Monday, 10 September 2001 8:03 (ET)
Analysis: Why Bush blundered on immigrants
By STEVE SAILER, UPI National Correspondent
LOS ANGELES, Sept. 10 (UPI) -- The news just keeps getting worse for
President Bush's hopes to ease immigration laws for Mexicans.
First, his own party in Congress quietly but strongly objected. Next, at a
formal White House welcoming ceremony last week, visiting Mexican president
Vicente Fox, Bush's supposed best friend among world leaders, shocked
administration officials by suddenly dropping the conciliatory language he
had been using recently. Fox insisted upon what appears to be precisely the
"blanket amnesty" for Mexican illegal immigrants that Bush has repeatedly
rejected in his attempt to woo recalcitrant Republicans.
Further, Fox asked for an agreement by year's end, though Bush's
unofficial point man on immigration in the House, Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah,
has signaled that he doesn't want to try to introduce a bill until 2003,
saying, "I don't even know if we can get a bill in this Congress."
This left Bush alone in the middle between his own party on his right and
his hoped-for diplomatic partner on his left. Finally, on Thursday the
Gallup Organization released the first poll on the subject not commissioned
by an interested organization. Gallup titled its findings, "Americans
Clearly Oppose Amnesty for Illegal Mexican Immigrants." Poll respondents
rejected making it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens by a
67-percent to 28-percent margin. Only 6 percent favored the "general
amnesty" that Fox apparently called for. Another 22 percent backed easier
citizenship for those who have "worked/paid taxes."
These stunning setbacks were obviously not anticipated when Bush's
intention to pursue some sort of amnesty for Mexican illegal aliens was
leaked in July. Then, most pundits and editorialists hailed it as a
political masterstroke. What didn't the Bush operatives understand about the
politics of immigration? And why didn't they grasp what an embarrassment
they were letting themselves in for?
It's easy to see why Congressional Republicans lack enthusiasm. The
short-term benefits to the Republican Party appear trivial at best, while
the long-term costs could be substantial. As United Press International
revealed in July, unpublished Census Bureau data shows that the size of the
Mexican-American vote is much smaller than is widely imagined: only 3
percent in 2000. Moreover, 72 percent of Mexican-American voters live in
California and Texas, two states whose electoral votes probably won't be up
for grabs in 2004. In the rest of the country, Mexican-Americans cast 1.1
percent of the votes. The overall Hispanic vote comprised 5.4 percent of the
national total. While growing, it probably won't exceed 6 percent by much in
2004. Not surprisingly, Congressional Democrats quickly met the president's
bid and raised it by offering to extend amnesty to all immigrant groups, not
just Mexicans.
Democrats have been more thrilled by amnesty than have Republicans
because, in the long run, putting Mexican illegal aliens on the road to
becoming American voters appears likely to help Democrats more. Over the
past 40 years, no GOP presidential candidate has won more than 40 percent of
the Mexican-American vote.
Because the Democratic Party tends to be closer to Mexican-American
concerns on most issues than the Republican Party, there seems little
likelihood that Republican me-too gestures on immigration could cause a
major partisan realignment. In fact, by pointing out that most Congressional
Republicans are much less enthusiastic about amnesty than Democrats, the
Bush initiative may end up driving even more Hispanics into the welcoming
arms of the Democratic Party.
The long-term costs to Republicans of adding Hispanics to the voter rolls
could be severe. Say the GOP increases its long-term share of the Hispanic
vote from the 35 percent Bush won in 2000, according to the Voter News
Service exit poll, to the 40 percent that the Bush strategists hope for in
2004. Then, for each additional 5 million Hispanic voters, the Democrats
pick up 3 million and the Republicans 2 million, for a net gain of 1 million
votes for the Democrats.
If the GOP stays at 35 percent, however, Democrats would pick up an
additional 1.5 million-vote margin.
Of course, the GOP share could well decline. There is no law that says
Republicans must become more popular among minorities. For example, Bush did
worse among both blacks and Asians than did the otherwise hapless Bob Dole.
If the GOP's long-term Hispanic fraction fell to 25 percent, then the
Democrats would garner a net margin of 2.5 million votes for every 5 million
new Hispanic voters. This strategy sounds like the business plan of a dotcom
that intended to sell products retail for less than they cost it wholesale,
but expected to make up the losses on volume.
An article in the upcoming issue of "American Outlook" by Peter Brimelow,
author of "Alien Nation," and Edward S. Rubenstein of the Hudson Institute,
provides more detailed estimates of the long-term impact of Hispanic
immigration on the electoral chances of the Republican Party.
Nor should it have been surprising that the public would be hostile to
Bush's trial balloon. In 10 Gallup polls going back to 1965, no more than 14
percent of the public has ever asked for increased immigration. Even among
Hispanics, only 33 percent told Gallup last June that they favored more
immigration.
Fox's motives for challenging Bush's go-slow strategy during what was
expected to be a mutual admiration society meeting remain mysterious. One
possibility is that he felt obliged to flex his Mexican nationalist muscles
to quell worries at home that he was secretly intending to allow Americans,
perhaps the Texas oil men close to Bush and Cheney, to buy Pemex, Mexico's
nationalized oil monopoly, in return for Bush loosening immigration laws.
The "deal" Bush was publicly offering on immigration seemed so one-sidedly
generous to Mexico that skeptical Mexicans could be forgiven for assuming
that the world's only superpower must have demanded some surreptitious quid
pro quo.
Although the Mexican oil monopoly is inefficient, dilapidated and corrupt,
it remains a potent symbol of national pride. President Lazaro Cardenas'
1938 expropriation of American-owned oil assets in Mexico is a beloved
episode in Mexican history -- one of the few times Mexico has triumphed over
"The Colossus of the North."
Due to political pressure from Mexican nationalists, Fox has had to
declare Pemex "untouchable." So why did Karl Rove and the rest of the Bush
braintrust misread the political situation? Why did the White House fail to
anticipate Congressional Republicans' concerns that amnesty would undermine
the GOP? The Bush team appears to have been the victims of residing in an
echo chamber with a mainstream media corps that -- for reasons of
innumeracy, fashion, self-interest, self-image and fear -- failed to
challenge the Bush advisers' sloppy thinking about immigration. This line of
thinking traces back to Bush pollster Matthew Dowd, who has been widely
quoted claiming that to win in 2004, Bush must increase his share of the
Hispanic vote from 35 to 40 percent. To be fair to Dowd, he said that Bush
would also need to increase his share of the black vote from 9 percent to 15
percent, which would do far more for Bush's chances in 2004, but that has
largely been forgotten in the excitement over Hispanic voters that has swept
the media.
Dowd's assertion makes sense only if you assume that in 2004 all else will
remain exactly the same as in 2000. Because Bush won last November by the
smallest conceivable margin, then an additional 0.3 percentage points could
indeed make a difference.
Yet, the same kind of statement could be made for countless other groups
of voters besides Hispanics. For example, Bush won a similar 36 percent of
the vote among the 46 percent of the electorate who told the Voter News
Service exit pollsters that the environment is more important than economic
growth. If Bush were to do 5 percentage points better in 2004 among this
environmentally oriented bloc, he would gain a full 2.3 percentage points
more than in 2000. That would benefit Bush almost seven times more than
boosting his share of the Hispanic vote by 5 points.
Yet, the Bush administration has chosen to pursue Hispanics while
alienating the environmentally conscious. Interestingly, by putting
immigration back on the table, Bush has made it harder for the media to
continue to ignore immigration critics. This renewal of true public
arguments over immigration should help politicians avoid this kind of
blunder in the future.
--
Copyright 2001 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
|
