May, 26 2011, 04:00pm EDT
Anti-Immigration Forces Try to Convince GOP that Latino Voters Don't Care About Immigration
Once Again, Center for Immigration Studies Plays Fast and Loose with the Facts
WASHINGTON
The Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration "think tank" founded by FAIR, just published a new post titled "The Hispanic Vote in 2010: No Discernible Trend." Yes, that's right, the same group that used its vast expertise on issues like climate change and public health to conclude that immigrants cause global warming and teenage obesity is now remaking itself into an "expert" on the Latino vote.
Clearly, CIS' goal is to lull the Republican Party into complacency over the immigration issue. They and their allies in Congress, led by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), have been desperately trying to rewrite the results of the 2010 elections after Latino voters--galvanized by anti-immigrant politicking from Republicans like Sharron Angle and Meg Whitman--saved the Senate for the Democrats.
According to Lynn Tramonte, Deputy Director of America's Voice, "The Center for Immigration Studies and Rep. Smith are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. And Republican politicians are entitled to ignore demographic realities and follow CIS and Smith's advice on immigration, but I hope they're ready to become a regional party."
Here are the unimpeachable facts about Latino voters and the 2010 elections--drawn from actual polls and real scientific analysis, not conjecture from the Latino voter "experts" over at CIS.
FACT ONE: The national exit polls are seriously flawed when it comes to capturing the voting behavior of Latino voters. The media organizations that paid big money to sponsor the national exit polls may not want to admit it, but those polls are notoriously flawed when it comes to reporting on the behavior of subgroups like Latino voters. Even the head of the 2004 national exit poll, Warren Mitofsky, has admitted as much. In a rigorous post-election analysis using precinct-by-precinct voting data, Dr. Matt Barreto of Latino Decisions proved that the Nevada and Arizona exit polls' Latino results were "mathematically impossible," and that the election eve polls from Latino Decisions were much more accurate in reporting actual voter behavior. According to the Latino Decisions election eve poll of 3,200 Latino voters, only 24% of Latinos supported Republicans in 2010--not the 38% from the exit polls touted by the Center for Immigration Studies.
FACT TWO: Latino voters do care about immigration reform. They are motivated to turn out for candidates who embrace common sense reform, and against candidates who demonize them. Despite CIS' claims to the contrary, polls show immigration to be one of the top issues for Latino voters--and the issue has steadily increased in importance over the years. In both the February 2011 and April 2011 Latino Decisions/impreMedia polls, immigration was the number one issue for Latino voters. In Latino Decisions' 2010 election eve poll, immigration was second in importance after jobs and the economy, but 60% of voters said immigration was either "the most important issue" or "one of the most important issues" in determining their decision to vote and whom to vote for. Latino Decisions' 2010 tracking poll, conducted on a weekly basis prior to the November elections, showed Latino support for the Democrats increased after the initial DREAM Act debate in September.
FACT THREE: Latino voters do have a direct, personal connection to the immigration issue. CIS makes the outrageous claim that Latino voters lack "direct personal experience with immigration" and therefore don't care much about the issue. Again, polls of actual voters show this to be blatantly false. In a December 2009 poll from Bendixen & Amandi, 62% of Latino voters said they have a family member, neighbor, coworker, or friend who is undocumented. To them, deportation is not just an abstract concept, but a real threat to someone they know and love. In 2010, 53% of Latino voters said that anti-immigrant or anti-Latino sentiment was one of the most important factors in their voting decisions, according to the Latino Decisions election eve poll. Anti-immigrant laws like Arizona's S.B. 1070 cast a wide net, turning anyone who "looks" like an immigrant into a suspect. Latino voters feel personally attacked and vilified by these proposals and the politicians behind them. The most strident anti-immigrant campaigner in 2010, Sharron Angle of Nevada, failed even to clear double digits with Latino voters. After a series of ugly, race-baiting ads and public statements, Angle won just 8% of the Latino vote while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won 90%, pushing him over the top.
FACT FOUR: In 2010 Latino voters--and anti-immigrant campaigning from Republicans--kept the Senate in Democratic hands. Perhaps the most inconvenient truth for CIS is this: in 2010, anti-immigrant campaigning and the power of the Latino vote re-elected Senate Democrats in California, Colorado, Nevada, and Washington, ending the Republican wave at the Rockies. This was the first "wave election" in 80 years where the ascendant party failed to capture both chambers of Congress.
Tramonte continued: "Politicians who want to understand Latino voters should look to the real experts, not anti-immigrant groups--and by real experts, I mean Latino voters themselves. Poll after poll shows that Latino voters care about immigration reform, support candidates who embrace common sense solutions, and reject candidates who demonize them and their loved ones. It's time for Republicans in Congress to do the right thing on immigration--not only for the good of the country, but for their own political futures."
America's Voice -- Harnessing the power of American voices and American values to win common sense immigration reform. The mission of America's Voice is to realize the promise of workable and humane comprehensive immigration reform. Our goal is to build the public support and create the political momentum for reforms that will transform a dysfunctional immigration system that does not work into a regulatory system that does.
LATEST NEWS
Warren Bill Would Stop Companies From Placing Shareholder Paydays Over Worker Rights
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," said the senator, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Dec 11, 2024
Aiming to confront "a root cause of many of America's fundamental economic problems," U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday unveiled a bill to require corporations to balance growth with fair treatment of their employees and consumers.
The Massachusetts Democrat introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, explaining that for much of U.S. history, corporations reinvested more than half of their profits back into their companies, working in the interest of employees, customers, business partners, and shareholders.
In the 1980s, said Warren corporations began placing the latter group above all, adopting "the belief that their only legitimate and legal purpose was 'maximizing shareholder value.'"
That view was further cemented in 1997 when the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group that represents chief executives across the country, declared that the "principal objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners."
Now, Warren said in a policy document, "around 93% of American-held corporate shares are owned by just 10% of our nation's richest households, while more than 40% of American households hold no shares at all."
"This means that corporate America's commitment to 'maximizing shareholder return' is a commitment to making the rich even richer, while leaving workers and families behind," said Warren in a statement.
The Accountable Capitalism Act would require:
- Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to obtain a federal charter as a "United States corporation," obligating executives to consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just investors;
- Corporate political spending to be approved by at least 75% of a company's shareholders and 75% of its board of directors; and
- At least 40% of a company's board of directors to be selected by employees.
The bill would also prohibit directors of U.S. corporations from selling company shares within five years of receiving them or within three years of a company stock buyback.
Warren noted that as companies have increasingly poured their profits into stock buybacks to benefit shareholders, worker productivity has steadily increased while real wages have gone up only slightly. The share of national income that goes to workers has also significantly dropped.
"Workers are a major reason corporate profits are surging, but their salaries have barely moved while corporations' shareholders make out like bandits," said Warren told The Guardian. "We need to stand up for working people and hold giant companies responsible for decisions that hurt workers and consumers while lining shareholders' pockets."
The senator highlighted that big business interests invested heavily in November's U.S. presidential election.
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," she said, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Crushing Blow to the Labor Agenda' as Manchin, Sinema Block Biden NLRB Nominee
"These two senators effectively handed Trump control of the board when his term begins," noted one observer.
Dec 11, 2024
In a move likely fraught with major implications for worker rights during the impending second administration of Republican President-elect Donald Trump, Democratic-turned-Independent U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema on Wednesday blocked Democrat Lauren McFerran's bid for a second term on the National Labor Relations Board.
With every Republican senator except Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas voting against President Joe Biden's nomination of McFerran for a new five-year term, the fate of the woman who has led the agency since 2021 was up to Manchin and Sinema—who, as More Perfect Union founder and executive director Faiz Shakir put it on social media, "consistently spoiled the story of 'what could have been'" by years of fighting to thwart their own former party's agenda.
Sinema struck first, her "no" vote on McFerran grinding the confirmation tally to a 49-49 tie. Manchin, who showed up later, cast the decisive vote, negating speculation that Vice President Kamala Harris, the Senate president who lost the presidential contest to Trump last month, would break the stalemate.
"It is deeply disappointing, a direct attack on working people, and incredibly troubling that this highly qualified nominee—with a proven track record of protecting worker rights—did not have the votes," lamented Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Chris Jackson, a former Democratic Lawrence County, Tennessee commissioner and longtime labor advocate, called Manchin and Sinema's votes "a crushing blow to the labor agenda."
