What The Republican Party’s Immigration Stance Means Going Forward
Photo Via Associated Press
CATHERINE HUGHES: The most recent Republican presidential debate could not help but stir up conversation about the party’s policy changes over the years. In response to the question regarding Reagan’s amnesty policy for illegal immigrants, many candidates struggled to balance the party’s unceasing admiration for Reagan with a strong “moral” stance on immigration.
The debate, which took place in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, served to contrast the currently fracturing Republican Party with the Reagan-era party. The moderators were referring to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The act provided amnesty to three million illegal immigrants who had continuously resided and worked in the United States since 1982. Reagan, however, is not the only Republican politician who expressed a desire to provide amnesty for immigrants. In a 1980 primary debate between Reagan and George H. W. Bush, Bush explained how he does not want children and families to feel like they are “living outside the law.”
Looking at today's Republican presidential candidates, most took the immigration question as an opportunity to outdo each other as the law and order candidate. Many also blamed the border crisis for the soaring number of fentanyl deaths. In 2022, the number of deaths due to fentanyl was double the number from 2019.
A lot of the current rhetoric was established by Donald Trump. During his presidency, Trump separated families, worked on fortifying the southern border and made obtaining permanent residence more difficult for Latin American immigrants. The past reverence for immigrants as hard-working, family-oriented people displayed by Bush and Reagan, is not a sentiment Trump shares, declaring at a 2015 campaign event at Trump Tower that Mexico is “not sending their best,” among other insults. Recently, some Republicans in Congress have attempted to revive Trump-era immigration legislation with little success. However, state governments, like Florida and Texas, have been able to enact stricter immigration policies.
The right has perpetuated a false correlation between immigrants and threats on public safety. In reality, there is evidence that undocumented immigrants have substantially lower crime rates than U.S. citizens. Similarly, another concern is undocumented immigrants bringing fentanyl through the border illegally. It is true that illicit fentanyl in this country chiefly originates in labs in Mexico, but most of this fentanyl enters the country with American citizens, or others who are legally authorized to cross the border.
Republicans in the past believed that immigration boosted the economy by expanding the workforce. Today, Republicans have appointed themselves as the party of morality and public safety, portraying Democrats as less stringent in penalizing crime. Republicans believe themselves to be the party caring most about the economy and creating a more conducive environment for business growth, but they have let their “safety” concerns trump their main goals.
What does this mean for Republicans going forward? They probably have other things to worry about within their party as of late, but these strict immigration policies could further weaken their support from Hispanic voters. There is a shared interest between the conservative Christian policies of the Republican party and the conservative views of many, specifically older, Hispanic voters. However, the increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric of the Republican party jeopardizes their support with younger voters who comprise a fast-growing portion of Latino voters.
This harmful rhetoric about immigrants furthers the Republican Party from an ideal they try so hard to maintain: their status as the party of Reagan, their reputation for facilitating economic growth. Additionally, it is damaging their relationship with young Latino voters, just as they were beginning to make gains, particularly among men. And as a party that is already fracturing from the inside, less voters is the last thing they need right now.
Catherine Hughes is a staff writer for On the Record. She is a freshman studying International Politics in the School of Foreign Service.