Showing posts with label SEIU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SEIU. Show all posts

Thursday, April 17, 2014

By Larry Elder, Apr. 17, 2014

What is the voting impact of “comprehensive immigration reform”? How would it change the political landscape?

Eliseo Medina retired in October as executive director of the SEIU, at 2 million strong, the fastest growing labor union in North America. In a speech after the 2008 election, Medina said more immigrant citizens mean more “progressive” voters: “We reform the immigration laws -- it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have even the same ratio, two out of three? If we get 8 million new voters that care about our issues and will be voting, we will create a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle."

In December 2005, the House passed the so-called “harsh anti-immigration” bill. In Los Angeles, some 500,000 protestors gathered in a downtown park. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa addressed the crowd in Spanish and, bullhorn in hand, shouted, "There are no illegal people here today!"

Just days ago, Vice President Joe Biden said, “Eleven million people living in the shadows I believed, are already American citizens. … These people are just waiting, waiting for a chance to be able to contribute fully, and by that standard 11 million undocumented aliens are already Americans in my view.”



Democrats support the restoration of voting rights for felons. Would they do so if the felon vote would go Republican?

Democrats support D.C. statehood. Would they do so if statehood would likely produce two new Republican senators?

Democrats support “comprehensive immigration reform.” Would they if those on the path to citizenship were also on the path to vote Republican?

The fact is that immigrants, whether illegal or legal, support Democrats. Washington Examiner’s Bryon York examined a new study from the Center for Immigration Studies.

York writes: “A 2012 study of 2,900 foreign-born, naturalized immigrants cited in the report showed that about 62 percent identified themselves as Democrats, while 25 percent identified as Republicans, and 13 percent identified as independents. At this moment, according to the report, there are an estimated 8.7 million immigrants in the U.S. who are eligible for naturalization. Not all will become voting citizens, but somewhere between 50 percent and 60 percent will. And it's a sure bet that a majority will identify themselves as Democrats.”
Why do immigrants support the Democratic Party?

The study’s author, Professor James Gimpel of University of Maryland, offers several reasons: "[I]mmigrants, particularly Hispanics and Asians, have policy preferences when it comes to the size and scope of government that are more closely aligned with progressives than with conservatives." In other words, the tea party mantra of “taxed enough already” is, well, foreign to them.

Many immigrants are unskilled and therefore live or will live in low-income areas. The poorer the area, the more support for an activist government. Gimpel writes, “"It is from areas of higher income inequality that we find the most support for a robust government with an expansive regulatory and redistributive role in the economy, among all citizens, not just immigrants."

Does the political impact of new immigrant voters vary from state to state? No. York said Gimpel’s findings show, “If immigrants arrive in large numbers, areas that are already Democratic become more so, while areas that are Republican become more Democratic. That applies to Texas and other red-state strongholds as much as anywhere else.”

The take-away is simple. Republicans face strong headwinds going forward even if “comprehensive immigration reform” fails to get through Congress.

York writes: “Even if no changes are made to increase immigration, Republicans face a daunting, long-term task of trying to win the loyalty of immigrant voters. With about 30 million who have arrived here legally in the last three decades, plus about 12 million who are here illegally now but could well become voters someday, plus their natural-born citizen children on the way in the future -- it's a hugely important assignment for the GOP. But it's also reasonable for Republicans not to support policies that could worsen their electoral prospects, if not doom their party to decades of defeat. After all, Democrats are certainly acting in what they perceive to be their party's best political interests.”

However one feels about immigration, more immigrant voters mean more Democrats.



Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, March 21, 2014

By Matthew Continetti, Mar. 21, 2014

Some lies just won’t go away. In February the Washington Post published an article with the following headline: “Why There’s No Democratic Version of the Koch Brothers’ Organization.” It was the umpteenth attempt to explain, in a particularly simplistic manner, how the millionaires and billionaires who donate money to the Democratic Party are nothing, absolutely nothing, like those meanie cancer research philanthropists Charles and David Koch.

Some lies just won’t go away. In February the Washington Post published an article with the following headline: “Why There’s No Democratic Version of the Koch Brothers’ Organization.” It was the umpteenth attempt to explain, in a particularly simplistic manner, how the millionaires and billionaires who donate money to the Democratic Party are nothing, absolutely nothing, like those meanie cancer research philanthropists Charles and David Koch.

The author, Reid Wilson, interviewed “Democratic strategists who deal frequently with high-dollar donors,” and these Democratic strategists told him, strategically, that their high-dollar donors are better than Republican ones. “For the Koch brothers, electing the right candidate can mean a financial windfall,” Wilson wrote. “Democratic donors revolve more around social issues.” On the one hand you have petty, greedy rich men, and on the other you have committed liberals willing to sacrifice for causes they believe in. The morality play writes itself.

Now, these liberals are not totally selfless, Wilson cautions. They are human beings; they have egos; they seek affirmation. “Donors like being recognized for their philanthropic gestures.” Hedge-fund billionaire and radical environmentalist Tom Steyer, for example, “cooperated with the New Yorker when it wrote a profile of him last year.” Charles and David Koch, though, “didn’t cooperate when the magazine took a look at their political activities,” presumably because “no one needs to send the message that the better-known Koch brothers are there for Republican candidates.” So that’s why the Kochs didn’t talk to Jane Mayer.

Does Reid Wilson believe in Santa Claus? His willingness to suspend disbelief when confronted with the image of a mythic creature—the un-self-interested liberal—suggests as much. The words “labor” and “union” appear nowhere in his article, despite the fact that unions are 6 of the 10 top all-time donors recently compiled by OpenSecrets.org, despite the fact that unions spent some $4.4 billion on politics between 2005 and 2011. (Incidentally, every member of the OpenSecrets.org top ten either leaned Democratic or split money evenly between the two parties. The Democrats are not hurting for money.)

 Read the full story:  www.freebeacon.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook