Richardson lays it all out

Governor Richardson lays out what will be the main story everyone will focus on later tonight as the results come in

Read More...

Summary only...

What the hell is wrong with the McCain campaign?

Listen, …when camp McCain decided to reach deep into the Republican farm team to pick a running mate so blatantly unqualified for high office that she's quickly become a national joke and embarrassment, at least one was able to see some thread of political logic in the decision. McCain wanted to shore up his right flank, and being a raging misogynist, wrongly figured that disgruntled Hillary supporters would vote with their genitalia rather than their minds. … OK …. It was a stupid, insulting, and frankly dangerous decision, but at least one could understand the thought processes behind the move.

But what could possibly be the rationale behind having someone working for your campaign who thinks likes this:

The spokeswoman for the Republican Party in Nevada's most populous county was removed from her post Saturday, after she said the Democratic Party made black people "dependent on the government."

Didi Lima, the Clark County GOP communications director, also was removed from her volunteer role as a Hispanic community liaison for Republican John McCain's presidential campaign over the remarks made earlier in the day while working at a McCain campaign booth.

"We don't want (Hispanics) to become the new African-American community," Lima told The Associated Press. "And that's what the Democratic Party is going to do to them, create more programs and give them handouts, food stamps and checks for this and checks for that. We don't want that."

"I'm very much afraid that the Democratic Party is going to do the same thing that they did with the African-American culture and make them all dependent on the government and we don't want that," she said.

In August, Lima was named co-chair of McCain's Nevada Hispanic Leadership Team, which aimed to reach out to a crucial voting bloc in a state where polls show McCain in a dead heat with Barack Obama.

AP

These remarks are not the result of a casual slip of the tongue, or an innocent display of political incorrectness. These are the words of someone whose racist worldview goes so deep to the core of their being that it flows out of every pore of their body.

Like fellow McCain spokesman, Fernando C de Baca, who claimed, "Hispanics consider themselves above blacks (because) Hispanics came here as conquerors. African-Americans came here as slaves.", Lima demonstrates through her willingness to share this hatred publicly that she is so poisoned by the disease of racism that she can no longer even recognize it as it spews out of her twisted soul.

Of course, the McCain camp quickly disassociated themselves from Lima, and removed her from any position of power.

But the real question is ….How many more like Lima and de Baca are still lurking around the corridors of camp McCain? And perhaps more importantly: How is it that McCain's campaign was unable to recognize this kind of sickness and hatred in the first place, and what does that say about a possible future McCain administration?

Read More...

Summary only...

Democrat's shift right on immigration a mistake on many levels

Those of us who have followed the immigration debate over the last few years couldn't help but notice the rightward shift on immigration recently taken by the Democratic Party and its beltway allies in the quest for electoral victory. With the release of the party platform formulated in Denver, this shift now becomes party orthodoxy.

A recent article published by the Center for International Policy's, Americas Policy Program, a leading liberal international policy think tank, documents not only the origins of this "new framing", but looks at it's ultimate ramifications on the greater issue of reforming immigration policy in any meaningful way.

Having acknowledged that the immigration restrictionists are dominating the immigration debate, the Democratic Party and its allies are desperately seeking to reframe the immigration crisis. Their new language about immigration policy—"nation of laws," "rule of law," and "required legal status"—is popping up everywhere, from the pronouncements of immigrant-rights groups to the Democratic Party platform.

…The party doesn't back away from comprehensive immigration reform that includes legalization for illegal immigrants. As if by rote, it includes the standard language about America being "a nation of immigrants." But the party also strikes a harsher stance than in the past. Trying to please all tendencies, the Democrats say that immigration reform should be "tough, practical, and humane."

Instead of offering an "earned path to citizenship," as it has in the past, the party is now proclaiming that illegal immigrants will be required to obey the law—with the emphasis on the verb "require."

"For the millions living here illegally but otherwise playing by the rules, we must require them to come out of the shadows and get right with the law," states the party's platform. "We support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens."

The "get right with the law" framing is also evident in the recent shift of Democratic Party leaders and pro-immigration toward a dual vision of immigration reform. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other leading Democrats now echo the party line that America can be "both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws."

IRC-Americas Program

As noted in previous examinations of this "new framing," centrist Democrats, in league with mainstream Latino and immigrant-rights advocacy groups, miscalculated the political power of anti-immigrant messaging and abandoned the center in the debate, allowing anti-immigrant forces to shift it further to the right.

Central to the new Democratic framing is the concept of requiring immigrants to "get right with the law" rather than offering them a "pathway to citizenship."

Where did this new language come from?

Apparently from two progressive Beltway institutes close to the Democratic Party: Center for American Progress and America's Voice. These two organizations floated the "required" language in a few polls to determine how the party and immigration advocates should parse the immigration issue.

What's the number one goal of Americans with respect to the issue of illegal immigration? In their report "Winning the Immigration Issue: Requiring Legal Status for Illegal Immigrants," the pollsters state: "Hispanic and non-Hispanic voters agree that the most important goal in dealing with illegal immigration is to require illegal immigrants to become legal."

In addition to the "required" wording, the two other key elements of the Democratic Party messaging, according to the polling results, are:

* "The 'required legal status' proposal finds strong support provided there are conditions: paying taxes, learning English, passing a criminal background check, and going to the back of the citizenship line."
* "Focus on the role of employers. Democrats should favor strong enforcement not only at the border, but also in the workplace. The public believes the main cause of illegal immigration is that employers hire undocumented workers."

"The focus on requiring immigrants to become legal or face deportation if they fail to register gives Democrats a tough, seamless message about getting the immigration system under control and having respect for the rule of law," said the pollsters.

