Splitting This Immigrant's Vote
[Need personal advice of a political nature? Or political advice of a personal nature? Send your question to Stumped. Questions may be edited.]
Dear Stumped,
I'm an immigrant, soon to become a U.S. citizen. I'm pretty moderate and don't feel blind allegiance to either party, though on issues I do lean a little bit more toward Republicans. I believe in faith, family and small government, and I'm totally against abortion. On the other hand, I believe in social justice (and accountability) and fiscal responsibility, as well as environmental protection.
I am considering voting for the Democratic candidate in November. Why? Because that would be my way of expressing my discontent with the GOP and its anti-immigrant rhetoric. Nothing against John McCain (I actually like him), and although I do not favor an amnesty, I do favor just immigration reform. In the last two years Republicans lost my sympathy with their "self-righteous" attitudes. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's policies don't appeal to me, but I feel cornered. What should I do?
Luis Medina Garza
Dear Luis,
It is one of the bedrock principles of this column, steadfastly upheld for, let's see, going on four months now, that I do not tell people who to vote for. I can tell you why to vote, when to vote, where to vote, how to vote and even who's on the ballot, but I can't make the choice for you. That would be like Ann Landers telling someone to leave her husband -- which, as you know, she never did. She always advised people to seek counseling.
That said, here's how I see your dilemma: You like John McCain, you are pro-life, you want smaller government, and the Arizona senator shares your desire to see government protect the environment. It would be perverse for you to cast a protest vote against McCain because of his party's anti-immigrant venom, given that McCain valiantly bucked the trend -- indeed, he put his candidacy on the line pushing for comprehensive immigration reform.
And then there's this: A Democratic Congress, coupled with a Republican president, probably offers the best hope for sensible immigration reform.
Also, as a fiscal conservative, you should be a fan of divided government. As our libertarian friends at Cato are fond of pointing out, the federal government is better at watching its pennies (um, your pennies) when different parties control the White House and Congress. Maybe there is a rational reason voters have opted for divided government -- a hallmark of our republic not possible in parliamentary systems -- more often than not in the last half-century.
So welcome to the United States. Maybe you can join the fun by engaging in that traditional American practice known as ticket-splitting.
Dear Stumped,
I hope you can clear this up for me. I don't understand why anything a president writes after signing a bill into law would have any effect on the law he has signed. Aren't the president's options to either sign or veto legislation? If he has signed it, then isn't the law, as sent to him, the law of the land?
-- Susan Koerwer
Dear Susan,
Rest assured that you are not alone. Most constitutional scholars don't understand why anything a president says about a bill he signs would have any effect, and most courts would probably agree that such executive spin on legislation is meaningless. Courts sometimes do look into congressional intent in trying to resolve an ambiguity in the law (looking, say, at what a committee report might have stated to be the legislation's purpose), but there is no such thing as executive intent. You are right that, absent a line-item veto, the president's choices under the Constitution are to either sign or veto legislation that has been sent to the White House by Congress.
Still, presidential "signing statements" have become quite common since the Reagan presidency. Back then a young lawyer at Justice, one Sam Alito, argued that the White House could protect its executive prerogatives through the use of such statements. Hence you'll recall all the mumbo jumbo talk of the "unitary executive" theory during the Alito hearings, a theory my editors have begged me not to get into here.
President Bush has been notoriously trigger-shy in using his veto power, instead relying on signing statements to take issue with parts of legislation he has signed into law. It's like holding your nose while signing a bill, or crossing your fingers behind your back. Probably the most bizarre example of this came when Bush signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform in March 2002. His accompanying statement pretty much called significant aspects of the law unconstitutional, as abridging the First Amendment, and expressed his hope that the courts would sort it out!
Often the president's signing statements are aimed at preserving his powers as commander-in-chief after losing a political battle on Capitol Hill. So, after grudgingly agreeing to sign anti-torture legislation in 2006, Bush stated that he would only follow the new law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch ... and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."
Signing statements are corrosive to our rule of law and our constitutional system, insofar as the president assumes for himself the power to amend legislation as he sees fit. And while most courts would disregard the executive's efforts to distort the will of Congress, signing statements do matter in the real world. The president, after all, presides over a vast bureaucracy charged with enforcing the laws of the land, and to folks on the federal payroll, what the boss says about a new law, and how it's to be carried out, does matter. Indeed, a report last year issued by the Government Accountability Office chronicled the reluctance of the federal government to pay heed to laws that Bush took issue with upon signing.