"By casting decisive NO votes against President Biden's NLRB nominee, they've guaranteed Democrats will lose control of the national labor board until at least 2026," Jackson said. "Their votes effectively hand Donald Trump the keys to the board the moment he takes office again. This is a betrayal of working families—and a gift to corporate interests, which is par for the course for these two."
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA union, said on social media that while "Manchin and Sinema are responsible for killing voting rights, worker rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, childcare, vision, and dental for seniors, and an economy built for the people," the two obstructionist senators "are not the story."
"Don't bury the lede," implored Nelson. "The entire GOP has relentlessly fought against anything good for the vast majority of the people of this country. The GOP shows once again their total disdain for their constituents."
"But they better watch what they do in implementing their plans to make it worse," she warned. "These laws are set up to mostly protect corporations and getting rid of the last pathetic bits of worker rights under the law will simply lead to more disruption and CHAOS."
Trump's first term saw relentless attacks on workers' rights. Critics fear a second Trump administration—whose officials and agenda are steeped in the anti-worker Project 2025—will roll back gains achieved under Biden and work to weaken the right to organize, water down workplace health and safety rules, and strip overtime pay, to name but a handful of GOP wish-list items.
The latest votes by Manchin and Sinema—who are both leaving Congress after this term—sparked widespread outrage among workers' rights defenders on social media, with one account on X, formerly known as Twitter, posting: "Manchin is geriatric and Sinema has a long fruitful career ahead of her in a consulting firm that advocates child slave labor, but at least they kicked the working class in the teeth one last time. Nothing to do now but hope there's a hell."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Defeat of Megamerger, Sanders Thanks Khan for Taking On 'Corporate Greed'
"The proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger would have led to higher prices at the grocery store and harmed workers," said the Vermont senator.
Dec 11, 2024
Praise for Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan continued to pour in on Wednesday after a pair of judges blocked the merger of grocery chains Kroger and Albertsons following challenges by the FTC and state attorneys general.
"The proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger would have led to higher prices at the grocery store and harmed workers," said U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Let me thank FTC Chair Lina Khan for successfully fighting this merger and standing up to corporate greed."
Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) also welcomed the rulings and sent "a big thank you to Lina Khan and her team at the FTC."
Their comments on Wednesday followed similar applause from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal as well as groups including the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) and Groundwork Collaborative.
Khan addressed the win during a Tuesday stream with political commentator Hasan Piker, noting that "this is the first time that the FTC has ever sought to block a merger not just because it's gonna be bad for consumers, but also because it's gonna be bad for workers."
Khan, an appointee of outgoing Democratic President Joe Biden, has won praise from progressives for taking on not only grocery giants and other companies trying to build monopolies but also Big Pharma and Big Tech.
Sanders recently called her "the best FTC chair in modern history" and AELP earlier this year published a document detailing how, under Khan's leadership, the agency "has entered a new era of more effective, modern, and democratic enforcement to better protect consumers, workers, and independent businesses."
Examples included in the AELP roundup include Khan's "crackdown on deceptive 'junk fees,'" a ban on noncompete clauses that's being challenged in court, a historic lawsuit against Amazon.com, and a "click-to-cancel" rule that requires sellers to "make it as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up."
However, the new era of the FTC is set to soon come to an end. Since President-elect Donald Trump's victory last month, speculation has been building that he would replace Khan with someone who would do the bidding of big business. Amid celebrations of the rulings against the Kroger-Albertsons merger on Tuesday, the Republican announced Andrew Ferguson as his pick for chair.
As Common Dreamsreported earlier Wednesday, Basel Musharbash, principal attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel, said that elevating Ferguson, who already sits on the FTC, to chair, "is an affront to the antitrust laws and a gift to the oligarchs and monopolies bleeding this country dry."
Although the agency is expected to be friendlier to mergers under the next Trump administration, Albertsons responded to the Tuesday rulings by bailing on the $24.6 billion deal and suing Kroger for billions of dollars on Wednesday, rather than appealing or moving to in-house FTC hearings.
That move could reflect industry fears of U.S. courts that are willing to block major mergers, as The American Prospect executive editor David Dayen pointed out after the federal court decision on Tuesday.
"The important thing here is not that Biden's enforcers blocked a merger... it's that courts are increasingly comfortable with merger enforcement," he said. "States can sue under the Sherman Act, and they will. The real change to track is in the judiciary. Wall Street, take note."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular