Paid for by NDN.
Immigration Latino Vote Forum
NDN
727 15th Street, N.W.
2nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
+ + + + +
IMMIGRATION
LATINO VOTE FORUM
+ + + + +
NOVEMBER 14, 2006
+ + + + +
FEATURING:
CELINDA LAKE
CECILIA MUNOZ
SERGIO BENDIXEN
FRANK SHARRY
+ + + + +
This transcript produced from a video download provided by NDN.
A-G-E-N-D-A
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Celinda Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Cecilia Munoz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Sergio Bendixen . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Frank Sharry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Q&A Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
MODERATOR: I don't think there's a better panel in the country that can analyze what just happened. Most of them have been involved in this either from a policy position or from a politics position, from a pollster position, from a non-profit position that serves the community. So we've got almost every angle that you'd want to cover here and I think it'll lend itself to I think some new developments as we discuss this. Let me ask Simon to do a quick introduction of NDN and its role in this then we'll go to you, Celinda.
MR. ROSENBERG: Here's a quick update. We know that there are several narratives coming out of the election last week becoming prominent in the national discussion. One is that the Democrats had a good day, Republicans didn't. Second is something we've been promoting along with other organizations like Center for American Progress is that we ended an era of conservative ascendancy in American politics and we'll be entering a new era in the 21st century.
But there are three storylines that we really want to talk about. One is that the Republican efforts to use immigration as an issue in elections failed for them politically. Second is that the Hispanic community after having moved very heavily into the Republican camp in recent years moved dramatically away from them. And third, there's really now a tremendous opportunity to make meaningful progress in comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. These are important issues. They may not be in the first part of the narratives coming out of 2006, but certainly I think as we head into 2007 and 2008 they're going to be extremely important.
For those of you here and who will be watching on TV who have been involved with NDN, you know we played a role in all this. Through our advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform and holding the line against withering Republican attacks trying to derail progress - meaningful progress on immigration reform, with more than $2 million in media that we spent in Spanish around the country and to the $6 million that was spent in 2004, we've put more money on the air speaking to the Latino citizens of the United States than any other organization on the progressive side in the last several years and we're very proud of the work that we've done. But today I think what we're here to talk about is what happened, what didn't happen and what happens next. And I think the impact of this, what happened in the election can be found in the headlines and newspapers today with Mel Martinez now having been appointed chairman of the RNC was a dramatic reaction by the Republicans, this remarkable erosion happened with Latino voters in this election. And it has enormous implications for `08 because this, the erosion of the Republican brand all across the country which is a vast part of the American electorate not only is problematic long-term, but in the short term you look at what this could mean for the four southwestern states, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico. It's possible they may have just handed the Democrats the presidency in 2008 in addition to creating long-term problems for them in the fastest growing part of the American electorate. So big stakes in this conversation today, big issues, a lot about who we are and what we'll become as a nation. Very proud of the role we've played and I want to thank everyone who's here and who will be watching for helping allow NDN to become a meaningful part of (inaudible) most important debates the nation's having. I want to thank Celinda, and Celinda, if you could speak for a few minutes?
MS. LAKE: Sure. Thank you all so much and I'm sorry that I'm not there in person. I want to make three overall points. One, that immigration was not the wedge issue in this election as the conservatives had hoped it would be, and they tried to come to it early to win voters. They tried again as (inaudible) at the end and they sent almost without exception the candidates who were attacked on immigration and then responded by support for comprehensive immigration actually putting back the attack and decreased their support among voters. And I'll give you some data to illustrate that.
I want to talk a little bit also about specifically illustrating this point in Arizona. We were privileged to do there a number of initiatives and a number of congressional (inaudible). And Arizona really (inaudible) the one state where immigration (inaudible) the number one problem facing the state. In those cases in a key congressional race Arizona came, and the gubernatorial race, you had people holding the line on comprehensive reform be very articulate and out front on that against people who had been endorsed by the Minutemen and talked about a more extreme agenda and in both cases that backfiring dramatically for them. And then finally I want to talk a little bit about where immigration did have an effect and that was with the Latino voters, the Hispanic electorate, which increased their support for Democrats in this election quite dramatically and in part a response to immigration and increased their participation in the election. On point number one, 30 percent of the voters in the exit polls said that immigration was extremely important to them and yet of those voters, 46 percent voted Democratic. In the exit polls, 57 percent of the voters came out for comprehensive reform and pass citizenship, only 38 percent came out as supporting everyone. And comprehensive reform got over two-thirds of the vote among independents and Democrats. Schematically in fact taking an extreme position we found in several races and we found it in Michigan where there (inaudible), in Arizona where Napolitano and (inaudible) were attacked we found that first of all in several races the attack on immigration actually backfired. The voters thought it was an illustration of Washington getting nothing done, an illustration about what's bad about Washington, they talk, they (inaudible) but they don't really do anything to solve problems.
We also saw, contrary to conventional wisdom and what I love about being a pollster is the conventional wisdom is always wrong, being for comprehensive reform was a winning position. People did not think that (inaudible) did not think it's realistic to deport everyone. They want to be tough, but they want to be fair and Democrats have a lot of advantages in this debate, not the least of which is talking about employer and cracking down on employers as well as talking about being fair and providing the task forces and chips (phonetic 00:03:47).
In Arizona we found first off the bat that as much - if there was ever a state where immigration had the potential to be a wedge issue it is Arizona and 38 percent of the people said that immigration was extremely important for them. It was listed as the top problem in the state and yet of those people who said immigration was extremely important, 52 percent voted for the governor, only 44 percent for his opponent. And of those voters though who are for legal status versus deporting, 55 percent of the voters said offer legal status, only 36 percent said deport everyone. People were also quite cynical in Arizona that the fence would really have much impact. In Arizona, people said in our focus groups who do you think will build the fence, people pointed very strongly to the government that if we had a fence then people will just get a taller ladder, that we need a comprehensive approach here. There certainly was important that it include a path to citizenship as well. This is a state that on election day had seen a number of about 74 percent. So it wasn't that Arizona was having an out-of-body experience. It was this kind of wedge politics that really did not work.
Latino voters increased their support for the Democrats from 53 percent to 69 percent, a 16-point increase. Fifty-one percent of Latino voters said that immigration was one of the most important issues for them, and the more importance on immigration among Latino voters the more strongly you supported the Democrats. So of those people who thought it was most important, 59 percent said I strongly support the Democratic candidate compared to 45 percent of those Latino voters who said it was not as important for them. There was also an increase in participation rates among Latino voters over 2002 and of course off years usually being a time of real drop-off among newer participants to the system including Latino voters.
So in summary this wedge, even though both sides came to it early and late, really didn't work. We've seen on the eve of the election, even on the front lines of the issue, taking a more comprehensive approach. And the one place that it did have some value in the Latino community actually backfired on the conservatives, one of the major forces increasing support and intensity among a group of voters who are going to be expanding in the electorate in the future as well.
MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, Celinda, that was fantastic.
MS. MUNOZ: So thank you very much for having me and thanks for having this really important discussion. If the anti-immigrant politics that we've been seeing and hearing so much is as Frank likes to say the dog that didn't bark, the Latino voters are arguably the dog that did bark. We appear to be in a bigger proportion of the electorate this election than we ever have been. The exit polls have us at 8 percent of the electorate which is a record, and while a poll actually that Celinda did for NCOR (phonetic 00:00:31) in the days just prior to the election shows that as we know is consistently true, the number one issues throughout the U.S. continue to be issues like education and the economy and this time around the war was up there. Immigration turns out to be a significant motivating factor for Latino voters and that appears to have been very much the case in this election.
Among the things that the polls Celinda conducted for NCOR found is that despite all the pronouncements about last spring's rallies and about how the people who participated in those rallies were immigrants and therefore not U.S. citizens and therefore not voters, of the Latino voters that we polled, 30 percent of them either marched or knew someone close to them who did, and one of my favorite details is of the young Latino voters almost half of them marched or had someone close to them who did. So there was a real connection between activism on the immigration issue and participating in this election. And these were voters. That sort of myth that `Only immigrants care about immigration and those immigrants are probably undocumented and therefore we have political clout' is a myth. In fact, this community cares very deeply about this issue. I think there was a sense of feeling very insulted about the way the debate has been carried out and that translated into energy around election and it translated into a shift in the way Latinos vote.
