If the GOP is to win back the White House in 2012, it cannot
afford to alienate Catholic and Latino voters. Just as the shift of
support from Catholic and Latino voters helped George W. Bush into
the White House twice, it can do the same for Barack Obama.
Because of its impact on these two groups of voters, the
debate over immigration will be one of the deciding factors in the
2012 election.
It was no surprise that after the rancor of the 2005
immigration debate the level of Latino support for the GOP
presidential candidate dropped from 44% in 2004 to 31% in 2008. How
significant is this drop in terms of numbers and in terms of the
Catholic vote itself? The percentage of Latino voters is
growing steadily, moving from 8% in 2004 to
9% in 2008. Over 19 million Latinos were eligible to vote in 2010,
but they are under-registered (60%)
in comparison to African Americans (70%)
and Whites (74%). The National Association of Latino Elected and
Appointed Officials Educational Fund is
projecting a 25%
increase in Latino voters in 2012 compared to 2008. As one
study put it, “With significant voter registration drives the Latino
vote can go from influential to
essential.”
Somewhere from 64% to 70% of Latinos identify as Catholic,
thus constituting a growing percentage of the overall Catholic
vote. Among all Catholic voters, there was a big swing in 2008,
from 52% - 47% for Bush in 2004 to 54% - 45% for Obama. However,
among white Catholics, McCain still had the edge, 52% - 47%. It was
Latino Catholics who made the
difference.
A major study in 2008 estimated that Latinos make up
nearly 32% of the Catholic population in the United States, but
another study in
2011 puts it at 40% with more than half of them Catholics under the
age of 25. According to the latest Census figures, Latinos make up
15% of the nation’s total population.
The growing Latino presence among U.S. Catholics, however,
does not tell the whole story about why immigration has become a
major issue for Catholic voters. For several years all Catholics
have been intensely lobbied by their bishops to demand “Justice for Immigrants.” The
bishops’ conference is on the record in support of the DREAM Act,
and the USCCB has made it clear they consider immigration reform a
top priority in the 2012 election.
Most recently, in a
letter to
immigrants issued December 12 on the Feast Day of Our Lady of
Guadalupe, thirty Catholic bishops wrote:
“Despite your contributions to the well-being of our
country, instead of receiving our thanks, you are often treated as
criminals because you have violated current immigration
laws.”
Signers included Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles and
Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller of San Antonio, the leading
bishops of Mexican descent in the country. It’s notable that
Archbishop Gomez has become a leading voice on this issue. Since
Gomez first became auxiliary bishop in Denver under Archbishop
Chaput, he has earned wide respect for his pro-life, pro-marriage
efforts among the kind of Catholic voters often aligned with the
Republican Party.
It’s inevitable that all religiously active Catholic
voters will consider what bishops like Archbishop Gomez have to say
on the subject of immigration. Some bishops have reported
resistance in the Catholic business community to their arguments on
immigration. Archbishop Gomez attempted to address their concerns
in a
speech given to a
meeting of Catholic business leaders this past February. He
recognized that many immigrants were in the country illegally,
commenting, “That bothers me. I don’t like it when our rule of law
is flouted. And I support just and appropriate punishments.” But
the present forms of punishment impose “penalties that leave wives
without husbands, children without parents. We are deporting
fathers and leaving single mothers to raise children on little to
no income.” Archbishop Gomez added, “We have always been a nation
of justice and law. But we have also been a nation of mercy and
forgiveness.”
Archbishop Gomez’ arguments are somewhat different from
the official statements from the USCCB. Those arguments are bogged
down in the confusion of conflicting rights; the right of the
immigrant to seek the necessary goods of life versus the right of
the state to secure borders. Gomez, on the other hand, stresses the
similarities between what America has always stood for and the
character of Hispanic immigrants — he describes them as having
“strong traditions of family and faith, community and hard work,”
and most are Catholic and hold “deep conservative
values.”
Gomez eschews the rights’ argument and stresses the
benefits to our nation: “Today’s immigrants — like generations of
immigrants before them — are the hope for tomorrow’s America. We
need to find the political will to make them our fellow citizens.
If we can, I know that together we will build an America that is
stronger, more religious, and more moral.”
We think that Archbishop Gomez is articulating a kind of
third way in the immigration debate, one that politicians would be
smart to consider. White Catholics who lean Republican may not
embrace the DREAM Act, but many have already grown tired of the
conservative tirades against “amnesty.” They, like Gomez, want to
find the “political will” to seek a solution that combines
compassion, security, and economical viability.
Republican strategists should tread very carefully when it
comes to immigration reform. The GOP already has the image of being
anti-immigrant, and with the Catholic community becoming more and
more Latino that could be translated into being anti-Catholic. It’s
a mistake, for example, to respond to the Dec. 12 letter from the
bishops as did the communications director of the group Federation
for American Immigration Reform, who
accused the
Catholic Church of seeing “immigration as a recruiting tool.” This
is the kind of comment that was flung around regularly in 2005 —
it’s not only false but can be heard as containing a note of
bigotry.
In an
article published
last week, we argued that the principles of Catholic social
teaching can become a source in overcoming the policy deadlock to
create sensible immigration reform with bipartisan support. By
viewing immigration through the principle of the common good, the
way to deal with the 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants can begin
to resemble the scenario sketched by Archbishop Gomez. Does it
really serve the common good to focus on punishing those millions
who have broken the law, rather than recognizing the contributions
they have made and will make to our country? After all, it was the
irresistible human desire for freedom, happiness, and prosperity
that led the original colonists to the land we now know as
America.
We agree with Archbishop Gomez when he says, “We need to
find the political will to make them our fellow citizens. If we
can, I know that together we will build an America that is
stronger, more religious, and more moral.” Such a third way need
not be pure “amnesty” or ignore the dire need for border security.
It can be built on two programs, one leading to work visas, the
other to full citizenship. Those undocumented seeking citizenship
will be required to give 100 hours of community service in a
“Future of Americas Program” that will be designed to assist
families, educational programs, and businesses in Latino
communities.
To those in the GOP who have written off Latino support in
2012, it should be recalled that Obama was not the first choice of
Latino voters in the 2008 primary. Sen. Hillary Clinton received
twice the number of Latino votes, but once Obama became the nominee
they swung massively to him. The Pew Research Center reported,
“According to the 2008 National Survey of Latinos, conducted in
June and July of this year, 75% of Latino registered voters who
said they supported Clinton in the primaries switched their support
to Obama.”
It has not gone unnoticed that Obama has done little to
keep his promise of immigration reform during his first term in
office. All Democrats have to offer in 2012 is another promise for
the second term. Republicans have introduced several pieces of
reform legislation but have yet to move past an anti-immigrant
perception. A thoughtful examination of Archbishop Gomez’ third way
principles could offer the Republican Party an improved
relationship with Latino and Catholic voters on this
issue.
