As we await the president’s executive order on immigration – now expected to block any legal action against roughly five million entrants – one part of the conventional wisdom has remained strangely unchallenged: namely, that Democrats will reap the benefits of this action not only in 2016, but for decades to come. History – and an analogous example in the United Kingdom – suggests otherwise.
Immigration became a political issue with the Alien Acts of 1798 – and the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans presented themselves as the political home for new arrivals to America. Jacksonian Democrats courted Irish voters heavily, and their political descendants did the same regarding ethnic Italians and Slavs of Eastern European ancestry. Today, it is ethnic Hispanics (who are as internally diverse as Slavs) and Asians (ditto) who are supposed to keep Republicans locked out of power for as long as the eye can see.
Of course, the 19th and 20th Centuries didn’t go as the Democrats planned – which should be the first sign that the 21st won’t either. While Irish-Americans were indeed a critical part of the Jacksonian coalition, the Democrats had a much harder time with the other major group of new arrivals – German-Americans. Italians were thoroughly unreliable for Democrats – indeed, the most successful Republican during FDR’s time in the White House was Italian-American Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia. As for the Slavs, their support for the Democrats became exceedingly skittish during the Cold War. Meanwhile, throughout these periods, Americans of “native stock” (i.e., ethnic British and later generations of immigrants) became increasingly hostile to the Democrats, further frustrating the party’s aims.
Yet somehow, none of this will happen in the 21st Century, according to the “experts” – and it is that assumption that is driving the politics behind much of the debate. This is not to say that Republicans are unserious about their concerns for executive overreach, or that Democrats aren’t partially driven by humanitarian concerns. It is to say that the expectations of the politics of the future are reinforcing the themes both parties use in this debate.
There’s only one problem: the expectations are already being proven wrong.
For starters, one of the pillars upon with the Democrats would rely is showing serious strain: Asian-Americans. One should be careful about midterm elections, but 2014 had one dramatic shift that wasn’t prevalent in 2010: Republicans carried the Asian-American vote (CNN Exit Poll). Granted, Asian-Americans are not as numerous as Hispanic-Americans, but it still throws a wrench into the “coalition of the ascendant” theory. Moreover, there is no guarantee that Hispanic-Americans will keep their current preference for the Democrats – let alone have it increase due to the executive order.
Meanwhile, there is the matter of the “white” vote, which most analysts are treating as a tapped-out mine for Republicans, but as Michael Barone (Washington Examiner) notes…
History shows that self-conscious minorities tend to vote cohesively, as blacks have for 150 years and Southern whites did for 90. It’s an understandable response to feeling outnumbered and faced with an unappealing agenda.
In that case, Romney’s 59 percent or House Republicans’ 60 percent among whites may turn out to be more a floor than a ceiling.
That may sound surprising at first, but keep in mind, no Democrat has even reached 45% of white voters in nearly forty years (Jimmy Carter won 48% in 1976), while John McCain won 55% in 2008 ,which is easily the floor for Republicans in the current era (Roper Center).
In other words, history could very well repeat itself – much to the Democrats’ chagrin.
In fact, recent history across the pond makes the point even more glaringly. A speechwriter for the Labour Party has openly acknowledged that Tony Blair’s government loosened immigration policy in part to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date” (Telegraph). That was in 2000. The Labour Party vote has declined in every election since, and contrary to what Labour presumed, the Conservatives retook power (albeit in a coalition) in 2010, and recent polling shows they could win again next year (Telegraph). Why? In part because ethnic British voters are abandoning Labour – to the Scottish Nationalists north of Hadrian’s Wall, and to the United Kingdom Independence Party south of it. The situation in Scotland is so bad for Labour that it could lose nearly all of their Scottish seats (Courier), which would make it all but impossible for Labour to win an election, even if Scotland remains in the UK. Meanwhile, a leading group of new arrivals (Hindus) are very open to voting Tory.
I write this not to comment on the president’s looming executive order, or the Senate immigration bill that he is demanding the House pass (I should note I have my doubts about it). I am writing this in the hope that this discussion can be held without fear or hope of future election results. This should be about what’s best for America, not what is best for the Republicans or for the Democrats – especially if what is perceived to be best for either is almost certainly wrong.
@deejaymcguire | facebook.com/people/Dj-McGuire | DJ’s posts