Now, that shift was pretty clearly a shift away from Republicans, right? So as Celinda described, there was a significant shift in the vote of people who had supported Republicans in the past and voted for Democrats this time around. It remains to be seen whether you could characterize this really as a shift towards Democrats. At some level Democrats are going to need to close the deal with Latino voters. I believe still going forward that this is a vote which is going to continue to be up for grabs. The Republicans countered yesterday with the leaking of the information that Senator Martinez is likely to be the next chair of the RNC. That sends a signal at some level that somebody in the Republican party gets it that we need the Latino voters, which they clearly did, and it signals that they're going to attempt to get them back and that I think suggests that the Democrats also have some work to do to really close the deal and that means in our view delivering on a range of issues, on both the issues which are the very top tier like education, access to health and jobs in the economy and war, but also very importantly delivering on immigration reform in a way that really reflects not only where this community is, but where the country is. The political space is very clearly open now. The biggest obstacle to immigration reform has really been the previous House leadership which was, you know, (inaudible) put down and said there was no way we were going to have a debate on comprehensive reform in the House. That leadership is gone and so that main obstacle has been removed, but it remains true that in order to pass immigration reform you need to work in a bipartisan way. Neither the Republican Congress nor the Democratic Caucus can deliver a comprehensive reform by themselves, so it demonstrates - it will require a commitment to bipartisanship. It will require a commitment to get the issue resolved. We believe that's something which is absolutely achievable. We got the bill through the Senate last year. We believe it's achievable in this next Congress, but it is going to require leadership. I think it's actually a great opportunity for the new leadership in the Congress to be able to demonstrate that they can deliver results on an issue which is important to the country and on an issue where the country apparently knows the difference between demagoguery and actual policymaking. Demagoguery was clearly defeated. The notion that a vote on comprehensive reform is a dangerous vote should be dead as a result of these elections. That should allow us and allow the Congress to move immigration reform forward, but you know we have no illusions about this suddenly becoming an easy debate. It's going to require bipartisan. There are members of both caucuses which are not ever going to vote for comprehensive reform. We believe it's possible to get to a majority, but it's going to take leadership and it's going to take willingness to walk into the political space which we believe is very clearly open, and obviously those of us in the immigrant rights movement want to continue to push for that very, very hard, and that's going to be essential to whether or not the Democrats can really close the deal with Latino voters.
MODERATOR: Next I want probably the preeminent pollster on Hispanics, Sergio has polled Hispanics so much sometimes when you get up in the morning you want to call him and ask him what you're supposed to think because he's been doing it for so long he in essence invented sort of this and how to incorporate it in a campaign. And he was essential in sort of getting NDN involved and making us a relevant factor in Latino politics. Sergio?
MR. BENDIXEN: Thank you, Joe. And you do call me every morning to find out what you need to. The results of the election a week ago I think, I hope dispel once and for all three myths about the Hispanic vote in America. Number one, there's this myth that Hispanics, there may be a lot of them in the United States, but they don't really vote. As Celinda told us, they became 8 percent of the American electorate in these 2006 elections, the highest percentage ever and a higher percentage than the percentage that they are registered. Therefore, they seem to have come out - these are all of course figures from the exit poll - they seem to have come out at a higher level than most Americans. So Hispanics are not only here in large numbers, but they are now voting in large numbers. At the very least they voted in very large numbers in this election.
Secondly, and Cecilia alluded to this point, they are a swing vote in American politics. Between 1996 and 2004 the Republicans gained 32 points among Hispanic voters in the United States. We went from 7,221 in favor of the Democrats to approximately 5,940 in favor of the Democrats, a 30-some point swing in favor of the Republican party. Between `04 and `06 there was a swing back towards the Democratic party of 25 points or so. Huge swings in the Hispanic electorate over the last decade and as Cecilia was saying, anybody that thinks that this vote is now part of anybody's base just doesn't understand the nature of this vote. This vote is up for grabs and it has swung more over the last 10 years than anybody could possibly imagine.
Number three, the number three myth. The element or the sector of the electorate that is important is the U.S.-born electorate, the English-dominant electorate. For the first time the exit poll asked voters in California whether they were born in the United States or whether they were born in a foreign country. The exit poll found that 19 percent of all voters in California were Hispanics, a record, but they also found that 10 percent of those 19 percent were born in Latin America, and if the math doesn't leave me for a second, 10 divided by 19 is more than half. Therefore, more than half of all the Hispanic voters in California were immigrant Spanish-dominant. Therefore, the great importance of communicating not only with the U.S.-born and English-dominant, which are obviously an important segment, but also with the immigrants who are now becoming a more and more important segment of the electorate.
What brings these three facts together, the large turnout, the swing in the direction of the Democratic party, the fact that immigrants are more and more becoming an important segment of the electorate? The immigration issue. Over the last two years as I went around the country talking to Hispanic voters about politics it is true that they are maybe more concerned about issues like the war in Iraq and the economy, but the immigration issue touched their souls. They would tell me that the immigration debate was not about policy, that it was about whether Hispanics belong in America, that it was a debate about whether the Hispanic culture was a good thing or a bad thing for America. It's a very personal thing. They thought that rhetoric like "anchor babies" and "welfare cheats" and "lawbreakers" were unfair talking about people that came here to work very hard. They reacted very strongly and came out to vote in record numbers, punish the party that they felt was responsible for the demagoguery and the reactionary proposals of the last two years and of course help the Democrats achieve their victory.
Finally, when it comes to the immigration issue, let me make a recommendation to all of you. No one in Washington should be allowed to discuss the immigration issue without reading Tomar Jacobi's essay in Foreign Affairs magazine called "Immigration Nation." It dispels a lot of the myths about the immigration issue from an economic point of view. And let me just quote two sets of figures from her essay that made a very big impression on me. Number one, during the next 10 years the U.S. economy will create about 28 million jobs that will need to be filled by unskilled laborers and another 75 million Americans will retire during those 10 years. About 25 million I estimate are right now engaged in unskilled labor. That means there will be 50 million openings during the next 10 years for unskilled laborers and if we don't find people to do those jobs the American economy will shrink and we will at least go into a huge recession, and we will not be competitive with the rest of the world. Where are we going to find those 50 million unskilled laborers?
The second set of figures. In the 1960s, 50 percent of all Americans that were in high school dropped out so that they could get an unskilled laborer job. Fifty percent of all Americans, black, white, Hispanic, Asian dropped out in the 1960s to get an unskilled job. That figure is down to 10 percent. Our country is no longer producing a workforce that is interested in unskilled labor. Unless we change our immigration policy and our laws so that we allow a much larger number of immigrants to come to America and take those 50 million jobs that will be created by our economy. Our country will be in serious trouble. According to Tamara our economy will collapse if we don't change our policy. Joe?
MODERATOR: Thank you for being with us, Frank.
MR. SHARRY: All right. Can you hear me? Does this work? Does this work? Yes. Well, no tele-evangelizing this morning. Too tired. I think the American people understand this debate much better than most politicians and certainly the House Republicans did. The American people aren't particularly well-informed about the specifics on policy, but they have a real pragmatic common sense. And when House Republicans ginned up public frustration at the problem of illegal immigration and then proceeded to block anything but a fence that will never be built, it epitomized a Congress that did a lot of talking, but didn't solve problems. And they missed it. The American people are tired of hearing politicians describe problems without solving them. That's one of the clear messages of this election. It is, you know, the infamous Dukakis phrase turned on its head. It wasn't about ideology, it was about competence. And when you're in charge and you don't roll up your sleeves to go into a conference committee after the Senate bravely took up this issue on a bipartisan basis and passed an unprecedented if flawed comprehensive immigration bill. A lot of members stuck their neck out, a lot of leaders stuck their neck out for the Senate to take on this issue and the House decided to have hearings to criticize the Senate bill. In retrospect, what a huge political mistake. And then they decided that they could fool the stupid voters with a fence authorization without the money for it. Celinda was mentioning in some of the debates where her candidates would criticize the fence it was a laugh line. Voters would laugh at the idea that a 700-mile fence was anything like a solution to this complex problem.
Now, the reason - what the House Republicans didn't get that the public gets and that the Senate got is that it's about what's the solution. It's not about whether we should control our borders, it's how. It's not about whether our immigration system is broken, it's how to fix it. And when you have that debate, the whole frame shifts. You see, opponents of comprehensive immigration reform - and you hear it now and you'll continue to hear it - they want to make the debate about are you for more immigration or less immigration. Are you for harsh policies or you're for loose policies. It starts at the border so we should stop it at the border. That is the antiquated debate. The new axis of this debate is tough and dumb versus tough and smart. You know, I hear all this commentary, `Well, a lot of Democrats got elected saying they were going to be tough on enforcement.' Of course. That's like everyone agrees we should be tough on enforcement. The details matter, but everyone agrees you know is it a virtual fence or a real fence. I'm going to predict it's going to be a virtual fence. Why? Because the agents on the ground don't want roads that are going to help smugglers from fencing that's going to be easy to tunnel over and to ladder over. What they want is a combination of agents and technology and infrastructure that works. And you don't need fencing in order to appeal to voters who you think are stupid. You need smart policy.
But the real enforcement gem, the key, the centerpiece is not at the border. That's the old debate. What Democrats are going to be able to do, and why I'm confident that we're going to move this forward, and they are not going to be scared to move forward on a bill that opponents will of course say oh, they're the pro-amnesty party. The reason is that they're going to pass a bill that's going to be the toughest enforcement bill in American history and it's going to include the toughest crackdown on employers who hire people here illegally in American history, and they're going to do it in a way where it's going to be phased in and it's eventually going to work. You compare that to a 700-mile fence that'll never be built and see if you can stand the test of time when opponents say you're soft on immigration. And it'll be combined with more family visas, more worker visas and a practical, realistic engagement with the issue of 11 to 12 million people who are mostly in families, who are mostly working, who are not going to go home and we're going to have to get them on the right side of the law through a multi-step process of restitution, staying on the right side of the law and getting to the back of the line.
I can imagine the public opinion polls once comprehensive reform is passed, I can. You know what the public ratings on comprehensive reform are going to be when it passes? Through the roof. Through the roof. Why? Because people want their leaders to lead. I heard that from a conservative colleague who was meeting with a House leader earlier this year said look, you guys are going over the cliff. This anti-immigrant stuff, I mean this felony stuff, and throwing priests and nuns into jail is not good politics. We've got millions on the people on the streets upset with you, you should really lead on comprehensive reform. And you know what the person in leadership said, member of Congress? I'm in leadership, I can't do that. And that to me is what the House Republicans settled for, gotcha politics rather than real solutions.
