigration, likely permanently. This has yet to feed into
U.S. political debates.
Politicians today are looking for ways to attract the now over twenty million
potential Hispanic voters, roughly 10 percent of electorate. Both Republicans and
Democrats face challenges in rallying this growing demographic. Republicans need
to cut into Obama’s wide margin (more than two-thirds) among Latino voters,
finding some way to gain their trust and backing. Democrats need to get out this
favorable Hispanic vote, as they are still the least likely of the main ethnic
groups to go to the polls.
Latinos have the potential to swing a close election. In fact, some analysts
suggest that Obama will likely win or lose a second term based on the turnout and electoral support he gets from this
constituency in the battlegrounds of Florida, Nevada, Colorado and New
Mexico. And though surveys show that Hispanics care most about the economy,
education, and healthcare, immigration matters to them as well -
particularly when it stirs worries of broader discrimination.
Whoever wins, the real challenge for tomorrow’s President will be how to deal
with the fundamental shifts within the U.S. migrant population. Changing
the rhetoric is a necessary start. Some politicians do see this.
During a CNN debate on national security, Newt Gingrich said "I don't see how the party
that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy
which destroys families that have been here a quarter of a century." But others
don’t.
Mitt Romney’s “self-deportation” solution to illegal immigration ignores the
underlying reality - that millions of America’s undocumented immigrants have
deep roots in American society that go far beyond employment. They won’t
voluntarily leave behind their families and their lives, even if they lose their
jobs. Only by reframing the debate can America hope to find a sustainable
solution that balances economic needs, family and community ties, and respect
for the law.
