Home > Features > Election Winners and Losers, and What the Results Mean for Immigration Reform

Latest Post

Election Winners and Losers, and What the Results Mean for Immigration Reform

Posted November 3, 2010 by Patrick Young, Esq.

The 2010 elections aren’t over yet. There are several Senate races still left to be decided as well as a dozen House races.

But one thing is clear: The chances for comprehensive immigration reform, as we know it, are nil.

The Republican majority in the House will most likely make Lamar Smith, a confirmed opponent of immigration reform, the head of the House Judiciary Committee. Any immigration matter must pass through this key committee. Even worse, the most anti-immigrant Congressman in America, Steve King, will head the Immigration Subcommittee.

How anti-immigrant is King? He appears at rallies by the armed militia group The Minutemen. He speaks at their rallies in his home state of Iowa. He speaks at rallies in Washington. He even travels to Arizona to be a featured speaker at their immigrant-intimidation exercises.

King has said that the only immigration reform he is interested in is one that leads to mass deportations. Here are King’s own words:

“I am adamantly against amnesty, which is to pardon immigration lawbreakers and reward them with the object of their crime. A pathway to citizenship does exactly that. There mere discussion of granting citizenship to those who have rejected the Rule of Law by entering our country illegally only encourages more illegal immigration.”

Any change in immigration laws will be written, in part, by Steve King and Lamar Smith. Reforms will have to be tried in the dying days of the current Congress, during the so-called “lame duck” session, if they are to have any chance of passage.

Yesterday’s elections, while generally strengthening those opposed to immigration, did see voters reject the most extreme messages (see CNN exit polls here). This was largely due to the alienation of Latino voter from candidates like Sharron Angle, who employed ads targeting Latinos as criminals. Half-a-decade ago, 40 percent of Latinos voted Republican. Now that share has shrunken to 33 percent, with the Latino share of the electorate growing every year. In Nevada, where Latinos make up one-in-six voters, Sharron Angle received just 30 percent of the Latino vote.

Similarly, when Meg Whitman demanded the deportation of her own housekeeper, Latino voters in California turned dramatically against her, giving her only a third of their votes even though she campaigned extensively in Spanish.

Here in New York State, Latinos rejected Carl Paladino’s anti-immigrant tea party rhetoric and creepy emailing habits. Of Latinos in the state, 81 percent voted for Cuomo.

In spite of the danger that an extreme position on immigration poses for Republicans who need Latino votes, the power of the Tea Party – and the threat it poses to Republicans in Congress who deviate from a hard line on immigration – will make reform a near impossibility after the lame duck waddles off.

Feature image courtesy of Google Search.

Tags : 2010 congressional elections, 2010 elections, congress, cuomo, elections, immigration reform, new york state, paladino