Immigration reform: how Republicans may gain more than Democrats, after all

Despite some conservatives' concerns about passing immigration reform, a small shift in the Hispanic vote toward the GOP could yield that party a sizable number of additional House seats, a report says.

One of the arguments put forward by conservatives opposed to immigration reform is that it would do little to help the GOP win much in the way of Hispanic votes – but would provide Democrats with a huge new pool of eligible, left-leaning voters who could keep them in power for years to come.

The latest Republican to make this case is Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, who writes in a Wednesday op-ed in Politico: "Immigration is the field Democrats want to lure Republicans to play on. Why? Because Democrats know they'll win. Democrats have done the math and realize that legalization inevitably would give them millions of votes, meaning more victories in congressional and presidential elections."

But in fact, there's compelling evidence that it may be Republicans who have the most to gain, politically, from immigration reform – while Democrats actually have little to gain and could wind up with sizable electoral losses. According to an analysis in The Georgetown Public Policy Review, even if Democrats had improved their margins among Hispanics in the 2012 election by double digits, it would have yielded them very little in the way of additional House seats. But a small shift in the Hispanic vote toward Republicans would have moved a significant number of seats into the GOP column.

Assuming a 42 percent turnout rate among Hispanics (an estimate, since no reliable data exist on Hispanic turnout), the report finds that a 10-percentage-point shift in Hispanic support toward Democrats would have netted that party only one additional House seat. A 20-point shift would have yielded Democrats only six new seats.

But for Republicans, it's an entirely different story: A five-percentage-point shift in the Hispanic vote toward the GOP would have given the party five additional House seats; a 10-point shift would have turned 12 seats to the GOP; and a 16-point shift would have given Republicans 21 additional seats.

There are few competitive congressional districts to begin with (already, looking ahead to 2014, analysts are estimating no more than 70 competitive districts – a number that will almost certainly come down as the election draws nearer). So a shift of five, 12, or 21 seats is nothing to sneeze at. Those numbers would drop somewhat with a lower turnout rate, but the overall trend – namely, that there are far greater opportunities for Republicans to make gains than for Democrats – remains the same. 

As the report concludes: "These figures should put Democratic strategists on edge.... Democratic political operators must know that a bipartisan compromise on immigration reform might derail any attempt to retake the House if it allows the GOP to gain even a little ground with Hispanics."

Individual Republican lawmakers may still be driven more by fear of facing a primary opponent if they move to the center on immigration reform. But an analysis like this might prove a strong political incentive. If passage of an immigration bill leads to even small gains in support for the GOP among Hispanics, it could be the key factor that helps the party retain – or even expand – its majority in the House. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Immigration reform: how Republicans may gain more than Democrats, after all
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2013/0214/Immigration-reform-how-Republicans-may-gain-more-than-Democrats-after-all
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe