Question on Sotomayor: What Does Obama's SCOTUS Nomination Have to Do with Immigration Reform?
Answer: Nada.
Well, almost nothing. To watch the coverage on mainstream news and in the conservative blogosphere one might think exactly the opposite, however.
In “First thoughts: It's Sotomayor,” MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro announce today’s historic nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, a Yale Law School graduate and Princeton undergrad who the President notes, has more experience ‘than anyone currently serving on the Supreme Court had when they were appointed.” Impressive stuff.
None of these credentials seem to top the fact that Sotomayor is a Latina woman, however. The piece— as well as many, many like it— begins:
At 10:15 am ET from the White House’s East Room, President Obama will again make history by nominating the first Hispanic to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit.
The commentators do not linger long on Sotomayor’s extensive qualifications or unique background before diving into the politics allegedly lurking behind the pick. They speculate that the nomination clearly signals the Administration’s desire to “check the box” when it comes to quote-unquote “Latino issues” in order to dodge a pesky immigration reform bill:
As we’ve mentioned before, Latino groups have been grumbling somewhat about their representation (or lack thereof) in the Obama administration, as well as the fact that immigration reform doesn’t appear to be on the White House’s front-burner. But this pick buys Obama A LOT of time with Hispanics -- a demographic he won last year, 67%-31% -- on immigration and other issues. Is it a coincidence that Obama this week heads out West to Nevada and California, two states with large Latino populations? [Emphasis ours].
It’s not just MSNBC making the claim that Obama can “buy time with Hispanics” on pressing national issues like immigration reform. Mark Krikorian, part of John Tanton’s anti-immigrant network, writes gleefully on the National Review today:
I predicted three weeks ago that Sotomayor was guaranteed to get the nod — as a consolation prize for Hispanic pressure groups, since there isn’t going to be an amnesty.
And while I love Chuck Todd (can't say the same of Mark Krikorian), here’s a little reality check-list for both, from yours truly.
Those who think Sotomayor’s nomination means no on comprehensive immigration reform (for those new to this whole world, “amnesty” is what Tanton’s clan call any plan to fix our immigration mess) should consider these four points:
- 1. Hispanic voters care about immigration reform. A whole lot.
- 2. So do swing voters. (In fact, the general public’s support for reform is at an all-time high, despite the economy).
- 3. Obama has renewed his campaign pledge to move reform forward in year 1. Again, and again, and again.
- 4. Two words: June 8th.
On point #1: the 2008 election produced a mandate for real immigration reform by Hispanic voters, who helped flip 4 states from red to blue and whose influence and clout are growing fast. New polling shows that roughly 72 percent of Latinos think that President Obama will keep his campaign promise and move a comprehensive immigration reform bill forward before the end of his first year in office. To simplify: Democrats in Congress, it's time to lean into this issue and get it done. Republicans, change course and help get this issue solved if you want to stop bleeding Latino voters.
On point #2: swing voters see inaction on the immigration issue as a major failure of Washington to solve tough problems. They don’t think deporting 12 million people is the right way to go, but they also think doing nothing is no longer an option (to them, therein lies the real amnesty— letting unscrupulous employers who undercut American workers and taxpayers off scot-free, while doing nothing to reform the broken system). They overwhelmingly want to see comprehensive solutions enacted, and soon.
On point #3, well, enough said.
And finally, on point #4, we all know that actions speak louder than words. In “Obama sets WH immigration reform meeting for June 8,” the Politico reports:
President Barack Obama is inviting members of Congress to the White House for a June 8 meeting to highlight immigration reform, an administration official confirmed to Politico Wednesday.
"The meeting will be an opportunity to launch a policy conversation that we hope will be able to start a debate that will take place in Congress later in the year," the official, who asked not to be named, said.
In the lead up to the White House kick-off meeting on June 8th, we're sure to see plenty more speculation about whether or not the Administration intends to take up reform. Even after Obama makes it clear, from the White House, that reform is part of his agenda for this year, I'm guessing most of the commentariat will continue to predict he won't do it, that his plate is too full, that it's too controversial, and on, and on, and on.
What they don't get is what President Obama understands: the American people voted for a change from business as usual in Washington. They hunger for leaders who address multiple challenges at the same time, who tackle— instead of cowering before— the controversial issues of our day.
Note: Cross-posted at www.AmericasVoiceOnline.org/Blog.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There are legal immigrants and there are illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants have respect for our laws and play by the rules. Illegal immigrants have no respect for our laws and do not play by the rules. The first group is welcome. The second group is not.
Sorry, but they're not "anti-immigrant"--they're anti-ILLEGAL immigrant. Significant difference.
Benjamin Cardozo was actually the first hispanic on the Supreme Court.
Actually he was Portuguese and they don't consider themselves Hispanic, so he wasn't the "First Hispanic" on the SCOTUS.
Immigration is an important issue, the issue is that the laws aren't being enforced.That's the problem. We have an immigration system in place that works fine for those that bother to use it and over One Million per year do and have no problem. The problem is cheap labor in this country, until those who employ illegal aliens on the cheap are prosecuted this will continue to be an on going problem. The fact is if we gave amnesty (and I'm against it) tomorrow to the illegal aliens here today, by years end will have One Million or more illegal aliens taking their place. That's the truth and the bottom line.
We also cannot have two sets of laws, one for American citizens and another for illegal aliens. We have approx Two Million Americans in jail and/ or prison for crimes ranging from violations to felons. We're told there is NEVER any reason to break the law. So why would anyone believe the American people will accept giving amnesty to those who willingly and knowingly broke our laws. That's unfair, wrong and frankly it's Un-American. We were lied to in 1986, why would anyone believe it would be different in 2009. Enforce the law, those who are here should take steps to make themselves legal even if it means leaving and applying to enter as those who legally enter America. We do not need another group of self- made victims.
I do hope Sharry is right that the public does consider immigration an important issue.
Clearly, his insinuation that the public supports amnesty is absurd.
And as unemployment goes up, a greater majority of Americans support strict enforcement of the immigration laws.
However, my impression is that the public does not consider immigration an important issue, presumably because there is not a widespread recognition of the major role that illegal immigration has had in creating our economic depression.
However, if Sharry's data shows otherwise, all the better.
Mr. Sharry, thou dost protest too much.
Furthermore, the election of Obama is not a mandate for amnesty. In fact, one of the primary reasons I voted for Obama is that it makes "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" far less likely than it would have been under a life-long obsessive amnesty advocate, John McCain, who, unlike Obama, could have strongarmed some Republicans into supporting that noxious legislation.
Furthermore, Obama is far too intelligent to be willing to put the Democratic Party in a noose for a policy that is not at the top of his agenda.
Plenera, I understand where you are coming from. As a Puerto Rican immigration reform was never in my radar. This reform affects every Latino except the people from Puerto Rico. The biggest mistake that everyone makes is that they want to put all Latinos into one pot and the fact is that even though we might share a language each group has its own culture.
The one thing that I do miss is the fact that I wasn't given a choice to become an american citizenship and I'm unable to claim my Puerto Rican citizenship.
The people of Puerto Rico have voted on their status many times. If you can or cannot claim anything, that's not the fault of the US.
Amnesty would be a free ticket for tens of millions to welfare, food stamps, aid to dependent children and don't forget HUD. Problem is the US has already gone bankrupt bailing out the banks and Wall Street. The cupboard has already been emptied.
Most Latinos are getting it the neck from all the illegals who are driving down their wages. The only ones who are big supporters of amnesty are the wealthy Latinos who exploit their own people for their own advantage. My next door neighbor when I lived on the border, hated illegals because they kept his wages down. As a LEGAL immigrant from Mexico, and a skilled auto mechanic, he only earned $8/hr in McAllen. Most of the workers in his shop were ILLEGALS who commuted from Mexico every day.The ordinary Democratic Latino voter cares more about their wages and have some concerns that Latinos may be singled out for unfair treatment by law enforcement. That is a FAR cry from supporting illegals and amnesty.
