NDN Blog

UPDATE: UPON FURTHER REVIEW OF THE RECENT GALLUP POLL ON HISPANICS AND SB1070 I HAVE DERIVED A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS PLEASE SEE MY NEW POST HERE.

There has been much written about how Arizona's immigration legislation SB1070 would affect Hispanic Voter turnout in the 2010 Mid-Terms.

Some have opined that it would negatively affect Hispanic turnout for the Mid-Terms.

Others have said that it would tip the national Hispanic vote further away from Republicans.

Gallup has just released a poll that shows both of these assumptions are incorrect.

Public Policy Poling, released some polling way back towards the end of April, that showed in Arizona both the Senatorial and Gubernatorial Democratic candidates received some bumps up among Hispanic voters.

Nationally it seems that Hispanic voters are more or less where they were before the passage of SB1070.

The Gallup Poll below shows that Hispanics nationally were wary of GOP candidates before and are just as wary after the passage of SB1070:

Many people also thought that SB1070 would motivate Hispanics to vote in higher numbers to express their anger over the law.

This assumption has also been rendered moot... Much like voting preference, enthusiasm has remained the same. Hispanics are more or less as enthusiastic about voting as they were before the law passed.

This polling is clearly not the last word on how Hispanics will vote in the Mid-Terms. Political prognisticators will not truly know what the effect of SB1070 had on the Hispanic electorate until after the Mid-Terms are over. Even after the dust has settled there will be a debate as to what the polling data tells us.

However from the outset of all of this one thing is clear:

Hispanics will come out and vote.

It is important to lay to rest the notion that Hispanics do not consistantly vote in elections. Hispanics have consistently increased their voter turnout in each of the successive Presidential and Midterm elections. 

For a more comprehensive historical voting trends be sure to check out Hispanic Rising 2010. And stay tuned here for more demographic analysis as we get closer to the Mid-Terms.

People love the Dream Act...

If you work in any capacity on Immigration issues, this simple fact is inescapable. It is hard to dislike legislation that gives children an opportunity to seek a higher education.

Education, as the great equalizer, is a notion deeply tied to the American ideal of equity. The idea that anyone, no matter what their social class, can come to this country work hard, get an education and rise above their economic class is a powerful American narrative.

For the reasons mentioned above The DREAM Act remains very popular to both political parties. Senators Richard Durbin (D)  and Richard Lugar (R) have co-sponsored legislation in the Senate.  

Below is an excerpt from a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors  (DREAM) Act of 2009.

Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2009 or the DREAM Act of 2009 - Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to repeal the denial of an unlawful alien's eligibility for higher education benefits based on state residence unless a U.S. national is similarly eligible without regard to such state residence.

Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to cancel the removal of, and adjust to conditional permanent resident status, an alien who:

(1) entered the United States before his or her 16th birthday and has been present in the United States for at least five years immediately preceding enactment of this Act;

(2) is a person of good moral character;

(3) is not inadmissible or deportable under specified grounds of the Immigration and Nationality Act;

(4) at the time of application, has been admitted to an institution of higher education or has earned a high school or equivalent diploma;

(5) from the age of 16 and older, has never been under a final order of exclusion, deportation, or removal; and

(6) was under age 35 on the date of this Act's enactment.

Sets forth the conditions for conditional permanent resident status, including:

(1) termination of status for violation of this Act; and

(2) removal of conditional status to permanent status.

Authorizes an alien who has satisfied the appropriate requirements prior to enactment of this Act to petition the Secretary for conditional permanent resident status.

Provides for:

(1) exclusive jurisdiction

(2) penalties for false application statements

(3) confidentiality

(4) fee prohibitions

(5) higher education assistance

(6) a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report respecting the number of aliens adjusted under this Act.

Now to decode some of the jargon in this very dry, very wonky legispeak.

The bulk of what this legislation does is undo some of the terrible policies passed in the 1996 Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). 

It is somewhat amazing, in the current climate of enforcement and continued hysteria over all things Immigration, that before IIRIRA was enacted, your immigration status was not an impediment when applying to college.

This legislation also provides undocumented immigrants the ability to apply for  conditional permanent residency (under a list of caveats listed above) which would then give them the opportunity to go to college.

If you want to get really wonky, you can look up the definition of what a permanent resident is over at the Department of Homeland Security website here.