Now look, it's going to be hard. Democrats are somewhat divided. Not nearly as much as Republicans, let's be clear. The Senate vote told the story, all right? Once Harry Reid got the necessary guarantees that he could move forward without getting screwed, big battle. Big battle. We had some disagreements in the runup to it, but he cut a good deal and he got the guarantees that they weren't going to get snookered in conference. Essential. Well, once that agreement came on all these tough votes, the final vote, all but four Democrats voted for it. All right? Most Democrats voted for it and a little less than half the Republicans voted for it. I'm telling you, that same formula exists in the House. Do we need Heath Shuler's vote to pass comprehensive immigration reform in the House? I don't think so, but I wouldn't be surprised if we got it. But I am pretty confident we can three quarters or more of the House Democrats and a quarter or more of the House Republicans, and I am confident that the President will sign such a bill. So with all this talk of bipartisanship, with an election in which the public turned out to be smarter than the political operatives, when the conventional wisdom as has been pointed out on Latinos has been stood on its head - here's the insight that I think is most relevant on the Latino turnout and vote versus the Minuteman anti-immigrant hardliner vote. The intensity is more with Latino voters in favor of immigration reform than the hardliners. Isn't that remarkable? So for all that base turnout talk of Republicans that being hardliners and blocking comprehensive reform was going to turn out their base and save them, it actually backfired badly and that is the new calculus on top of swing voters who want a solution.
So I think we're going to get it done this year. I think that the Senate is going to lead because they've shown their courage and the leadership is committed to it. I think it'll pass by a pretty big bipartisan margin. It'll be both the toughest bill in history and the smartest bill in history, and the American people will say it's about time these guys did something that'll actually solve the problem. And then the House, sure there will be some Democrats who say do we really want to bring up this issue? But there will be more Democrats who will say this is why they got hired, good policy is good politics, we're going to try to close the deal with Latino voters, we're going to try to show that we mean it when we say we're going to solve problems on a bipartisan basis. And let me say this. If the Democrats don't, they are going to be subjected to the same pressures in 2008 that the Republicans were, which is you did a lot of talking, you finally got control and what? You blame somebody else for not solving it? That dog won't hunt. That dog won't hunt. So it's going to be a big challenge. There's going to be tough votes. There's going to be lots of divisions. It's going to be tough to thread the needle, but I think that this election changes the debate forever, changes the politics of immigration forever and that we're now entering a new frame which is how do you take a 21st century integrated labor market with Latin America and regulate it so that it's fair, so that it's controlled, orderly, workers are protected, families are reunited, people are out of the shadows and communities have their interests and security and taxes being paid and knowing who's here and who's not, served. So I think it's a great opportunity and I look forward to getting it done this year. Thanks.
(Applause)
MODERATOR: Amen. Thank you. So we made him an honorary Francisco last time so now we can probably make him a Democrat almost.
(Laughter)
QUESTION 1: This is to anybody on the panel. What are we to make of the four oppositions in Arizona that were all anti-immigrant and all passed above 70 percent when people seemingly thought they had something that they actually could make a difference with rather than the federal debate where no difference was (inaudible).
MS. MUNOZ: Ballot initiatives - I mean the debate (inaudible) Arizona voters showed this - ballot initiatives, even when the public knows that they're not going to solve the problem with it, that they're not going to influence illegal immigration where they live, they are a convenient way of sending a message that they're frustrated and they want something to be done. And so at the local level that kind of ballot initiative has a huge advantage because it's a way to send a message. And does it - you know, it's been interpreted to mean, well therefore the public doesn't like immigrants, therefore any anti-immigrant candidate is going to win and a pro-immigrant candidate is going to lose, but in fact the most anti-immigrant candidate in the country, Randy Graf lost. He didn't just lose, he got pummeled. Jay Hayworth, same state. So the same voters who were supporting anti-immigrant initiatives, knowing that they weren't going to make any difference were trying to send a message to Washington and they sent it twice, once by voting out the demagogues and a second time by supporting initiatives.
MODERATOR: Sergio?
MR. BENDIXEN: Yes. I think the problem in Arizona and what probably happened in any other state is that the way that the immigration debate is being framed I think is incorrect. This whole thread of thinking that Latin American undocumented immigrants are a problem is wrong. This country could not function without Latin American undocumented. They are not a problem. They're an integral part of the American economy and over the next 10 years if we don't attract at least a couple million Latin American immigrants into the United States, attract, our economy is going to collapse. And as long as we continue to think of illegal immigrants as a problem and don't put it in the proper economic framework we are making a huge mistake.
