The immigration reform debate has moved onto the House, where political commentators are trying to gauge support for reform among Democratic and Republican Congressmen. We’ll have a lot more to say about this over the summer, but GOP Congressmen who haven’t come onboard the issue should know that immigration reform is widely supported by a majority of Americans. In addition, it’s a gateway issue that represents the only way their party will win more Latino voters. And supporting reform is a good way to win recognition from the local editorial board.
Take the case of Rep. David Valadao (R-CA). The California Republican is one of five GOP House members who represent a majority-Hispanic district (his district is 70% Latino). Those who want to kill immigration reform regularly argue that Hispanics are inevitably Democratic voters—but Valadao won his seat by 18 points in 2012, in a district where Mitt Romney lost by 11 points.
What’s Valadao’s secret? He supports immigration reform, empathizes with farm workers, and says things like “Immigration is something that does affect voters. If your first stance is, you are tough on immigrants and people who want to come to this country, you are telling them that you don’t want them here. It is just not a good way to start a conversation.”
That kind of stance earned Valado high praise from a local newspaper, the Bakersfield Californian, in June. Applauding Valadao from taking a meaningful stance on immigration reform, their editorial board wrote:
Finally, Kern County is getting the kind of leadership in the immigration debate it has so patiently waited for. Finally, our congressman has loosed the shackles of political caution and voted on the side of economic reality. Although, owing to his otherwise conservative nature, he’s not the type of guy to throw around words like compassion or social justice, our man in Washington has in effect addressed those too. He has made his position clear: immigration reform is inevitable and overdue…
As a first-term back bencher, Valadao has every reason to go with the flow, vote with the conservative consensus and otherwise keep his mouth shut. On some matters, he has no doubt done that. But on immigration, he has seen the hypocrisy of an economic model than relies on immigrants, many of them undocumented, set against the background of a social construct that distrusts and misunderstands them.
When Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa., recently introduced a poison-pill amendment to the immigration bill that took away all discretion from the Department of Homeland Security on matters of deportation, including an end to all deferrals in the deportation process that favors “dreamers,” every Republican on the Homeland Security Subcommittee supported it. Except one — Valadao.
The editorial compares Valadao to another local Congressman, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). McCarthy is the House Majority Whip, and in contrast, earns scathing words from the paper for refusing to be a leader on immigration and for likely standing against a path to citizenship. McCarthy has A-ratings from anti-immigrant groups like NumbersUSA and ALIPAC—a clear sign that he’s taking the wrong tack on immigration reform. As the editorial says on McCarthy:
We have yet to see our Bakersfield-based representative [McCarthy] say anything that strays from the Republican talking points about hermetically sealing the border. He has yet to stake out a pragmatic vision because, as majority whip, his job is to corral tea party loyalists, not strategize or set policy.
McCarthy’s constituents are substantially the same ones as Valadao’s. Farming is big, and so is reliance on the immigrant workers who make it go. Many farmers already complain that they are having trouble hiring enough employees to pick their crops. As a consequence, wages have increased and cultivation maintenance practices like thinning have been cut back in favor of more urgent matters, namely the harvest…
One would think that McCarthy would leap to the aid of the farmers in his district, but as the No. 3 man in the GOP’s House leadership team, his job is primarily party politics and caucus appeasement. Perhaps, then, he should consider the political consequences of further alienating the fastest-growing voting bloc in America. Failure to act on immigration hurt Republicans in 2012, and it will hurt them again in due course, unless they agree to meaningful action, and soon.
One southern valley Republican, at least, seems to get that. Where’s the other one?
