Immigration Reform and the National Council of La Raza

Marcela Sanchez­Aizcorbe
POLS 100
Professor Gillespie
October 30, 2013
National Council of La Raza and Immigration Reform
For those familiar with the American public school system, the “melting pot” is a metaphor central to any elementary social studies class, with millions of children learning that America is an intermixture of racial and cultural identities. However, the process by which we achieve this “melting pot” is heatedly debated in Congress today. Immigration is an issue that affects countless of citizens and non­citizens alike, of all ages and backgrounds. Efforts in Washington for comprehensive immigration reform come from interest groups like the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, that works to improve opportunities for
Hispanic Americans through lobbying and monetary contributions to members of Congress.
I grew up in a small East Texas town and witnessed firsthand the setbacks faced by countless undocumented families in the United States. From conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats to the actual undocumented workers in my hometown, my entire community is touched by the immigration issue. As a hot­button topic in many regions, immigration reform begets opinions from all sides of the political spectrum. NCLR works mostly with Democratic members of Congress, and donates to several campaigns, along with a sizeable yearly lobbying budget and four full­time lobbyists to reinforce their ideals in Washington (opensecrets.org). Some of their objectives include Hispanic American advocacy and widespread civic engagement, improved health, higher education levels, economic empowerment, and most importantly, a comprehensive plan for immigration reform, including amnesty for the 11 million undocumented workers and children currently residing in the United States (nclr.org). Unfortunately, my

district representative, Republican Louie Gohmert, and my Republican senators, Ted Cruz and John
Cornyn, do not vote according to my interests which align with those of the NCLR.
According to Poole and Rosenthal, “nearly all interest groups . . . are ideologically consistent,” meaning they act in either a liberal or conservative manner along both social and economic lines (Poole and Rosenthal, 1998). Since their establishment 50 years ago during the 1960s advocacy explosion, the
NCLR has remained “consistent” in their political goals, with the enduring objective of improving the lives of Hispanic Americans through immigration reform (Morone and Kersh, 2013; nclr.org). Since
2007, the NCLR has spent $2.7 million lobbying the federal government with the hope of influencing
Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration plan. Hopefully, they will reap the benefits of their work in Washington as soon as the House votes on the Senate­passed reform bill (the Border Security,
Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act) that grants a 13­year path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Poole and Rosenthal’s conclusion about the overall political and ideological consistency of interest groups is evidenced by the NCLR. This is especially visible in the members of Congress they choose to support. With the exception of the years 2000 and 2008, the NCLR has donated strictly to
Democratic candidates in all regions of the country since 1992, totalling $88,500 in contributions over the last ten years (opensecrets.org). 2000 and 2008 are exceptions because they were crucial election years, where the NCLR sought to appeal to conservatives so as to create a larger group of Republican allies in Congress.
Considering Poole and Rosenthal’s conclusion that Congressmen are generally more ideologically consistent than interest groups, the NCLR does not donate to my representatives in
Washington, whose voting records indicate extreme loyalty to the Republican party (Poole and

Rosenthal, 2013). For example, Senator John Cornyn is ranked as the second most conservative member of the Senate, voting against the 2013 immigration reform bill and all other immigration reform legislation presented in the Senate since 2005 (McGill, 2012; votesmart.org). Ted Cruz, a Texas senator elected in 2012, followed suit (McGill, 2012; votesmart.org). Louis Gohmert, a member of the
House of Representatives ranked 128th most conservative Congressman, voted against the DREAM
Act in 2010 and is predicted to reject the 2013 immigration reform bill once it reaches the House
(Morris, 2012; votesmart.org). Gohmert is also endorsed by Americans for Legal Immigration
(ALIPAC), a conservative political action committee that spent $822,995 since 2007 lobbying against amnesty, protection for undocumented workers, and comprehensive immigration reform
(opensecrets.org; alipac.us). ALIPAC’s goals are completely opposed to the NCLR’s core values. In relation to my home state, the NCLR has considerably less influence than ALIPAC, who endorses 15 out of the 36 district Representatives in Texas (alipac.us).
Similar to ALIPAC, the NCLR contributes funds to ideologically consistent members of
Congress, such as Howard Berman (D­CA), who introduced the 2011 DREAM Act, and has been given a rating of 100 percent by the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (votesmart.org). Senator
Robert Menendez (D­NJ) is also endorsed by the NCLR and has voted according to their interests since the start of his political career in the House of Representatives in 1996, including the 2013 immigration reform bill (votesmart.org). In a Senate floor speech before the roll call vote on the Border
Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, Menendez declared that, “This legislation is for all those immigrants and immigrant families who helped make America better… who contributed to America’s exceptionalism” (votesmart.org).
The NCLR is an ideologically consistent interest group that promotes and supports members of

Congress whose views and votes regarding immigration reform align with their unchanging values. As
Senator Robert Menendez declared in a floor speech given before the roll call vote on the 2013 Border
Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, “this legislation is for all those immigrants and immigrant families who helped make America better… and contributed to America’s exceptionalism” (votesmart.org). Thanks to the “melting pot” that is the United States, advocacy groups like the NCLR and Congressmen like Senator Menendez and Representative Howard Berman, who speak for those who have little or no access to Washington politics, exist and influence American government.