Rick and Mitt Give Latinos a Reason to Turn Out for Obama in November

2012 GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney<a target="_blank" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/6878652795/sizes/m/in/photostream/">Flickr/Gage Skidmore</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Mitt Romney didn’t just praise Arizona’s draconian immigration law during Wednesday night’s GOP debate. He said it was a model for the country. 

“I think you see a model in Arizona,” Romney told CNN debate moderator John King, listing off an employment verification system, a border fence, and increasing the number of border patrol agents as policies he’d pursue as president. “You do that, and just as Arizona is finding out, you can stop illegal immigration.” As my colleague Tim Murphy noted, current top Not Romney contender Rick Santorum didn’t just endorse Arizona-style immigration policy, he went as far as to praise Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whom the Justice Department recently accused of violating the civil rights of Arizona residents.

By endorsing the Arizona law, Romney and Santorum are making their clearest and most concise statements yet about the immigration policies they would pursue as president. Romney has been on all sides of the immigration debate in the past, first positioning himself as a Bush-like moderate, then running to John McCain’s right during the 2008 primary. This time around, his campaign has made a point of touting the endorsements anti-immigrant hardliners like Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has helped write Arizona-style laws all over the country, and Pete Wilson, the former governor of California. Wilson supported California’s Prop 187, which prohibited undocumented immigrants in the state from using any public services, was later struck down as unconstitutional, and produced a backlash that is credited with helping Democrats win nearly every statewide election contest since. By tossing out concepts like “self-deportation,” Romney has made his support for harsh anti-illegal immigration laws clear.

Kobach and Wilson, though, aren’t exactly household names today, and “self-deportation” is more of a dogwhistle to immigration restrictionists than a recognizable policy position for most Americans. But Romney and Santorum just said on television that they’d like the entire country to be more like Arizona, where Latinos must carry identification lest they be randomly mistaken for an undocumented immigrant by local authorities now empowered to make random judgments about immigration status based on how people look. Americans may not know Kobach, and they may not know Wilson. They might raise an eyebrow at “self-deportation.” But everyone, opposed or in favor, knows what “Arizona” means in the context of illegal immigration. 

There isn’t much in President Barack Obama’s record on immigration to recommend him to Latino voters concerned about the issue. Obama’s talked a good game on the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform, and his Justice Department has challenged restrictive immigration laws passed in GOP-controlled states. But his attempts to reform the immigration system have all been shut down in Congress, and Obama has already deported more than a million unauthorized immigrants, about two-thirds as many as George W. Bush did in two full terms as president. Although the Obama administration has said it focuses on removing unauthorized immigrants who pose a threat to public safety, more than half of those deported had no criminal record.

Given the choice between that record and an even more restrictive Republican alternative, it’s understandable that a poll taken by the firm Latino Decisions in December found that Latinos weren’t particularly excited about the 2012 election. The danger for Obama was not that Latinos would defect to the kind of Republican moderate on immigration who doesn’t stand a chance of making it out of a GOP presidential primary, but that enough Latinos would stay home that Obama would be denied a winning majority. By giving Latinos a reason to vote in November, the GOP frontrunners may have just saved Obama from his own record on immigration.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate