Immigration Obsession: Blame Iowa

Ryan Lizza has the answer to why the Republican candidates are so focused on immigration when the public isn't:

Anti-immigrant passion also owes much to the disproportionate influence of a few small states in the nominating process. National polls show that, as an issue, immigration is far behind the Iraq war, terrorism, the economy, and health care as a concern to most Americans; a recent Pew poll shows that, nationally, only six per cent of voters offer immigration as the most important issue facing the country. But in Iowa and South Carolina, two of the three most important early states, it is a top concern for the Republicans who are most likely to vote.

And there you have it, yet another tribute to America's bizarre system of selecting presidential nominees. Of course one assumes that the larger national audience of Hispanics who Republicans were so actively courting just a couple of years ago hasn't missed how quickly everyone -- even Saint John McCain, Man of Principle -- has been willing to toss them overboard.

Comments

Do you think Republican primary voters in the rest of the country don't care about immigration? Why did all the candidates in Virginia, as well as the Republicans in Ohio and Virginia in the recent special elections talk about it so much? This is the nature of primaries (and low-turnout special elections), not Iowans.

Lizza is either being willfully dishonest or plain stupid to draw that conclusion, and you are being thoughtless in amplifying it.

Posted by Anonymous | December 12, 2007 3:17 PM

Let me see if I understand the Lizza/Yglesias thesis here: The mainstream media, George W. Bush, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, The New York Times, the WSJ, the Chamber of Commerce, and 90% of beltway pundits, etc. were all in favor of a comprehensive immigration reform earlier this year (i.e., amnesty for illegals). And this was derailed by a grassroots uprising... from Iowa?

Opposition to the legislation was nationwide, and shutdown the Senate switchboard at one point. A super-majority of Americans, not just Iowans, disagrees with the liberal position on immigration.

Posted by Fred | December 12, 2007 3:34 PM

I also think that even though Iowa is a rural, farm state they don't rely as much on manual labor to harvest their crops. Tractors don't have to speak English or go to the emergency room with a cold! If you live in a state like Califoria, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas, its a completely different story. There are plenty of Republican farm, agricultural business and manufacturing owners in those states who are in the Bush-McCain camp, and don't want a closed border. Few of those folks are prepared to do completely without the cheap, unregulated labor that illegals offer.

Posted by ella | December 12, 2007 3:39 PM

Fred, what you just described is not the liberal position. It is the establishment position. Liberals were largely opposed to the immigration bill earlier this year, though not because of "amnesty" but because of the horrid guest worker program. The establishment is in favor of both because they like cheap workers for their factories and cheap gardeners for their Connecticut estates.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 12, 2007 3:41 PM

In other words, the problem with the Republican Presidential nomination is that all the voters are Republicans.

Posted by Anonymous | December 12, 2007 3:46 PM

even though Iowa is a rural, farm state they don't rely as much on manual labor to harvest their crops

Lots of meat-packing Iowa, tho, and that does rely heavily on immigrant labor.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 12, 2007 3:48 PM

#1) Polls can't always be believed. I think the anti-immigrant demagogy you hear on talk radio and from Republican candidates reflects genuine popular sentiment. It's classic scapegoating but when a comprehensive immigration bill ultimately passes I think it too will pass.

#2) The early states may not exert an undue influence this election cycle - at least on the Republican side. Florida may matter most and if Giuliani wins it Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina may look quirky and a lot less relevant than before.

Posted by Linus | December 12, 2007 3:54 PM

God, I fucking _hate_ Iowa.

Posted by michael farris | December 12, 2007 4:09 PM

Perhaps the GOP is running on immigration because they have little else to run on? What would you have them talk about: the war? George Bush? The economy? Health care? Trade? Gay marriages?

Immigration is where they can contrast themselves with "Washington insiders", an unpopular President, and possibly connect with people's real uneasiness about the direction of the country. I don't think it's a winning strategy or good policy, but again, the GOP has little else to run on.

Posted by P | December 12, 2007 4:12 PM

Iowa Republicans are white folks in a very white state. Alan Keyes increased the number of black people in Johnston, Iowa today by 2%. (The last census recorded 50 African-Americans.)

South Carolina Republicans are mostly white folks in a historically segregationist, secessionist, not-too-keen-on-the-blacks state.

In Iowa, brown faces are the Other. In SC, brown faces are the Blacks It's Okay To Hate.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 12, 2007 4:17 PM

Sorry to get off topic, but pseudonymous in nc reminds me of an interesting point:

Does anyone else think Keyes was included because the debate will be the lead story on the political news tonight and was broadcast on cable news stations, and the image of 9 old white men is something the GOP is trying to fight against?

I mention it because I haven't seen Keyes in the other debates that were late at night thus not going to lead the evening news, and the whiteness of the candidates REALLY jumps out at you...

Posted by P | December 12, 2007 4:27 PM

What is the upshot of running the primaries in different states on different days, thus giving voters in the early states disproportionate power and influence? Is there an upshot?

Posted by solarjetman | December 12, 2007 4:52 PM

Perhaps we should have a contest to see just how clueless MattY can get. "I polled the other diners at the lobster roll restaurant, and none of them said immigration was a major issue. So, there you have it."

Rob Mac: Fred accurately described the "establishment position", and MattY is definitely part of that (or a striver thereto). Both the GOP and the Dem parties are part of that as well; the bill in question was "bi-partisan" and was supported by groups on the left and the "right".

What you call the "liberal position" is not quite accurate. While "liberals" may have opposed GWs, I suspect that in your mind that "liberal position" is more of outright support for illegal activity, mainly out of a desire to obtain race-based power.

And, polls are frequently designed to comfort or mislead and rarely mention everything involved in an issue. If a poll pointed out the other issues that immigration touches - such as healthcare and terrorism - it would rise in importance. And, some of the votes for those two may actually be votes for immigration.

Once people start asking the candidates real questions - the ones that the MSM and MSBs like MattY are afraid to ask - then things are going to change dramatically:

youtube.com/watch?v=Q_l4Lawj14A
youtube.com/watch?v=EiullH5jU1A

Posted by TLB | December 12, 2007 5:19 PM

Opposition to the legislation was nationwide, and shutdown the Senate switchboard at one point. A super-majority of Americans, not just Iowans, disagrees with the liberal position on immigration.

I agree with you that it's not just Iowa where there's strong pockets of anti-immigrant seniment, but public sentiment on immigration reform is more complex than you make it out to be. This is from a poll by Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg released last week:
_________
"One proposal that has been discussed in Congress would allow illegal immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among other requirements. Do you support or oppose this, or haven't you heard enough about it to say?"

11/30 - 12/3/07
Support: 60%
Oppose: 15%
Unsure: 25%
____________

Granted, polls can be misleading or only partially revealing, but I'd say the reason the Senate switchboard was flooded with opposition is that the intensity of the anti-immigration movement is much stronger than the pro-immigration movement. Don't forget that you had right-wing talk show hosts & Lou Dobbs screaming about amnesty. Also, as Rob Mac says, most advocates for immigration were, at best, lukewarm, about the McCain-Kennedy proposal.

Posted by Peter H | December 12, 2007 5:26 PM

Wacko Kelly's position?

Still hiding under his bed, pathologically obsessed, waiting for the HispanicInsurgency, expected AnyTimeNow.

Remember, too, that Wacko Kelly thinks that immigration touches on environmental issues too, because bean burritos make people fart.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 12, 2007 5:34 PM

In all fairness, I should add that the poll I mentioned above, as well as the other polls that are linked, give ambigious results. On the one hand, it's clear that the majority of the public has negative feelings about the effects illegal immigrants, wants stronger border security & stronger sanctions against employers who hire illegals. On the other hand, most Americans don't think mass deporation is realistic, and favor some kind of path to citizenship for illegals who've been here for a number of years. My point is, it's more complex than "The elites want amnesty, but the public doesn't." Again, it's the intensity of anti-immigration voters that makes them so powerful.

Posted by Peter H | December 12, 2007 5:42 PM

Peter H, in addition to not calling things by their true names, isn't able to comprehend how bad that poll was. It didn't disclose:

1. The "number of years" was open to massive fraud.
2. The agency only had 24 to 48 to disapprove someone, otherwise they got legalized. Non-profits - some with links to the MexicanGovernment - could have bunched up people on a certain day to make sure that many got through.
3. People with criminal records could have gotten in, as could "clean" terrorists.
4. They didn't have to "learn English", they only had to sign up for classes.

And, that's not to mention all the many other points I could provide.

If everything involved in that plan had been included in the question, maybe 5% or less would have supported it.

So, when you're actually familiar with this issue, and you're able to think things through, it gets a lot more complicated than misleading polls suggest.

I strongly advise everyone to step back a bit, try to think about this in as non-partisan a fashion as possible, and then wonder whether MattY knows anything at all about this topic or is simply saying what those in power want him to say.

Posted by TLB | December 12, 2007 5:47 PM

I strongly advise everyone to step back a bit, try to think about this in as non-partisan a fashion as possible, and then wonder whether MattY knows anything at all about this topic or is simply saying what those in power want him to say.

Oh, yeah, because you're so non-partisan on this issue, TLB. :)

Posted by Peter H | December 12, 2007 5:54 PM

PeterH,

As commentators as divergent in views as Charles Krauthammer and Steve Sailer have pointed out, an amnesty for illegals of the sort the LA Times lays out would be palatable to a majority of Americans if the Federal government first gained credibility by enforcing existing laws and securing the border for a few years.

The Feds seem to be, belatedly, moving in this direction. A few hundred miles of real fencing are being built (albeit slowly) on the border with Mexico; additional "virtual" fencing has been built; the pace of workplace raids has picked up, etc. The collapse in residential construction also seems to be encouraging a number of more recently-arrived illegals to self-deport, as has the increase in local enforcement measures. So a compromise that includes a form of amnesty would be more likely in a few years, once credibility has been established on enforcement.

You also have to understand that much of the opposition to the Senate bill was due to the blatant dishonesty of it. Yes, it, wouldn't allow illegals with criminal records to qualify for amnesty in a de jure manner, but that would be the de facto result, since it allowed so little time for background checks. Yes, "learning" English would be a requirement, but there would be no actual test for English fluency. The legislation was full of that sort of dishonesty. The American people were fooled by the bipartisan legislation in 1986 that was supposed to offer amnesty for illegals in return for enforcement. In the interim, the illegal population grew by several times and there was no enforcement.

Posted by Fred | December 12, 2007 6:04 PM

Fred,

I agree that the public is angry about the purported lack of border control, but the reality is that our immigration problems don't seem from ignoring border control. According to the Migration Policy Instiute:

"Between 1985 and 2002, appropriations for border control activities, including the Border Patrol, inspections at legal ports of entry, and consular affairs, increased by $2.1 billion (306 percent); detention and removal/intelligence increased by $1.4 billion (751 percent)...The number of full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) dedicated to the Border Patrol and Inspections increased by 10,113 (128 percent) from 1991 to 2002."

It's possible that the border control measures you talk about will make a difference. So far, however, the main effect of border control has been to (1) redirect immigration flows to more remote (and more dangerous) areas and (2) encourage illegal immigrants to stay longer in the United States, to avoid the risk of being apprehended upon a return trip from the United States.

On the other hand, enforcement of employer sanctions has definitely been more lax. A couple of reasons for this: (1) Employer sanctions don't have the political attraction of "beeing up security" at the border, (2) there's a large constiuency of small and large businesses that oppose employer sanctions.

Posted by Peter H | December 12, 2007 9:22 PM

"On the other hand, enforcement of employer sanctions has definitely been more lax... there's a large constiuency of small and large businesses that oppose employer sanctions."

I've seen some claims by various anti-immigrationists that legal enforcement of employer-sanctions dropped by something like 98% under the Bush Administration (and Clinton himself hadn't exactly been Tom Tancredo).

I really can't imagine why...

Posted by RKU | December 12, 2007 10:00 PM

"Anti-immigrant passion also owes much to the disproportionate influence of a few small states in the nominating process. National polls show that, as an issue, immigration is far behind the Iraq war, terrorism, the economy..."

Funny, that's what Elliot Spitzer used to think.

Posted by kafka | December 12, 2007 10:18 PM

Here's a handy chart showing enforcement levels under Bush.

Of course, it needs to be pointed out that in those years all the Democrats had been sent to Guam and thus were unable to even speak out about this (there was a gag rule or something). Otherwise, I'm sure they would have spoken out against it. And, even if they'd been here I'm sure they wouldn't have taken every opportunity to encourage and enable illegal activity.

As for the border, much of that is for show; in fact I wrote a post called TheBigShowOnTheBorder over three years ago.

Posted by TLB | December 12, 2007 11:25 PM

"I agree that the public is angry about the purported lack of border control"

Border control is only part of it. The other part has been lax interior enforcement: sanctuary cities, illegal aliens released on their own recognizance before deportation hearings, the lack of workplace checks, etc.

The issue isn't economics, but selective non-enforcement. Until recently, the U.S. government mostly turned a blind eye to the hiring of illegals in certain industries. On the other hand, it has been stricter about enforcing employment laws in others (e.g., the technology industry). There are similar economic incentives for foreign tech workers to come here as there are for foreign unskilled workers. The reason Microsoft's campus in Redmond Washington isn't full of illegal immigrants from Russia and India is that the government hasn't tolerated the flouting of employment laws in that industry. Tech companies are left to complain in op/ed pages about the paucity of HB-1 visas.

Posted by Fred | December 13, 2007 12:39 AM

Until recently, the U.S. government mostly turned a blind eye to the hiring of illegals in certain industries. On the other hand, it has been stricter about enforcing employment laws in others (e.g., the technology industry).

nope. got nothing to do with enforcement. US tech companies use cheap labor everyday. ever gotten customer service on a tech product? chances are you've dealt with an indian. just too easy to offshore work. ain't necessary to have illegals do it. but you can't offshore your grape harvest or new roof.

Posted by zach | December 13, 2007 12:55 AM

Matt,

I guess California, home of Prop. 187, is a small state?

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 13, 2007 3:01 AM

Fred,

You may be right about other lax enforcement mechanisms (and I did specifically mention employer sanctions). The point is, it's lack of "border security" that generates the most emotions, even though increased border control hasn't been particularly effective (& arguably counterproductive) so far in reducing illegal immigration.

Posted by Peter H | December 13, 2007 11:18 AM

Matt,

Are you suggesting that McCain has changed his position in order to pander to the anti-immigrant base? Immigration was clearly a huge issue this summer, and McCain didn't back down then. It was only after it became clear that there was no chance for a comprehensive immigration bill anytime in the near future to pass the Senate that he changed his policy to border security first, and then a path to integration and citizenship. It's still the same principle, hopefully more workable in the long run.

Posted by Shua Nedi | December 13, 2007 7:08 PM