MR. SHARRY: I just had one. I worked on a Prop 200 campaign in Arizona two years ago and we lost 56-44. And obviously when the ballot initiative is framed it's yes or no so it's very limiting, but I'll never forget a letter to the editor to the Arizona Republic a week afterwards, and to me it really captured this thing about where the voters are. He said, "I voted for it. I know it's not going to stop one illegal immigrant, but I am angry. I am angry at my legislators for talking a good game and not solving the problem. I sent a message. Solve the problem, spare me the details, let me know when you get it done."
QUESTION 2: You made a point, you said that Democrats have to close the deal with Hispanics. So when you look at 606, immigration isn't there. Do people have to keep pressure on the Democratic party to deliver on this promise of immigration reform? Could the Democratic leave immigration or use immigration as a tool for 2008? What guarantees are there that there will be reform and that the issue won't be resolved?
MS. MUNOZ: It's a really good question. I think there's - there's no impression that the community needs to keep the pressure off and I believe we need to communicate that. It is dangerous for Democrats to leave this issue on the table. It is dangerous for them to fail to lead on this issue, not just for us, but for the country. But including us, Latino voters.
And I would argue that that's also true beyond immigration. The danger of the immigration issue with respect to the Latino electorate is that for both parties it kind of sucks up all the oxygen and we've had candidates come through our communities who figure I've got to check the box on immigration, I'll talk about immigration and then I'm done with Latinos. That is an enormous mistake. It is, as (inaudible) put it it's sort of a threshold issue. It kind of determines who the good guys are, who the bad guys are. You know, you can't be Randy Graf trashing our community and then convince us you're with us on education, or on the economy, or on health care. You can't do it. But the fact of the matter is closing the deal also means getting it right on other policy, communicating with us on other policy, especially our key issue as well as jobs and the economy. And so those are the - you have to keep pressure on the Democrats to deliver. Thanks.
MR. BENDIXEN: Just very quickly. I also think it's a challenge to President Bush. President Bush has told us since he became governor of Texas that he's a friend of the Hispanic community, that he's a friend of the immigrant. I believe him. I think a lot of Hispanics believe him and this is a great opportunity for him to show that he's going to work with the Democrats to get something that he thinks - he has said he believes strongly in, comprehensive immigration.
PARTICIPANT: I also tell you that as you look at polls, and I remember early in the season when we started polling Hispanics, the early polls, nobody knows that immigration is broken more than Hispanics. They're clearly aware that the system doesn't work. They are the biggest victims of people coming in under the radar and then creating a crisis for their job, so they want it fixed. It's when it went from an immigration issue to an anti-Hispanic issue that I think they sent a loud and clear message. But I don't think Hispanics sort of think this is a victory. It's far from over and I think now we've got to deliver.
PARTICIPANT: Two quick thoughts is I think as Democrats we have to view this as a test of our capacity to be a 21st century party in the progressive movement. Do we have what it takes to actually understand how to govern and lead America in this century as opposed to the last century? I think if you look at the way we're handling this issue, I think it's been our party that has really been the leader in many ways in trying to bring together a bipartisan coalition to really solve the problem. As Frank told us, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi went way out there in this last election against withering, brutal criticism, racist, nasty, horrible ads that ran all over the country, tens of millions of dollars spent on television and tens of millions of dollars more of free media. When I watched a Republican congressman yesterday when I was in D.C. talking about how the greatest threat to America are illegal immigrants it was as if the election never happened. It was sort of extraordinary the investment their party has made in trying to define this issue and I think it really hurt them in the election. They're going to have a hard time. And the attacks on Mel Martinez that you're already seeing in the right-wing blogs and frankly the Washington Times ripping him, on the front page of the Washington shows this is - they've got much bigger problems in their party than we do in our party.
The second thing though is that I think as we look forward you know the challenge for the Democrats is that if we make a significant political investment in this community we can put the electoral college away for the Democrats for generations. And the reason why is that if we can do with Latinos what happened in California. The Latino population has swung so heavily against the Republicans after the battle on immigration in California it has made - and California with the exception of Arnold who essentially is a Democrat now is it's made California irrevocably a blue state. If the same thing were to happen in the states with large Latino populations, the Democrats prosecuted an aggressive campaign on the ground, public communication and really significant outreach, we could turn the four southwestern states, Texas and Florida into blue states. And couple that with the strength that we have in the northern part of the country and we're going to hold the electoral college and the presidency for the rest of my life.
If we don't do this, shame on us, right? Both from a governing standpoint and from a political opportunity standpoint, and I think that's really the stakes of what we're dealing with here today, particularly as you heard earlier is that the Latino vote now may have voted at a higher percentage than it was registered in this election, in an off-year election. For the political scientists in the room this is a dramatic outcome. This is a community that has turned the corner psychologically. They know they have to get in the game and participate in the life of America if they're going to have the kind of country they want, and there's no turning back. And you're going to see I think historic Hispanic turnout in the 2008 elections which could throw the presidency to the Democrats.
QUESTION 3: Two out of the three Democratic Hispanic members of Congress say, and it's a very informal poll, are concerned, whether on camera or off camera, that their leadership will not take immigration as a top priority this year. We did a story about two months ago, (inaudible), you might all have seen that article. It was very angry at the fact that it didn't appear to be in the, you know, in the program for priorities in a leadership that eventually had them. And it still doesn't seem to be there among the top priorities for Pelosi. Are you concerned that that may backlash later on?
PARTICIPANT: I think we all can speak to that. Clearly we were disappointed it wasn't 606. And as you well know, working with the Hispanic leadership on the Hill and the staffers who are part of every leadership position on our side because I think there are some terrific people that are working inside, I think we're all disappointed. But I think that the lessons of this election are to be taken. I think - we let you know of this event yesterday and this room. It's because people know that this is an issue that's not going to go away. And I think already, if we have a different leadership of - Pelosi and Reid are from states where Hispanics make a difference. They have already showed tremendous courage. Is it possible that we may have to do some reeducation of Rom (phonetic 00:01:31) and how he views Mr. Schumer? There's no question.
But I think as Frank alluded to, we're better than they are at this. We've got a record, we've already taken tough votes, and what would be much tougher is to leave it out there and linger. We've got to get it out of the way. You look at someone like Richardson who just had a tremendous success at the DGA (phonetic 00:01:53). He needs to get this off the table. If he doesn't get this off the table he may not be able to do what he's thinking about doing in `08. So I think a lot of people have good reason to move forward and most of the people that are moving forward, most of the people that will be on the ballot or want to be on the ballot in `08 as national figures, all of them are on our side, are committed to this policy. So I think it's good. And on their side, you know I'm opening up the Tancredo for President campaign soon so that we can have a rallying cry that we can move against. But I think that we will on our side I think do a good job. This campaign taught reality is to our side also.
QUESTION 4: One of the first things I'd say is that on the right you had them saying enforcement first. And so the opposite of that would be, what? Guesswork or program first? And we have nobody on the left. Two weeks ago I was listening to Bill Richardson, he's debating Lou Dobbs and he - on his program, and he says, `We have to go after employers.' Latinos need jobs and we want jobs in this country. I agree with Mr. Bendixen, the economic future of this country is intricately tied to Latinos. So we are all starting this argument from the middle and they're on the right, so where is this argument going to end up? Who's on the left? I see nobody on the left. The Democratic party, the DSCC, they had an ad that came out for a day that was so offensive. Simon, you saw it, what did you - I mean, I know you all came out against it, but where - this party - I don't see that the Democratic party is really in a position - I don't see how we endorse the Democratic party and end up where we need to be. So that's why.
PARTICIPANT: You're looking at the left here.
(Laughter)
QUESTION 4: But we always say comprehensive reform. We don't start out on the left. So that's why we start out in the middle?
PARTICIPANT: American politics is very pragmatic and elections change the way parties and candidates and elected officials very, very quickly. And I think his point was made before. The great fear about the immigration issue was not that the reactionary point of view was the majority point of view in America. That's not the case and everybody knows it. The fear was that the intensity of the 15 to 20 percent of Americans that have a reactionary point on immigration was a dangerous thing for anybody running for Congress or for elected office and that therefore you couldn't go there because you had to be in play with that 15 to 20 percent, even though the rest of the country was either reasonable about the issue, progressive about the issue, or just didn't care. This election has changed that equation because I think as Frank said, now it is clear that the intensity of the immigration issue, yes it still is with that reactionary group, but it is also and to greater numbers with Hispanics. And that will change the way politicians will look at it in the small group that now represents a lot bigger.
MR. SHARRY: Let me say something heretical. I think the debate is going to start in the center and end in the center, or it won't happen. And that's what I think we learned in this past year. You see, it's a little counterintuitive, and believe you men we've had some let's say enthusiastic discussions with our friends in the left on this. But the fact is is that we're never going to solve the problem without enforcement that works and - same sentence - we're never going to solve it unless we have more visas and earned legalization. So it's a choice between either/or on both ends. And so folks say enforcement first, it's a joke. Enforcement first means more of the same that's failed for 20 years. It is code for enforcement only. And comprehensive is code for a solution. Now it's going to be pilloried as amnesty and you know, open borders and all that stuff, but I'm telling you. The debate is shifting as we speak. I predict that by the end of this year the immigration control - the people who are considered the serious immigration control advocates are going to be the comprehensive reformers, not the people who with a straight face say if we just get tough enough 12 million people are going to pick up and leave.