Headed by Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, the pollsters observed: "Historically, the Democratic immigration message focused on providing an 'earned path to citizenship,' but this approach has no more appeal than a deportation agenda. However, the idea of requiring illegal immigrants to become legal generates a sharply different response. Nearly nine in ten voters favor a proposal to 'require illegal immigrants to become legal, obey U.S. laws, pay taxes, or face deportation ...'"

The polling report recommends the following as a concise summary of the party's position—a position largely reflected in the party's platform:

"We must be tough and smart to get our immigration system under control. It is unacceptable to have 12 million people in our country living outside the legal system. We must secure the border but we must also require illegal immigrants to register and become legal, pay their taxes, learn English, and pass criminal background checks. Those who have a criminal record or refuse to register should be sent home."

IRC-Americas Program

This framing, originally formulated by beltway spinmeisters, is now the cornerstone of the current Democratic immigration policy.

But, by capitulating to anti–immigrant forces and not only accepting their framing, but adopting it, Democrats have ultimately set up a scenario whereby even if they were to gain meaningful majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the Whitehouse it would be nearly impossible to put the genie back in the bottle and enact meaningful and humane immigration reform.

But there are risks to moving toward a law-and-order framing of immigration reform. Over the past few years, Democrats have signed on to the "enforcement-first" policy agenda of the Republicans in the belief that this would bolster the chances of achieving comprehensive reform.

What has occurred, however, is that the "enforcement-first" approach to immigration reform has become the "enforcement-only" immigration policy that immigration restrictionists have long advocated. Acceding to a law-and-order and security framing of the immigration crisis, the Democrats have given the ongoing crackdown greater legitimacy. Rather than improving the chances for comprehensive reform that includes legalization, it's likely that the Democrats have by their actions in Congress and their new rhetoric on the campaign trail reinforced a "rule of law" messaging that will make legalization still more difficult to achieve.

The "come out of the shadows and get right with the law" language of the Democratic Party furthers the restrictionist stereotyping of illegal immigrants as criminals and threats to society. Rather than new messaging, the party appears to be ceding to right-wing concepts of criminalization of immigrants and place the onus of the immigration mess on immigrants rather than on the system itself.

IRC-Americas Program

Ironically, in their quest inoculate themselves from Nativist political backlash, and hopefully craft a "sweet spot" in the immigration debate that could guarantee electoral victory, the Democrats appear to have misread the realities of Nativist political power and perhaps have put themselves on the wrong side of this issue.

A new report released by theProgressive States Network looks at the actual legislative successes of anti-immigrant legislation on the state level, and it’s power as a political wedge, and finds that despite all the media hype and bravado of Nativist advocates, anti-immigrant sentiments do not translate into legislative or electoral success.

The report, The Anti-Immigrant Movement that Failed: Positive Integration Policies by State Governments Still Far Outweigh Punitive Policies Aimed at New Immigrants, as its title implies, found that by and large, State governments have overwhelming rejected anti-immigrant measures – this despite all the media attention lavished on certain high-profile local initiatives like those in Hazelton or Farmers Branch.

The Misguided Media Hype over Anti-Immigrant Legislation: Despite much media hype, the supposed wave of anti-immigrant politics has amounted to a few punitive laws in a handful of states, even as most states have quietly been moving forward with positive, integrative approaches to new immigrants in their communities.

The Failed Use of Immigration as a "Wedge” Issue: The current hype around anti-immigrant policies is, unfortunately, about electoral politics. The media largely fell for the tactics of political opportunists who hoped to use the issue of immigration as a "wedge” issue, much as they have used gay marriage and other social issues to undermine progressive coalitions and support rightwing politicians during elections. Yet the result has largely been political failure for rightwing politicians trying to play the anti-immigrant political card.

The Success of Positive Immigration Policy: Many states, including those where most immigrants live, now provide in-state tuition (so-called DREAM Acts) for undocumented immigrants going to public universities. Others are promoting policies to integrate immigrants through English language instruction and assistance in navigating the citizenship process. A number of states are providing health insurance to undocumented children. And instead of trying to punish immigrant workers, states are increasingly working with native and immigrant workers to crack down on bad employers who are violating minimum wage, safety and workers compensation laws.

Highlighting Positive State Legislation for New Immigrants: In this report, we have provided a state-by-state summary of major immigrant-related policies, both punitive and integrative, enacted in the last few years. We divide states based on those policies into six categories, from integrative to punitive, and highlight charts and graphs that demonstrate that positive integrative policies are far more common in the states than negative punitive policies.

Progressive States Network

When the dust settled, the report found that only in those few states that were already dominated by right-wing legislatures were they able to manage to leverage enough support to pass anti-immigrant legislation, and that by far, the greatest number of immigration related bills nation-wide were those favorable to migrant interests.

With most 2008 state legislative sessions at an end, we can take a step back and make a few conclusions about what happened in the states on policies effecting the immigrant population:

• In a few states where the right-wing controlled the legislature, they jammed through some laws creating punitive sanctions against undocumented immigrants.

• However, in states where moderates or progressives had any significant influence, the momentum for anti-immigration legislation stalled and almost all anti-immigrant legislation failed to pass.

• In the largest states where most undocumented immigrants actually live -- California, Illinois, New York, Texas and Florida -- no significant anti-immigrant legislation was enacted this session or last.

• Largely ignored by the media, over the last few years, quite a few states have pioneered programs and laws to positively integrate new immigrants into our communities and address citizens' economic fears in ways that raise wage standards for everyone, immigrant and native worker alike.

• In fact, when you look at what policies states have actually enacted, most undocumented immigrants live in states that have enacted positive programs to integrate new immigrants and rejected punitive approaches to new immigrants.

…The bottom-line is that despite much media hype, the supposed wave of anti-immigrant politics has amounted to a few punitive laws in a handful of states, even as most states have quietly been moving forward with positive, integrative approaches to new immigrants in their communities. Many states, including those where most immigrants live, now provide in-state tuition (so-called DREAM Acts) for undocumented immigrants going to public universities. Others are promoting policies to integrate immigrants through English language instruction and assistance in navigating the citizenship process. A number of states are providing health insurance to undocumented children. And instead of trying to punish immigrant workers, states are increasingly working with native and immigrant workers to crack down on bad employers who are violating minimum wage, safety and workers compensation laws.

One reason bad legislation stalled in all but a handful of states in 2008 is that legislators and the public have increasingly recognized that scapegoating immigrants is not going to solve the economic pressure working families experience. The real problem is a far more pervasive one of employers violating the workplace rights of all workers, both native and immigrant.

…The current hype around anti-immigrant policies is, unfortunately, about electoral politics. It is true that there is a vocal minority of the public that has promoted anti-immigrant policies for years, much as they have on and off throughout American history. This has been especially true in a few states, especially those with little previous historical experience with immigration, that have experienced rapid immigrant population growth in recent years.

Yet with so few states actually passing anti-immigrant legislation, the remarkable thing is how much attention the media has given anti-immigrant politicians. The media largely fell for the tactics of political opportunists who hoped to use the issue of immigration as a "wedge” issue, much as they have used gay marriage and other social issues to undermine progressive coalitions and support rightwing politicians during elections. Politicians like Congressman Tom Tancredo championed anti-immigrant proposals at the federal level and conservative state politicians sought to promote similar policies for electoral gain. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty proposed a series of anti-immigrant executive orders earlier this year, a tactic that Javier Morillo-Alicea, President of SEIU Local 26, noted "has everything to do with the presidential race," since Pawlenty was angling for a slot as the Vice-Presidential nominee.

Yet the result has largely been political failure for rightwing politicians trying to play the anti-immigrant political card. In 2006, many analysts raised fears that anti-immigrant fervor would doom progressive candidates. Instead, progressives won big in those elections. In 2007, it was more of the same in elections in Virginia and New York where Democrats gained control of the Virginia Senate and expanded control in Long Island's Suffolk County, despite opponents trying to make political hay off of the immigration issue.

…Yet the media continued to fixate on the handful of states debating anti-immigrant policies, abetted by Lou Dobbs and politicians still hoping to stir up racial divisions in the population. In the end, however, only in state legislatures already dominated by rightwing leadership such as Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, and Utah were significant anti-immigrant policies able to make headway in 2008, just as they only made headway in similar rightwing-controlled legislatures like Arizona, Georgia, Oklahoma and Tennessee in previous sessions. Everywhere else, states either stalled anti-immigrant bills or enacted positive policies to better integrate new immigrants, the latter a story almost completely overlooked by the national media.

Progessive States Network

In light of recent past history it would be wise for Democrats to re-evaluate their new found acceptance of the right-wing frames as advocated by those like Stan Greenberg and Americas Voice. Not only do they adversely effect the lives of 12 million undocumented migrants by re-enforcing the de-humanizing stereo-types of immigrant criminality, they will make it all the more difficult to enact real meaningful reform down the road – and there's a good chance that the whole strategy might blow up in Democrats faces when a vital swing vote this coming November later demands more from its leaders than platitudes and slogans ….can you say "Si se puede" Mr Greenberg?

Read More...

Summary only...

You don't need a weathervane to see which way the wind blows

With Republican electoral prospects looking dim, and a top of the ticket that will be struggling for dear life at best, the coming campaign season looks to be shaping up to be the year where all Republican hopes will rest on stirring up as much anti-immigrant hate and fear as possible.

Despite being warned by party leaders that the immigration wedge will blow up in their faces, desperate Republicans from Senators down to local dog catchers will be relying upon stirring up as much fear and divisiveness as possible in hopes of saving their hides.

North Carolina's Elizabeth Dole, despite having limited funds and a strong challenger, chose to throw a bucket of money into this, her first campaign media buy:

Video Link

As the number of illegal aliens in North Carolina increased, I began to hear very troubling accounts from many constituents and law enforcement officials. Illegal aliens were committing crimes, often repeatedly, such as drunk driving and drug and gang related felonies that have harmed and even killed North Carolinians. I knew this was an aspect of the illegal immigration issue that needed to be tackled urgently. I also knew that our state’s law enforcement officials needed the tools to effectively send the message that North Carolina means business when it comes to the enforcement of our laws.

So I traveled throughout North Carolina from the mountains to the coast meeting with sheriffs to discuss what challenges they faced and how we might provide them with additional assistance in the form of tools to identify, apprehend and deport criminal illegal aliens. We agreed on an approach of a partnership between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association. The result is the first and only statewide immigration enforcement plan of its kind in the country. This is the focus of my first commercial that will air across North Carolina.

...That’s why I need your continued support to help us defend our message in this campaign. My opponent has come out in opposition to my plan to identify, apprehend and deport illegal aliens who have committed crimes in North Carolina. This is a major difference between us. I know that I am on the right side of common sense and the good people of North Carolina on this issue, and we will defend my plan and win the debate on this issue.

With heartfelt thanks,
Elizabeth Dole
U.S. Senator (R-NC)

P.S. I need your help to continue funding my TV ad campaign. I have fought for your interests and your concerns, and I won’t stand by while Democrats based in Washington distort my record! With your help today, hundreds of thousands of voters will hear the truth about my record for North Carolina and the nation. Please click here to rush your contribution of $1000, $250, $75 or even $31 to my campaign today. Thank you in advance for your steadfast support.

Dole is betting the farm on this anti-immigrant message....and she won't be the last.

