The Arizona law, the controversy over birthright citizenship — these and other aspects of the immigration debate are often thought to be politically treacherous for the Republican Party given the projected growth of the Latino population. But are they? Does advocating such positions actually alienate Latinos?
California provides some evidence that it does. Consider this from a 2006 article by Shaun Bowler, Stephen Nicholson and Gary Segura:
bq. …we find that racially charged ballot propositions sponsored by the Republican party during the 1990s in California reversed the trend among Latinos and Anglos toward identifying as Republican…by shifting party attachments toward the Democratic party. Our results raise serious questions about the long-term efficacy of racially divisive strategies for electoral gain.
They examine the effects of Propositions 187, 209, and 227 — which, respectively, sought to deny state services to illegal immigrants, end affirmative action in state government, and replace bilingual instruction with English-intensive instruction.
Before 187, Latinos had a 38% chance of identifying as a Democrat, a 28% chance of identifying as independent, and a 34% chance of identifying as a Republican. After 187, they had a 52% chance of identifying as a Democrat. After 209, that increased to 62%, and after 227, to 63%.
By contrast, their chance of identifying as Republican fell to 12% after the votes on these propositions.
At the same time, the GOP experienced _no_ gains from other ethnic groups, notably non-Hispanic whites.
The authors conclude:
bq. The use of these three ballot propositions by the California GOP to improve their electoral fortunes was unsuccessful in the long-run and, in fact, constituted a significant political error with three demonstrable effects. First, they had a very sizable effect on galvanizing the rapidly growing Latino vote and shifting it toward the Democratic Party in California. Second, this shift actually reversed a trend that had previously been favoring the GOP. That is, up until the propositions, this Latino bloc had been drifting slowly toward the Republican Party. Third, there seems to have been no counterbalancing gain in party supporters from other groups, particularly non-Hispanic whites. That is, GOP alienation of Latinos may have been politically acceptable if it attracted Anglos in greater numbers. The evidence from our results suggests that this did not happen.
At the moment, the weak economy imperils the Democratic Party’s fortunes among most every ethnic group, including Latinos. The GOP could simply bide its time and benefit accordingly. So I’m puzzled by the sudden interest in a drastic constitutional change that (1) is unlikely to pass, (2) will mostly alienate Latinos, and, if the California experience holds, (3) won’t necessarily win over voters who aren’t Latino. What is the political upside?
Find the article here. Unfortunately, I can find only a gated version.