QUESTION 4: But if we're on the left, as Mr. Bendixen says, don't we start out from the left?
MS. MUNOZ: We're not the left. Well, Sergio wasn't getting the same angry phone calls that Frank and I get. This is - sitting on the podium you're not looking at the left. I mean, essentially -
QUESTION 4: Well, we're going to lose the argument.
MS. MUNOZ: No, I don't think so. I think Frank is absolutely right, that the polls are let's only do enforcement which is not where the American public is, it is not where the policy debate is going to go. And then the other extreme is you know, let's have immigration reform without having a conversation about enforcement. That's really where the (inaudible) of it is and that is also - and that's in any representation of Congress. And it's not (inaudible). This is not about - I mean this debate doesn't cut on (phonetic) blood lines the way a lot of other debate does. It doesn't the way stem cell research does, it doesn't the way reproductive rights does. This is why you can have people like John McCain and Brownback and Lindsey Brown working with Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin. The debate is not between can we be - do we have to be tough or can we be generous? This is a debate about can we construct a policy that works. And that's going to combine enforcement as well as a path to citizenship for the people who are here. And the good news is that's where the public is. It's fascinating to me that the exit polls on Tuesday asked this question of the public. It's a big enough issue that the CNN exit poll asked people whether or not they would support an immigration reform act that puts people on a path to citizenship and 60 percent of them said yes. These are the same people who Celinda pointed out said immigration is a very serious, very important issue. That doesn't mean that they're with the enforcement-only guys. It means they want an answer and the center is providing an answer and that has (inaudible) to get a majority of votes in both bodies and passed on to be signed by the President. How many issues can you think where that's true?
MR. BENDIXEN: The debate has to be about more than immigration policy. It has to be about the economic future of the United States. If you don't bring the economic future of the United States and therefore the center, then you're right, then we might not win. But if this becomes, as it should be, a debate about who is going to do the work in this country over the next 10, 20, 30 years, and as soon as the American people understand the facts of the demography of this country I think they will change.
MR. ROSENBERG: I have one point on this. I think the only thing I'll just add is that for those of us who care about this we just had a tremendous political victory, right? And there should be nothing - I mean as progressives, let's for once in our lives see the glass half full - half empty because there was, this was a strategy. In the national Republican party, the ads comparing Mexicans to terrorists were run by the Republican party, right? Not by the individual candidates. This was something that was supported by the President of the United States and his party to compare Mexican immigrants to terrorists in the United States funded by their party's dollars and none of that worked. You went on national television. Their party made an enormous investment in screwing up this issue, right? And the outcome of their political investment was a catastrophic event for their party. They may have destroyed their capacity to win the presidential election in 2008, they certainly have set the table for us to pass comprehensive immigration reform, they lost lunatics like J.D. Hayworth, right, in Arizona over this issue in border states right where if there was not a clear repudiation in the Republican strategy in 2006 I don't know what happened with Gabriel Giffords and J.D. Hayworth was anything other than an extraordinary repudiation of their failed strategy. And then finally as we go forward, Mel Martinez right is now the chairman, a bilingual Hispanic immigrant is now the chairman of one of the two major political parties. Everybody - I think we had a good last couple of weeks here in this whole thing. Let's enjoy it while we can, build on the momentum we have, let Frank and Cecilia lead us to the promised land.
(Laughter)
MR. ROSENBERG: And let us make sure we're backing them in holding together this vital center frankly, this bipartisan approach that has remember, the Catholic Church, labor - most of labor, not all of it. Much of labor, not all of it - I got corrected on this. You know, the Chamber of Commerce, John McCain, George Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid. We're going to get this done and we should be optimistic that it is going to get done this year.
QUESTION 5: I just had a question. Sorry, I don't know if you have numbers about this yet, but during the whole debate there was always discussion that people in America really didn't care about immigration reform because it doesn't have a direction. However, we had gained some advantage among more moderate Cubans and you guys can attest for that. Do you guys have any numbers on how the Cuban vote became the last election?
MR. BENDIXEN: The Cuban vote continues to move towards the Democratic side slowly but surely. It reached about 30 percent so far with the Democrats and there was a lot of debate in Miami especially, not so much in New Jersey, about the immigration issue. And among Cubans there's a movement in the country a point of view that is more reactionary. It's a very loud voice. But when you poll it I think Cubans are not very different from other Hispanics. They do not appreciate the rhetoric that has characterized this debate and the majority of them support comprehensive immigration debate. But the 10, 20 percent of the Cubans that do have the reactionary point of view are very loud. You have on the radio all of the time.
(End of recording.)