As a matter of reining in executive power, this is a good issue to be raised in the presidential campaign. Candidates should be pressed to sign a pledge that, if elected president, they will not issue any signing statement that alters the intent of a law. Oh, and no signing statements when they sign the pledge.
By Andres Martinez |
March 4, 2008; 12:00 AM ET
Previous: In Search of the Secularist Party |
Next: How to Attack Barack Obama
Posted by: Elizabeth Rodriguez | March 18, 2008 1:35 PM
Immigrants were an especially important demographic for us in 2000. And we all know how close that election was. They could be equally important to the campaigns this year.
-Trevor Wynne
Posted by: trevorwynnewhitehouse | March 6, 2008 3:16 PM
Why do we hate immigrants so much and joke about their stupidity? You find this flavor of racism everywhere - from South Africa to Japan to the US. This is especially interesting because most of us are immigrants in some form or another. And in some countries like the UK they institutionalize this form of racism to ensure they stay "pretty" inside. Can't we all just get along? More on this in my blog at http://angryafrican.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/quick-hide-the-nigerianmexicanpolakkoreanpakistani-is-coming/
Posted by: angryafrican | March 5, 2008 10:44 PM
Karen, Hi, what Dwight intends is meant for another purpose than its effect on illegal immigrants, which you rightly point out is unfair. It's good for us here to be grounded by valuable input. Dwight's actual purpose is righteous in its goal of eliminating a conflict of interest that stands to corrupt members of Congress. His concern is deeply informed by the record of Congress. That said, the collateral effect of an embittering disenfranchisement would have its own unintended consequences, just as you bring home. Like the "guest worker" bad idea, it locates within our borders people denied full citizenship, giving them no cause for patriotic loyalty. Aside from it being just and decent to make them peers, national security begins at home by giving everyone with very few exceptions a full stake in our common welfare and democracy.
Posted by: jhbyer | March 4, 2008 3:33 PM
lol funny stuff haha karen i agree
Posted by: laladada | March 4, 2008 10:40 AM
omg soo funny hahahahaha
Posted by: ladada | March 4, 2008 10:39 AM
okay dwight.... listen, i know alot of poeple that are immigrants okay? and i dont appreciate how everyone always puts the blame on them. we're people too! we can change anythign we want, we're all just trying to live here and send money back to our families, so just ____ off.
Posted by: karen | March 4, 2008 10:29 AM
Hmm... a legal immigrant whose attitudes are most closely aligned with Republicans (abortion, small government, personal accountability) who is totally against amnesty for illegal aliens, is considering voting for the Democrats, whose two current candidates espouse amnesty or other favors for illegals (drivers license, "pathway to citizenship"). Just because Republicans lately have been self-righteous (lately???) and anti-immigrant.
Personally, I'm a Democrat and even I haven't noticed an overall anti-immigrant tone to the Republicans' rhetoric. Sure, the most hateful of the anti-Hispanics are probably Republicans instead of Democrats, but as far as the GOP leaders and Congress people go, what I see is anti-illegal immigrant, while making clear that they are not anti-immigrant.
So, Luis, I'll welcome your vote for the Democratic ticket, but don't be upset when pretty much nothing in your political belief system comes to pass as a result.
Posted by: Greg | March 4, 2008 9:08 AM
to get past any challenges, just give them a green card with a provision that the recipient cannot become a citizen because they broke the laws and while allowed to stay, they are not allowed to change the political landscape of America.
Posted by: dwight | March 4, 2008 7:59 AM
can an ordinary citizen file a lawsuit against the goverment claiming that should the goverment grant amnesty that the illegals will lose their right to vote if they become citizens because of the way they became citizens by virtue of breaking the law. by taking this out of the equation, would there still be strong supoort for comprehensive immigration reform if they would not count as a voting block for either party.
Posted by: Dwight | March 4, 2008 7:56 AM
Think tanks tend to invert cause and effect to sustain top-down theories, with libertarians being the most prone to this honest error, for being the most prone to theory. Our current Democratic congress and Republican president have produced none of the expected benefits of a split fed, suggesting either the theory was never proven, or that the variables have changed, or both. Certainly the GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln. It performed so abysmally both domestically and overseas, when it controlled both branches, that the balance it offers would seem to be all negative.
Posted by: jhbyer | March 4, 2008 6:55 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
hi I'm 18 years old, I will finish high school next year and I am extremely concern about my future. My parents are from mexico, I was born in that country however I was rised in the US, I love this country and I will like to Know; After high school what probability I will have to obtain a better life, if in this country full of racism against mexican people or immigrants?. What is your government going to do to change my situation and the rest of the immigrants in this country?.