Puerto Ricans are born citizens! And millions have been born "natural citizens" since early 1900s We are not a latino ethnic group. No such thing! We are Puerto Ricans! As for your comment you don't know what the heck your talking about. Revealing yourself with such ignorance was shameful in my time. Ordinary? What's an unordinary Latino? Every ethnic group is different depending on their needs. We are not the same damNATION!
Woo-hoo, the expert on "ordinary Democratic Latino voters" has spoken! And what a bunch of nonsense, amigo! I'm poor as dirt, Puerto Rican aka natural-born citizen whether I was born here or in PR. I'm all for immigration reform and Employee Free Choice Act so immigrants also can more easily form/join unions. They'll get the same pay/benefits as everyone else, and we end the "worker exploitation" excuse to abuse immigrants for the criminal acts of employers.
I taught the children of migrant workers, and was a paralegal to help immigrants fight deportation. Time to re-examine your "expertise" on "ordinary Democratic Latino voters", and time to quit over-simplifying and calling it "amnesty".
And actions can be illegal, but people can only commit illegal acts. Stop butchering the English language, please.
Semantics. The term is illegal alien. Not the term "undocumented", which is another way to pretend someone is here without permission.
I think people are racial blind in the sense that if there is a Latina, then all Latinos will only care for this issue and no others. They stereotype minorities as if we are only single-issue groups. We are not.
Latinas are concerned with a whole host of issues. The recession falls more heavily on Blacks and Latinos. Unemployment falls more heavily on these groups. The lack of health care reform falls heavily on Blacks and Latinos. The poor quality education falls very heavily on Blacks and Latinos. The lack of energy depends affects Blacks and Latinos.
Latinas are interested in all types of issues. Glad there is a Latinos justice nominee. Even better that she is crazy qualified. Even better we have a qualified President who is dealing with all of the above issues and more.
Latina is not a race. It only means Latin and that includes romanians, italians, french, spanish, etc. It's a figure of speech today since no one is really latin anymore. Just that your ethnicity is one which speaks one of the romance languages
Plenera, chica, you know full well that in the U.S., Latinos are people from the Central and South American continent and Caribbean who speak Spanish as a first language. We're not considered Europeans as the rest of the groups you cite. We're racially mixed, for the most part, with Native Indians, and Africans on the coasts and in the Caribbean. The Spanish Europeans are among the first to point out that we Latinos are mixed-race.
The minority tax in America is a loss of individuality.
There's nothing being reformed. It's amnesty. The same thing that failed when we did it in 1986, because it just encourages more people to come here illegally.
Good enough for Reagan and the republicans, good enough for today unless you'd like to round up all these people? Helping destroying their political arena for over 100 years and using their resources and polluting their towns is encouraging them to come here.
Really, I do believe that Mexico nationalized their oil industry in the 1930s. That was awhile ago. It's the Brazilian government that is destroying the Amazon. If their citizens don't like it, they can vote their government out. They are not coming here beause of pollution either. Mexico has been corrupt for many many years. Their population is growing to fast too support themselves. My point remains. Amnesty encourages more illegal immigration. There's a very simple solution. If your SS number does not match a legal number, you cannot work. Give people a couple months to prove they are here legally, they already have to be registered, it not they can't work.
Feel free to quit manipulating the economies of Latin America for once-U.S., now multinational corporations that screw U.S. Americans almost as much as they screw Latin Americans. People will be glad to stay in their countries when their resources quit being exported for next to nothing, and there aren't U.S. military forces helping the corrupt politicians and businessmen pillage the land for their own benefit. Read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, and an old classic called Bitter Fruit.
With "Free" Trade, the U.S. is being Latin Americanized. No family farms, no industrial jobs, pretty soon, no service jobs either. Next, it'll be us sneaking across the Canadian border in search of jobs to feed our families, if we don't act like the members of the most powerful democracy and get busy taking our country back from multinational corporations with more rights than we're being left with.
And we will have no power as long as there is a never ending flow of cheap labor. Union membership was highest in this country in the 50s,which was very low immigration. But you keep insisting it's all our fault for everyone else's failures.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
