The Republican Univision Debate and the Rise of the "I" Word

Several of the candidates smiled at the ground as if in shame. Their tense postures and nervous facial expressions made them look like undocumented immigrants being interrogated about driver's licenses. And, when asked about the thorny issue of immigration during the first-ever Spanish language Republican Presidential debate on Univision television last night, all of the candidates took the same tack: loudly lauding "legal" immigrants while softly decrying "illegals".

It was as if having to translate their message into Spanish forced the candidates to mellow out on immigration with a tab of ecstasy or some other mind-altering substance. Instead of the usually militant deployment of their ultimate wedge issue, the GOP candidates spent a good part of the first debate overwhelmingly dominated by immigration praising and parsing immigrants with double messages like Mitt Romney's, "We're not going to cut off immigration; we're going to keep immigration alive and thriving...But we're going to end the practice of illegal immigration. It's not inhumane. It's humanitarian. It's compassionate. We're going to end illegal immigration to protect legal immigration." Also typical were John McCain's statement that "we have to address this issue with compassion and love, because these are human beings".

Gone last night were Giuliani's denunciations of "sanctuary mansions"; Absent were Romney's impassioned descriptions of New York as "a sanctuary city for illegal aliens." We heard little of Mike Huckabee's new get tough on "illegals" line he copied from an extreme right wing think tank. Asked about whether the children of the undocumented had a right not to be separated from their parents, Fred Thompson forgot to mention that he's even open to the possibility of altering or abolishing the guarantees of citizenship in the 14th Amendment.

The GOP candidate's distinction between legal and "illegal" last night masks a deeper problem, one that extends beyond 2008 and electoral politics: years of anti-immigration rhetoric has led Republicans to institutionalize the Latino equivalent of the "N" word. The debate will do little to nothing to improve Republican fortunes among Latinos because their immigration policies and their angry, mantra-like repetition of words Latinos consider offensive like "Illegals" and "illegal aliens" have given rise to the politics of the "I" word.

This was made clear by Univision anchor Maria Elena Salinas, who, during one of her questions, mentioned surveys concluding that 4 of every 5 Latino residents and citizens felt the impact of the "negative tone of the immigration debate". In response to another question about the reasons for the decline in Latino support for the Republican Party, not a single candidate even mentioned the issue of immigration. Not one. Instead, they chose to point to a picture of the Statue of Liberty behind them as they preached about a "pluralistic nation" that "welcomes people of all ethnicities". Continuation of such vapid responses to the intense and growing concerns about anti-Latino racism will mean the birth of a permanent anti-GOP voting block in our increasingly non-white electorate.

GOP Latino strategists advising the various campaigns seemed to mistakenly tailor their messages to the overwhelmingly Cuban-American audience in Miami last night. The 4% of Latinos that are Cuban-American aren't as concerned about immigration as the rest of the estimated 46 million mostly Mexican and Central American Latinos are. And studies by the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and others show that GOP-leaning Cuban-Americans are the Latinos most likely to check of "white" on the Census, which means that they are more likely to be among the 1/5th of Latinos that do not feel the racism of Republican-led immigration histrionics.

Predictable denunciations of Fidel Castro and praise for "legal" immigrants may score with some (not all) Latinos in South Florida. But the overwhelming majority of Latinos watching last night heard nothing to dispel the sense that Republicans are manipulating them as part by what some pundits are calling the "new Willie Horton".

As a result, even loyal GOP Latinos groups like Latino evangelicals have started to abandon the party. And it appears that nobody told the candidates that immigrants were among the groups primarily responsible for the up tick in Latino support for the Republicans in 2004. The culture of hatred fostered by the immigration debate has also sparked a renewed culture of activism seen in the Latino blogosphere, on the streets and, soon, in the voting booth.

As in the days when one was called a sellout or "vendido" with words like "Uncle Tom" or "Tio Taco", the GOP candidates pathetic performance previews a near future that will likely see the resurgence of another such term: Republicano.

So, while potentially effective with white voters in the short term, immigration wedge politics are also giving birth to another kind of wedge, the long term wedge born of the "I" words Republican presidential candidates so love to chant- in English.

Comments

[clr2]

All ILLEGAL ALIENS ,latino or otherwise, need to be deported. Those who hire ILLEGALS should be heavily fined. Period.

[wry]

Illegal is NOT the Latino equivalent of the N word. That statement is insulting to Black people and trivializes their struggle.

[dreamsmasher]

The United States will allow anyone to migrate into this country as long as they follow the laws of this country!
For people to cross the borders ILLEGALLY and to immediately expect all the benefits of living in this country is outrageous.
What most of the hotheads fail to realize is that every single one of the politicians that promote NO AMNESTY and the building of a border wall are not saying that we as Americans do not want these immigrants in this country but instead they are saying YOU ARE WELCOME IN THIS COUNTRY AS LONG AS YOU ENTER THROUGH THE BORDERS, we need to know who is actually coming into this country and what their intentions are, we live in a world where there are people out there who have only one goal in life and that is to KILL every single American in this world and those who are fighting against the border protection are actaully enabling the terrorist groups.
If the day comes when we have multiple terrorist attacks on our own soil by suicide bombers, do you really think that they are going to ask whether you are a U.S. citizen or not? Hell no as far as they are concerned you are in America and you are not a member of their organization so therefore you must be American and you are an infidel and do not have the right to exist.

Immigration laws are in place to protect us not to discriminate against any group or nationality. I totally support immigration and anyone who is not here legally no matter what nationality should be deported immediately and if they want to become a naturalized citizen then they need to go BACK to their country of origin and APPLY for citizenship.
You may not agree but that's my opinion and if you support amnesty and illegal immigration then in my opinion YOU SUPPORT TERRORISM!

[realitytrumpsbull]

Well, Roberto, the way I see it is, one of
two things are going to happen, here:
Either A) policy is going to be written
that pisses people off, or
B) policy will NOT be written, which will
also piss people off.

The world has changed in a lot of ways in
the last 100 years, and I think that we're
still trying to grasp just how many ways
that it has changed. A century has seen
2 world wars, this that and the other in
asia, and another this that and the other
on the other side of asia, it's seen global
electrification, global telecommunication,
and coming soon, global integration. We're goin'
global, dude. We might also see a global
economic collapse due to shoddy planning and
an unwillingness to publicly consolidate
the facts and discuss various things.
Runaway immigration would be one of those things
I'm referring to, and the mad rush to move to
El Norte for purposes legitimate or otherwise
has already shut down hospitals, pushed schools
to the brink, and that's not even to mention
the yawning debt that's been incurred to try
and accomodate all of this, and more, counting
the Iraq war, yes indeed, the times, they are
a-changin'. Getting a handle on all of this
and trying to write policy which will be
followed and/or enforced is likely a very
daunting task. Latino, african, asian, caucasian
or whatever your preferred flavor is, things
are getting stupid in immigration land.
My proposal is a 10-year moratorium on all
immigration. Put a cork in it until things
settle down etc. Other countries need to
work to solve their own problems instead
of fleeing the scene of the crime etc...and,
so do we.

[feelfree]

I think its a stretch to attempt to associate calling illegal aliens "illegal" as some sort of racial slur.

Illegal is their status in this country. They are either here illegally or legally. We use the word illegal to describe breaking of the law.

Republicans have it right on illegal immigration. It just may be the issue that will be an edge for the Republicans in 2008 and they may find themselves back in the White House.

[research]

Many Rethugs are surprised, when I point out that people all over the world can go to most any country in the world, and they will let you visit for 3 months on your own word. They trust you.

They are so busy thinking about that great wall between Mexico and America, they lose all perspective.

The problem with American immigration is the ruthless employers who want cheap disposable labor.

Give everyone a free id, take finger print and photo and register it online. To hire someone, you must look up their id first.

Hiring someone without checking their id, or paying them less then minimum is a crime. I know rethugs want to defend any employer, but cheating thieving employers belong in jail.

Kucinich won the DFA poll again this weekend:

http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll/results

Strength Through Peace!

[milo9]

The Republicans are conflating virulent rascism with legitimate concerns about low wage immigration. It's a variation of Nixon's Southern Strategy.

The Dems, such as Mr.Lovato, are enabling the conflation by claiming that legitimate concerns about low wage immigration, legal and illegal, is actually rascism.

Lower income Americans of all ethnicities are left without a political home.

[lanefiller]

Anyone interested in a very different story (and analysis) on illegal immigration should try:
http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/14/the_illegal_immigrant_next_door

[cynara]

Duncan Hunter attempted to get maximum mileage out of his militant views on Cuba and El Salvador. Maybe this got positive reviews anti-castro Cubans, but most El Salvadorians remember that the US sponsored death squad militants in their country, and that no side of their decade long war was above killing innocent civilians.

[cynara]

Cubans, if they make it to America, legally or illegally, are given a green card upon arrival. No waiting, no application process, no chance of rejection. They don't have to worry about illegal immigration, because they will never be illegals.

I also loved the lines from Mitt Romney about how illegal immigrants should "get in line, like everybody else". Oh really Mitt? And where exactly is this line? This is the greatest fallacy, in my opinion, of the Republican immigration spin - that illegal immigrants could have applied to come here legally. Most are not eligible to apply for legal immigration. As I have repeated, ad neuseum, (though it never seems to get through) you can only apply for legal permanent immigration to the US, if you meet one of three criteria: Have an immediate relative who is a US citzen or legal resident willing to sponsor you, have an advanced degree is science or technology and a US employer willing to sponsor you, or be from a country where you can obtain refugee status (like Cuba, not possible in Mexico, Guatemala, etc..).

I doubt the republicans made many converts in Maimi. To their credit, they did not change their opinions for their audience (though they softened their tone). And their opinions continue to be, no immigration solution until we seal the southern border, and that they have no problem with children being seperated from deported parents. Unsympathetic options to people with family members or aquaintances caught in limbo, no matter how non-combatively they were presented at the debate.

When talking about the school system, the main solution they all seemed to prefer was "school choice" a slick way of saying vouchers for private schools. Something that lower income Latino's, if they take a closer look at it, will have trouble embracing. Because even with scholerships, and vouchers, private schools will continue to be for profit enterprises, and vouchers will not always cover all expenses (uniforms, books, even complete tuition). So, for lower income families, improving the public school system will always be the better option.