The rest I think speaks for itself. Read the whole thing  here and make sure to follow the Trail of Dreams, which follows a group of undocumented immigrants on their journey from Miami, FL to Washington D.C. to share their stories, "so that everyday Americans understand what it’s like for the millions of young immigrants like us, unable to fully participate in society."

Talk on Capitol Hill has recently turned to passing the DREAM Act in conjunction with Agriculture Jobs or passing one or the other as a stand alone bill.

The Hill put together a fairly good summary of where the legislative process stands at the moment, it can be read here.

Both the DREAM Act and Ag Jobs legislation posses positive policy merits and have significant bipartisan support.

Having said that, there are two very real dangers in passing either of these pieces of legislation as stand alone bills.

The Amendment process in the Senate: The recent Military Supplemental amendment process showed exactly where many Republicans and Democrats stand on Immigration at the moment. There was a veritable bonanza of enforcement only amendments proposed. As is the case with most amendments, for every Republican one there is usually a Democratic side by side version.

Either one of these pieces of legislation is good, but if either is brought up alone, the flood gates for punitive Enforcement amendments would be opened. Passing these bills as part of large package provides an opportunity to have a broader discussion within the context of comprehensive immigration reform.

Bringing Republicans to the Table: At the moment no Republicans have stepped up and said they would be interested in working on CIR. Both the DREAM Act and Ag Jobs have healthy bipartisan support. Not much  else associated with CIR does at the moment. Passing either of these two pieces of legislation alone takes two huge bargaining chips off the table. Both pieces of legislation cut across the aisle and would give both parties political parties cover with their specific constituencies.

No one is under the illusion that CIR is going to be anything other then an unruly difficult lift for both parties to pass out of the Senate. Passing the DREAM Act and AG Jobs seperate will make passing it that much harder.

Again. both of these pieces of legislation have their merits. and deserve to be passed. Check back here for more in depth blog posts on these two pieces of legislation later and be sure to stay tuned for more news on immigration as it develops.

NDN's very own Alicia Menendez appeared on The O'Reilly Factor yesterday night and I am proud to say, she more than held her own.

In a one on one debate on immigration issues she got O'reilly to admit that the border is more secure then it has ever been.

The biggest fireworks occured during the discussion of the Los Angeles School Board's recent decision to teach students about SB1070 in the context of Jim Crow laws, segregation, the internment of the Japanese in World War 2 and "the American values of unity diversity and equal protection for all."

Some background information on the Los Angeles Unified School District snafu can be found here.

During the clip,  O'Reilly holds up a press release that he says proves positive that the School Board has decided to teach children that the law is immoral. Below is the final line of the release that O'Reilly is holding in the segment.

Finally, citing its goal to provide a well rounded and quality education that exposes students to cultures that are crucial to understanding our nation, past and present, and that helps our students to appreciate the histories and cultural contributions of their own communities, the Los Angeles Board of Education also requested that Superintendent Cortines ensure that civics and history classes discuss the recent laws with students in the context of the American values of unity, diversity and equal protection for all people.

Below is the statement released by the Los Angeles Unified School board to the press regarding Fox News on the issue.

    To set the record straight.  The Board of Education never directed the superintendent to teach students that the Arizona law is un-American.  That was an inappropriate and inaccurate headline placed on the story by the either the Fox News reporter or headline writer. 

    The Board of Education did direct the Superintendent to ensure that LAUSD civics and history classes discuss the recent laws enacted in Arizona in the context of the American values of unity, diversity, and Equal Protection for all.   This very important piece of current events would be taught in our classrooms along with a number of controversial periods and laws which are a part of our history and are currently being taught in or classrooms including: slavery; Jim Crow laws and segregation; reservations and residential schools for Native Americans; the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882; the anti-Irish racism in the 19th century; racism against immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe during the 20th century; anti-Semitism; internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II and the Mexican Repatriation Program during the 1930s.

    Let’s remember that these laws were all deemed as “necessary” (in some cases for the security of our nation) during particular times in our history.  To ignore what is currently happening in Arizona would be total denial of current events and a part of our history.  At the very least it’s a discussion that should take place in the classroom.

The rest of the interview focuses on border security. I have repeatedly blogged on this issue... However Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano just wrote an Op-Ed on Border Security in the Arizona Republic. She presents a very compelling argument that the border is now more secure then it has ever been before. The full article can be seen here. And the full O'reilly Segment is below.

The Wall Street Journal put out an amazing op-ed  on the intellectual emptiness of the phrase "border security."

The piece really highlights the disconnect between what is said, about the violence, security and the reality of the current situation on the border.

The author does an excellent job of placing the idea of "border security" in a more historical context:

Does a secure border mean one in which no one is able to cross between the legal entry ports? The most secure border in modern history was probably the Cold War border between East and West Germany. To keep their people from leaving-logistically much easier than keeping others from entering-the East Germans built more than 700 watchtowers, sprinkled more than a million antipersonnel mines, created a deep no-man's zone of barbed wire and electric fencing, and deployed nearly 50 guards per square mile with shoot-to-kill orders. Even so about 1,000 people each year somehow managed to find a way across.

The author then notes that the idea of "Operational Control," another buzz word tossed around by the Department of Homeland Security lacks actionable goals.

Would a secure border then be one over which the U.S. government exercises "operational control"? This is the term of art used by the Border Patrol, and it essentially means that border agents have the capacity to detect and respond to most, if not all, illegal crossings. By that measure, about 700 miles of the border with Mexico are currently deemed to be under control.

Expanding that zone of control is surely a sensible policy to pursue. But at what cost? Without successful deployment of remote sensing technologies, it would take tens of thousands more agents on top of the record 20,000 already deployed to bring operational control to the U.S. borders. Technology was expected to cut those manpower needs dramatically, but the so-called Secure Border Initiative has cost taxpayers nearly a billion dollars so far and has yet to demonstrate even a workable pilot system.

Then goes on to note that the border for all intents and purposes is more secure now then it has ever been before.

Perhaps a secure border is simply one in which enforcement capabilities are bolstering deterrence and dissuading more and more people from attempting illegal crossings. By that standard, the border is more secure than it has ever been at any time in American history. The one number the Border Patrol collects with absolute confidence is the apprehensions it makes each year of illegal border crossers. The smaller that number, the better, because it shows a decline in those attempting illegal crossings.

Last year, the number of apprehensions at the border with Mexico was 540,000, the lowest since the early 1970s, half the level of 2005, and just one-third the figure of a decade ago. Much of this decline is certainly due to a weak economy and higher U.S. unemployment, though it is noteworthy that in the last deep recession (1981-82) there was only a slight dropoff in apprehensions, and the total number remained close to one million annually.

There is much more to be read here. I highly recommend reading this thoughtful piece from beginning to end.

In order to give a more accurate understanding of the publics opinion on Immigration I am going to start compiling and releasing a compendium of polling on the issue at the end of every month.

This particular batch is a fairly comprehensive collection of polls released over the month of May, please feel free to let me know if I missed anything.

There has been much written about the public support for the Arizona law, however much of that support can be linked to the tremendous appetite for doing just about anything to fix the current broken immigration system.

As much support as there has been for the law, there is even more support for a federal plan with a pathway to citizenship. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Poll released May 21:

80% of a nationwide polling sample support creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes.

While people support the Arizona law, they are even more supportive of overhauling Immigration on the federal level.

Don't believe it, take the time to read the full compendium of polling data here. You will find polling on an assortment of immigration issues, including SB1070, sending the National Guard to the border and  comprehensive immigration reform.

. 

On May 24 NDN/NPI was proud to host Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan and Chairman of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Alan Bersin to discuss the first joint U.S.-Mexico vision for a "21st Century Border."

Reaching an agreement on the "21st Century Border" was one of the most important achievements of the recent visit by President Calderon. The NDN/NPI event allowed both Ambassador Sarukhan and Chairman Bersin to take a much deeper look at what this new agreement means for our two countries.

We are excited to present in its entirety the event, which in addition to discussing the "21st Century Border, also touches on border security, comprehensive immigration reform and the economics of immigration.  Please watch and enjoy.

Despite much hyperventilating from both sides of the political spectrum regarding violence coming from Mexico into the United States, crime is mostly down along the southern border. 

There are a number of stories which cite a drop in crime along the border.

The Los Angeles Times has a great article here, with excerpts below:

But in an equally eye-popping report, another Times staffer wrote recently that “by many measures, Arizona has become safer since illegal immigrants began pouring into the state in the 1990s.” Staff writer Nicholas Riccardi added:

Crime has dropped all across the country since then, but the decrease has been as fast or faster in Arizona. The rate of property crimes in the state, for example, has plummeted 43% since 1995, compared with 30% nationwide.

Then on Friday's front page (remember front pages?) Riccardi reports that crime has dropped along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. This isn’t to say crime doesn’t exist. But in many places it has hopscotched the border area itself, as Riccardi notes:

But a review of crime statistics for the largest communities and interviews with law enforcement officials from Texas to California show that, despite a widespread perception that the violence in Mexico has spread north, U.S. border communities are fairly secure. Some have even become safer.

"It's not spilling over to our side of the border," said William Lansdowne, police chief in San Diego, where violent crime has dropped 8% in the last three years. "We police it really well."

Which all goes to show that, as is so often the case with immigration and politics and crime, perception is a powerful thing.

 

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has some great quotes up on crime overall being down in Ariazon, full text here, quoted text below.

As the story notes, the drop includes Arizona:

In Phoenix, police spokesman Trent Crump said, “Despite all the hype, in every single reportable crime category, we’re significantly down.” Mr. Crump said Phoenix’s most recent data for 2010 indicated still lower crime. For the first quarter of 2010, violent crime was down 17% overall in the city, while homicides were down 38% and robberies 27%, compared with the same period in 2009.

Arizona’s major cities all registered declines. A perceived rise in crime is one reason often cited by proponents of a new law intended to crack down on illegal immigration. The number of kidnappings reported in Phoenix, which hit 368 in 2008, was also down, though police officials didn’t have exact figures.

And then there is this Washington Post story which says that crime may actually increase under the Arizona law.

Arizona's new crackdown on illegal immigration will increase crime in U.S. cities, not reduce it, by driving a wedge between police and immigrant communities, police chiefs from several of the state's and the nation's largest cities said Wednesday.

Arizona's law will intimidate crime victims and witnesses who are illegal immigrants and divert police from investigating more serious crimes, chiefs from Los Angeles, Houston and Philadelphia said before meeting with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss the measure. Counterparts from Phoenix, Tucson, San Jose and Montgomery County, among others, joined them.

One more before the long weekend...

Alicia Menendez, NDN super star, was recently on the Dylan Ratigan show on MSNBC, talking up financial regulation reform with a dash of of the economics of immigration at the end. 

Alicia makes several excellent points in the segment, in particular I would like to highlight this factoid:

        Comprehensive immigration reform will save 180 billion dollars over just a few years

There has been considerable talk about the possibility of utilizing a National ID card as a component of comprehensive immigration reform.

Something to consider: In Britain the coalition government has announced that they are going to revoke a law which requires all British citizens to use a National ID card.

The Los Angeles Times has a great article up here, as usual I have pulled out some highlights.

British government officials weigh in on the move:

"ID cards will be gone in a 100 days," Home Secretary Theresa May said at a news conference.

May said the government would save more than $1 billion in the next decade by canceling the cards and the corresponding national registry. The cards contain biometric data, photographs and fingerprints.

"But this isn't just about saving money," May said, "It's also about principle.... We did believe there was a liberties argument for not enforcing ID cards on the British people."

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats issued a statement supporting the bill: "Cancelling the scheme and abolishing the National Identity Register is a major step in dismantling the surveillance state. But ID cards are just the tip of the iceberg. Today marks the start of a series of radical reforms to restore hard-won British freedoms."

A little background information on Britains National ID card:

Identity cards were first proposed in 2002 by the then-ruling Labor Party as part of efforts to fight fraud, crime and illegal immigration. The plan drew heavy criticism from civil liberties groups as an intrusion into the privacy of citizens. It also came under fire for its initial costs, which were estimated at more than $6 billion.

After eight years of parliamentary debates, consultations, political arguments and public protests, ID cards became obligatory for foreign nationals in 2008 and optional for British citizens at an individual cost of $45 in November when it was introduced in Manchester.

With the British government completely scrapping their National ID card, lets hope that their American counterparts are monitoring the situation closely before making any decisions on similar programs here.