With no record of achievement to run on, an incompetent liar as their incumbent whose approval ratings are at historically low levels, and nothing to offer but endless war, an economy in the toilet, and a dithering septuagenarian who has waffled on every issue he's ever opined on as their standard bearer ....It's desperation time here … and like rats clinging to the floating remnants of a sunken ship you can bet Republicans will hold on tightly to the race baiting and scapegoating that have kept them in power for nearly thrity years ...and it'll be open season on The Brown™ from now through November

and that's a prediction you can take to the bank

Read More...

Summary only...

Will McCain throw "God's children" under the bus?

Early on in the Republican nominating process, John McCain raised the ire of much of his party when during a debate he admonished his fellow candidates for their tough stance on the issue of immigration by reminding them that "we're all God's children" and that each immigrant community had added to the vibrancy of American culture.

Yet, while appearing to take the high ground on immigration, McCain has been moving his position further to the right throughout the entire campaign season. As a recent, rather fawning, AP article pointed out; "Once a crusader for offering the nation's roughly 12 million undocumented immigrants a way to get legal status, McCain now says his first priority is fortifying U.S. borders".

Listen to McCain's speeches or look on his campaign web site now, and there's little mention of the fight to give illegal immigrants a way to stay in the U.S. lawfully. He instead emphasizes border security — the catch phrase of conservatives who scorned his earlier proposals.

…McCain told congressional Republicans in a closed-door meeting recently that he had been badly bruised by his push for immigration reform and had learned the hard way that sealing the border should be his priority.

Republicans who support McCain say he has no choice but to abandon his past approach on immigration in favor of one that causes less consternation among conservatives virulently opposed to providing undocumented people with legal status.

"What kind of an idiot can't figure out the route that you took didn't work? You don't keep charging the center line when you're getting your head bashed in, and John was on this," said former Sen. Trent Lott, R- Miss.

AP

But it now appears that Republicans will be putting McCain's new-found conservatism to the test.

Senate Republicans are set to announce today the hardest-hitting package of immigration enforcement measures seen yet -- one that would require jail time for illegal immigrants caught crossing the border, make it harder for them to open bank accounts and compel them to communicate in English when dealing with federal agencies.

Most of the bills stand little chance of being debated in the Democratic-controlled Congress. But the move by some of the Senate's leading Republicans underscores how potent the immigration issue remains, particularly in a presidential election year.

… The package -- an enforcement smorgasbord assembled by at least eight lawmakers -- consists of 11 bills, but it could expand to as many as 14. Some elements echo House bills, but others go beyond House proposals.

One would discourage states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants by docking 10% of highway funding from states that continue to do so.

Another would extend the presence of the National Guard on the border, and a third would end language assistance at federal agencies and the voting booth for people with limited English ability.

A bill by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who is leading the effort, would impose a maximum two-year prison sentence on someone caught illegally crossing the border a second time.

…

Other bills in the package would:

* Block federal funding to cities that bar their police from asking about immigration status.

* Give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to use information from the Social Security Administration to target illegal immigrants.

* Require construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border, not including vehicle barriers.

* Impose sanctions on countries that refuse to repatriate their citizens.

* Deport any immigrant, legal or illegal, for one drunk-driving conviction.

*Enable local and state police to enforce federal immigration laws.

LA Times 3/5/08

This new legislative initiative puts McCain in a precarious position.

As he moves towards the general election he's looking for support from moderates, independents and most importantly Latinos. But all those groups find McCain's previous position on immigration much more appealing than his new, more conservative, one. With 11 get-tough bills in the Senate, and others in the House, McCain will now be put on the hot seat. Favor, oppose or abstain ... McCain will upset some vital part of his constituency.

At first glance it appears as a no-win situation for the Arizona Senator.

(Sen. Jeff) Sessions said he had not consulted with the White House on the issue, nor had he talked directly with McCain

…Sessions and other opponents of comprehensive immigration reform believe McCain has learned his lesson.

"He has said he got the message and believes the way to go is border enforcement first," Sessions said. "I think he'll be supportive of much of it."

"There's nothing in here that represents an attempt to embarrass him," Sessions was quick to add.

… The package of proposals unveiled by McCain's colleagues may only inflame the immigration debate. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), for example, has proposed withholding federal law enforcement money for "sanctuary cities" that have lax immigration enforcement. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) wants to dock states 10 percent of their highway funding if they give licenses to illegal immigrants. And Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has a bill that would make English the "national language."

Sessions, who made a name for himself by spending hours at a time on the Senate floor last year, fighting the doomed immigration bill, has proposed mandatory minimum prison sentences for illegal immigrants.

… In the House, Republicans were making a more concerted effort to coordinate their immigration message with McCain.

Some House Republicans were moving ahead full-throttle to force a vote on an immigration enforcement measure offered by Democratic Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina. But leaders have temporarily applied the brakes to that effort until they have more time to coordinate with the McCain campaign.

Politico

But McCain might try to use the situation to his political advantage. With such a large smörgåsbord of bills to pick from, McCain can pick and choose. He could choose to accept a few of the less egregious proposals while rejecting others. If played wisely, he could confirm his anti-immigrant bona fides to the right, while being able to still say to moderates and Latinos that he opposed the harshest measures.

Angela Kelley, director of the Immigration Policy Center …. suggested that the Senate bills could provide political protection to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has clinched the GOP presidential nomination.

…If McCain endorsed the Senate package, that could "create a platform for McCain to look tough on immigration, create distance from Ted Kennedy [D-Mass.] and erect a shield around the amnesty charge," Kelley said.

LA Times

But it's a very dangerous game:

… Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), one of only three Hispanic senators, has called on McCain to reject the GOP proposals, saying the package would only create a "wedge" issue come November.

“The Republican Party might think this is a wedge issue for November, but their strategy only dims their chances this year and for generations to come," Menendez said. "Latinos are not a group on the fringes of our society that can be manipulated to score political points. If this presidential primary season has shown us anything, it is that Latinos are no longer the sleeping giant in American politics – they are fully awake, active and making a difference. This is the type of cynical effort that serves to deepen the divisions in our nation that we should be working to bridge.”

Politico

I'm not a betting man ….but my money's on McCain throwing "God's children" under the bus ….albeit as quietly and as inconspicuously as possible …and he certainly won't roll back and forth over them as his Republican brethren would wish …but under the wheels they shall be none the less.

Read More...

Summary only...

Time for a Reality Check

These have been heady times for those in the migrant-rights movement.

Starting back in November with the failure of anti-immigrant campaigns to resonate with the electorate, an apparent sea change was assumed to be taking place. Much ink and many pixels were expended speculating on the presumed death of the "immigration issue" as a motivating force in the US political scene.

From the left, the progressive blogosphere finally found the courage to voice pro-immigrant positions after nearly two years of bowing to the conventional wisdom coming out of Washington that immigration was a "third rail" not to be touched.

From the right, pundits and the chattering classes warned that to continue stoking the flames of anti-immigrant sentiments was like beating the proverbial dead horse, and would yield no rewards.

Over the following months things looked even brighter.

After starting a presidential campaign where each candidate tried their best to "out Tancredo, Tancredo" on immigration matters, one by one the Republican contenders who put their eggs in the anti-immigrant basket fell by the wayside. In the end, the only three standing were the party's only bona fide pro-immigrant candidate, and two candidates whose recent conversion to the anti-immigrant camp was questionable at best. With McCain's presumptive triumph, even Huckabee's and Romney's road to Damascus conversion to Tancredoism seems to have hurt them far more than it helped.

On the Democratic side, the top contenders were quick to finally pick up on these subtle cues - once it became obvious to even the least politically savvy that they need not fear the immigration boogieman.

To his credit, Mr. Obama was early to the pro-migrant party, and supported driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants even as his opponent waffled and tried to triangulate her position due to the nagging "third rail" fear that so haunted the DLC. He also came out early and pledged to take up comprehensive reform within the first one hundred days of his administration and voiced strong support for the DREAM Act. But lately, even the ever cautious Mrs. Clinton has spoken out against immigration raids, and promised to curtail them, voiced tepid disapproval of the great wall project, and vowed to join Obama's pledge to give the nation real reform within one hundred days of taking office.

All of this has been music to the ears of those in the pro-migrant movement.

In both the tradition media and blogtopia, pro-migrant voices have started to break through.

To varying degrees, both NCLR's Janet Murguia and "Democracy Now's" Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez managed to issue live smack-downs on anti-immigrant powerhouse, Lou Dobb ( In Murguia's case, on Lou's own show). They called him out not only for his misleading and unbalanced presentation of the issue, but also his embrace of some of the most virulent racists engaged in the anti-immigrant movement. If this was not clear evidence that David could smite the anti-immigrant Goliath …. nothing was.

On the web, pro-migrant, Latino, and human-rights blogs and web sites are proliferating and finally gaining long deserved attention and recognition. Outreach and cooperation between the traditional pro-immigrant activist organizations has reached a near fever pitch as they attempt to put together the large-scale, organized, effort that will be essential in moving meaningful reform in the new, more immigrant-friendly, atmosphere all anticipate is just around the corner.

At least that's what we've all been telling each other for the last few months

But just today, once again reality strikes us in the face:

House OKs seizing vehicles from illegal immigrants

A bill that would allow police to seize cars from illegal immigrants was approved by the House Thursday.

Bill sponsor Rep. James Mills (R-Gainesville) repeatedly told House members Thursday the measure would protect Georgia citizens from the "epidemic" of illegal immigration. "The state of Georgia's door is being kicked down," Mills said. Immigrants are coming from "Iraq, Iran, Irania(sic), Jordan. We don't know where they're from," Mills said.

The measure passed 104 to 51, and will move to the Senate for consideration.

The bill would allow police to seize any vehicle involved in a traffic violation or accident if it's driven by an illegal immigrant. That includes rented and leased vehicles if the owner knew, or should have known, the driver was an illegal immigrant. It also includes bank-owned cars if the interest-holder actually knew the driver was an illegal immigrant.

The bill prompted a healthy floor debate. Some legislators asked how police would be able to determine whether a driver was an illegal immigrant during a traffic stop. Some wondered if it would create an atmosphere for racial profiling of drivers who police think might be illegal immigrants.

The legislation is part of a package of about 10 Republican proposals introduced this legislative session aimed at discouraging illegal immigration in Georgia.

AJC

Week after week - month after month - states and municipalities around the country take up similar anti-immigrant measures. And with each one passed, the lives of millions of people are changed - undocumented migrants, legal residents, and anyone else who just happens to look "foreign" or rolls their r's just a little too prominently when stopped at a traffic stop, applies for a job, or tries to rent an apartment.

"The legislation is part of a package of about 10 Republican proposals introduced this legislative session aimed at discouraging illegal immigration in Georgia."

And herein lays the problem.

In some ways we have deluded ourselves.

By focusing on what seems to be the "big picture" of the failure of anti-immigrant policies on the national stage, we have lost sight of the most important fact.

As the late Tip O'Neil pointed out …All politics is local….and when it comes to immigration and migrant issues, it's on the local level that much of this battle will need to be fought.

Yet, as a new study shows, it is not the economics or demographics of a given state or city that will determine how rabidly anti-immigrant it's laws and ordinances will be …. It's what political party controls it.

Our analysis suggests that the restrictionist responses of local governments to undocumented immigration is largely unrelated to demographic pressures—whether it be the growth of recent immigrants, or the proportion of Spanish-dominant households. They are also unrelated to the political empowerment of Latinos, as places with large proportions of Latino residents and citizens are no more or no less likely to propose legislation whether it be restrictionist or pro-immigrant. Instead, we find that political factors are more important, most notably partisan composition and the politicization of national immigration reform legislation at the local level.

…One of the strongest explanations for restrictionist versus “pro-immigrant” proposals is the proportion of Republicans and Democrats in the county. Controlling for demographic characteristics, Republican areas are twice as likely to propose restrictionist ordinances, and half as likely to propose “pro-immigrant” ones.

Even stronger effects can be found for the actual passage of such legislation. Other factors, such as the growth of the Latino population and the size of linguistically-isolated Spanish-speaking households, were not associated with a greater likelihood of proposing or passing restrictionist legislation. Thus, demographic factors are not as important as political factors in accounting for ordinances passed by local governments related to unauthorized immigration, either pro or con.


… Cities in Republican areas are about twice as likely as those in Democratic areas to propose restrictionist legislation, and four times as likely to have passed such measures. On the passage of pro-immigrant legislation, Republican areas are about half as likely to consider or pass such measures (another way to say this is that Democrat areas are about twice as likely as Republican areas to consider and pass pro-immigrant measures).

Immigration Policies Go Local: The Varying Responses Of Local Governments To Undocumented Immigration

So while we have been working hard to change the hearts and minds of the US public, trying to counter the lies and misinformation proliferated by the anti-immigrant right, it comes down to mere politics as to whether the lives of millions are better or worse.

Of course, on the grand scale, we've always known the true enemy.

From October of 2005 when Frank Luntz first published "Respect for the Law & Economic Fairness: Illegal Immigration Prevention" and laid down the Republican battle plan for its anti-immigrant campaign, the handwriting's been on the wall.

This has always been a debate rooted in political machinations and calculations. It plays upon the fear, racism and bigotry that permeate the US collective psyche …but it's not organic, springing from the roots of bigotry and discontent …but rather it's been manufactured and nurtured by one political party to be used as a weapon against the other by feeding upon the worst instincts of the American people and appealing to their inner demons rather than better angles.

Less than two years after Luntz's blueprint was published, the plan was in full effect.

As of July 2, 2007, no fewer than 1404 pieces of legislation related to immigrants and immigration had been introduced among the 50 state legislatures. Of these bills, 182 bills became law in 43 states. Four bills have been vetoed by the Governor.

State legislators have introduced roughly two and a half times more bills in 2007 than in 2006. The number of enactments from 2006 (84) has more than doubled to 170 in 2007.

Several states are still in session so there could be additional legislation related to immigrants later this year.

NCSL

Yet for many of us, the disappointments and disillusionment with politics as usual have prevented us from recognizing this clear red/blue divide on this issue. Surely, the Democratic Party' own inability to seize the moral high ground on this issue has not made it easy to see the clear lines of demarcation. Additionally, red state Dems like Heath Shuler, who so readily work in the anti-immigrant camp, cloud the distinctions.

But, when taken as whole … the path forward is clear.

If the pro-migrant movement is to accomplish anything in the long-term, it must start to address the anti-immigrant movement at the local as well as the national level.

We cannot be satisfied by what appears to be progress on the national stage. We can't be satisfied with the apparent growth of a fledgling pro-migrant ground swell. We can't be content with our own efforts to build a movement, or mobilize or give voice to the Latino community, or engage labor, or reach out to progressives. We must start to truly put together a real new majority, a majority made up of all those groups and so many more.

We need a new majority that can take over the statehouses, city councils, and mayors offices across this country, and not just replace the occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, or Congress. We need a new majority that can reclaim the liberal, humanitarian ideals that once marked the Democratic Party … take it over, and then drag it, screaming and kicking, into a new 21st century.

Because if we don't ...we'll just get more of this:

Read More...

Summary only...

Are Dems finally starting to lick the "third rail of US politics?"

It could be that McCain's impending coronation has effectively neutralized the right-wing's effort to force its anti-immigrant positions down the throats of a reluctant electorate while emboldening the Democratic contenders … or it could have just been some political pandering aimed at the upcoming Texas primary. But during last night's CNN/Univision debate in Austin Texas, both candidates articulated positions on immigration and immigration reform with a clarity and forcefulness we have not seen in previous encounters.

This was a far cry from Hillary's backpedaling on driver's licenses back in November

During the first round of questioning, Univision's Jorge Ramos asked the candidates if they would put an end to immigration raids at homes and workplaces until meaningful reform was accomplished. He prefaced his question by pointing out that "the raids had generated a great deal of fear and anxiety in the Hispanic community and have divided the family of some of the 3 million U.S.-born children who have at least one undocumented parent."

Clinton, picking up that theme, answered that she would end most of the raids, adding "(that) when we see what's been happening, with literally babies being left with no one to take care of them, children coming home from school, no responsible adult left, that is not the America that I know. That is against American values. And it is a stark admission of failure by the federal government "

Mrs. Clinton added she would also to take up comprehensive reform within the first one hundred days of a new administration. A pledge similar to the one Mr.Obama has been touting a recently.

Obama later scored big with the Texas crowd when he said that ".. it is absolutely critical that we tone down the rhetoric when it comes to the immigration debate, because there has been an undertone that has been ugly. Oftentimes, it has been directed at the Hispanic community. We have seen hate crimes skyrocket in the wake of the immigration debate as it has been conducted in Washington, and that is unacceptable."

Obama also pointed out that while working towards comprehensive reform, "Something that we can do immediately that I think is very important is to pass the Dream Act, which allows children who through no fault of their own are here but have essentially grown up as Americans, allow them the opportunity for higher education"

This more muscular rhetoric on immigration is a far cry from the warnings and hand wringing we heard from party leaders earlier in the campaign.

Back before the self-immolation of the Republican Right on the pyre of nativism, Democratic leaders and strategists like Rahm Emanuel and the beltway boys at Democracy Corps and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner were warning all who would listen to avoid "the third rail of US politics" and adopt a "Republican-lite" strategy on immigration.

These prophets of doom, citing polling that pointed to an undercurrent of anti-immigrant sentiment among the prized undecided electorate, foretold of the party's imminent demise if they were to even breach the topic of meaningful reform.

But as demonstrated last night, not only are the party's two front-runners actively embracing comprehensive reform and a path to legalization, …the dreaded "amnesty" so feared as a campaign's death knell by the strategists … they have started to broaden the debate. Calling for the ending of immigration raids, enactment of the DREAM Act, an examination of US policies towards Mexico that foster migration, and even limiting the building of the much heralded border wall, are not proposals we would have heard two months ago from these candidates.

Perhaps they've figured out what we've known all along. That the vast majority of Americans do not favor the draconian measures the far-right is so enamored of, and instead want reform that is fair, practical, and humane. … or maybe Obama was right when he said this was the "silly season" when campaign rhetoric outpaces reality ….but we can certainly hope it is the former.

RAMOS: (SPEAKING IN SPANISH) Federal raids by immigration enforcement officials on homes and businesses have generated a great deal of fear and anxiety in the Hispanic community and have divided the family of some of the 3 million U.S.-born children who have at least one undocumented parent.

Would you consider stopping these raids once you take office until comprehensive immigration reform can be passed?

CLINTON: I would consider that, except in egregious situations where it would be appropriate to take the actions you're referring to.

But when we see what's been happening, with literally babies being left with no one to take care of them, children coming home from school, no responsible adult left, that is not the America that I know.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: That is against American values. And it is...

(APPLAUSE)

And it is a stark admission of failure by the federal government. We need comprehensive immigration reform. I have been for this. I signed onto the first comprehensive bill back in 2004. I've been advocating for it: tougher, more secure borders, of course, but let's do it the right way, cracking down on employers, especially once we get to comprehensive immigration reform, who exploit undocumented workers and drive down wages for everyone else.

I'd like to see more federal help for communities like Austin and others like Laredo, where I was this morning, that absorb the health care, education, and law enforcement costs.

And I personally, as president, would work with our neighbors to the south, to help them create more jobs for their own people.

Finally, we need a path to legalization, to bring the immigrants out of the shadows, give them the conditions that we expect them to meet, paying a fine for coming here illegally, trying to pay back taxes, over time, and learning English.

If they had a committed a crime in our country or the country they came from, then they should be deported. But for everyone else, there must be a path to legalization. I would introduce that in the first 100 days of my presidency.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: Senator Obama, is your position the same as Hillary Clinton's?

OBAMA: There are a couple of things I would add. Comprehensive immigration reform is something that I have worked on extensively.

Two years ago, we were able to get a bill out of the Senate. I was one of the group of senators that helped to move it through, but it died in the House this year. Because it was used as a political football instead of a way of solving a problem, nothing happened.

And so there are a couple of things that I would just add to what Senator Clinton said.

Number one, it is absolutely critical that we tone down the rhetoric when it comes to the immigration debate, because there has been an undertone that has been ugly.

Oftentimes, it has been directed at the Hispanic community. We have seen hate crimes skyrocket in the wake of the immigration debate as it has been conducted in Washington, and that is unacceptable.

We are a nation of laws and we are a nation of immigrants, and we can reconcile those two things. So we need comprehensive reform...

(APPLAUSE)

... we need comprehensive reform, and that means stronger border security. It means that we are cracking down on employers that are taking advantage of undocumented workers because they can't complain if they're not paid a minimum wage.

OBAMA: They can't complain if they're not getting overtime. Worker safety laws are not being observed.

We have to crack down on those employers, although we also have to make sure that we do it in a way that doesn't lead to people with Spanish surnames being discriminated against, so there's got to be a safeguard there.

We have to require that undocumented workers, who are provided a pathway to citizenship, not only learn English, pay back taxes and pay a significant fine, but also that they're going to the back of the line, so that they are not getting citizenship before those who have applied legally, which raises two last points.

Number one, it is important that we fix the legal immigration system, because right now we've got a backlog that means years for people to apply legally.

(APPLAUSE)

And what's worse is, we keep on increasing the fees, so that if you've got a hard working immigrant family, they've got to hire a lawyer; they've got to pay thousands of dollars in fees. They just can't afford it. And it's discriminatory against people who have good character, we should want in this country, but don't have the money. So we've got to fix that.

OBAMA: So we've got to fix that.

The second thing is, we have to improve our relationship with Mexico and work with the Mexican government so that their economy is producing jobs on that side of the border.

And the problem that we have...

(APPLAUSE)

The problem that we have is that we have had an administration that came in promising all sorts of leadership on creating a U.S.- Mexican relationship. And, frankly, President Bush dropped the ball. He has been so obsessed with Iraq that we have not seen the kinds of outreach and cooperative work that would ensure that the Mexican economy is working not just for the very wealthy in Mexico, but for all people. And that's as policy that I'm going to change when I'm president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: All right, Senator Obama.

We're going to stay with this topic. I want to have John King ask another question.

Go ahead, John.

KING: I want to stay on the issue, but move to a controversial item that was not held up when the immigration debate collapsed in Washington, and that is the border fence.

KING: To many Americans, it is a simple question of sovereignty and security. America should be able to keep people out that it doesn't want in.

But, as you know in this state, especially if you go to the south of here, along the border, and in other border states, to many people it's a much more personal question. It could be a question of their livelihood. It could be a question of cross-border trade. It might be an issue to a rancher of property rights. It might be a simple question of whether someone can take a walk or a short drive to see their family members.

Senator, back in 2006, you voted for the construction of that fence. As you know, progress has been slow.

As president of the United States, would you commit tonight that you would finish the fence and speed up the construction, or do you think it's time for a president of the United States to raise his or her hand and say, "You know what? Wait a minute. Let's think about this again. Do we really want to do this?"

CLINTON: Well, I think both Senator Obama and I voted for that as part of the immigration debate.

CLINTON: And having been along the border for the last week or so -- in fact, last night I was at the University of Texas at Brownsville -- and this is how absurd this has become under the Bush administration. Because, you know, there is a smart way to protect our borders, and there is a dumb way to protect our borders.

(APPLAUSE)

And what I learned last night when I was there with Congressman Ortiz is that the University of Texas at Brownsville would have part of its campus cut off.

This is the kind of absurdity that we're getting from this administration. I know it because I've been fighting with them about the northern border. Their imposition of passports and other kinds of burdens are separating people from families, interfering with business and commerce, the movement of goods and people.

So what I've said is that I would say, wait a minute, we need to review this. There may be places where a physical barrier is appropriate.

I think when both of us voted for this, we were voting for the possibility that where it was appropriate and made sense, it would be considered. But as with so much, the Bush administration has gone off the deep end, and they are unfortunately coming up with a plan that I think is counterproductive.

CLINTON: So I would have a review. I would listen to the people who live along the border, who understand...

(APPLAUSE)

... what it is we need to be doing to protect our country.

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: Let me go on, again -- John?

KING: Does that mean that you think your vote was wrong, or the implementation of it was wrong?

Because, as you know, when they first built the fence in the San Diego area, it only went so far. And what it did was it sopped the people coming straight up the path of where that was built, and they simply moved. And California's problem became Arizona's problem.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: But, you know, John, there is -- there's a lot we've learned about technology and smart fencing. You know, there is technology that can be used instead of a physical barrier.

CLINTON: It requires us having enough personnel along the border so that people can be supervising a certain limited amount of space and will be able to be responsive in the event of people attempting to cross illegally.

I think that the way that the Bush administration is going about this, filing eminent domain actions against landowners and municipalities, makes no sense.

So what I have said is, yes, there are places when after a careful review, again listening to the people who live along the border, there may be limited places where it would work. But let's deploy more technology and personnel, instead of the physical barrier.

I frankly think that will work better and it will give us an opportunity to secure our borders without interfering with family relations, business relations, recreation and so much else that makes living along the border, you know, wonderful.

BROWN: All right.

CLINTON: And the people who live there need to have a president who understands it, will listen to them and be responsive.

BROWN: All right, Senator Clinton.

(APPLAUSE)

Senator Obama, go ahead please.

OBAMA: Well, this is an area where Senator Clinton and I almost entirely agree. I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier.

And the Bush administration is not real good at listening. That's not what they do well.

(LAUGHTER)

And so I will reverse that policy. As Senator Clinton indicated, there may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing. But for the most part, having border patrolled, surveillance, deploying effective technology, that's going to be the better approach.

The one thing I do have to say, though, about this issue is, it is very important for us, I think, to deal with this problem in terms of thousands of -- hundreds of thousands of people coming over the borders on a regular basis if we want to also provide opportunity for the 12 million undocumented workers who are here.

OBAMA: Senator Clinton and I have both campaigned in places like Iowa and Ohio and my home state of Illinois, and I think that the American people want fairness, want justice. I think they recognize that the idea that you're going to deport 12 million people is ridiculous, that we're not going to be devoting all our law enforcement resources...

(APPLAUSE)

... to sending people back.

But what they do also want is some order to the process. And so, we're not going to be able to do these things in isolation. We're not going to be able to deal with the 12 million people who are living in the shadows and give them a way of getting out of the shadows if we don't also deal with the problem of this constant influx of undocumented workers.

And that's why I think comprehensive reform is so important. That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the past; that's the kind of leadership that I'll show in the future.

One last point I want to make on the immigration issue because we may be moving to different topics: Something that we can do immediately that I think is very important is to pass the Dream Act, which allows children who through no fault of their own are here but have essentially grown up as Americans, allow them the opportunity for higher education.

OBAMA: I do not want two classes of citizens in this country.

(APPLAUSE)

I want everybody to prosper. That's going to be a top priority.
CNN

Read More...

Summary only...

We Saw the Face of a New America

On May 1st 2006, millions took to the streets in cities and communities throughout the nation to finally have their voices heard.

Out from the shadows came the forgotten, the marginalized, the nameless, faceless, mass of humanity who toil daily in thankless jobs with little reward or recognition.

Those who had labored invisibly for years as they quietly provided a nation with prosperity of which they could never partake, took to the streets to say "no more". We will no longer be marginalized … We will no longer be demonized … We will not be criminalized ….We Are America.

That day, as pundits and politicians tried to grasp the seismic shift taking place, attempting to read the tea leaves of public opinion and formulate positions that would serve them politically, two men had the courage to do not what was safe or politically expedient …but rather, what was right.

One was an elder statesman, a lion in winter, who had long fought the great battles of his generation, battles for justice, and battles for equality. ….The other was a young man, just starting his political journey. A young man with a vision of the future based on hopes and dreams for a new America... An America that finally lived up to the principles and precepts on which it was founded. Those two men were Sen. Ted Kennedy and Sen. Barack Obama….The only two sitting Senators to take to the streets in solidarity with those who had too long been invisible.

video link

Three days later Obama had this to say about his participation in the events in Chicago, and his vision for a new America:

On Monday, I traveled from D.C. to Chicago to witness a monumental event. There were 400,000 people marching on behalf of comprehensive immigration reform in this country. There were rallies all across the country but Chicago was one of the largest. I had the opportunity to speak to the people who were gathering at Union Park before they marched over to Grant Park. Four-hundred thousand people, mostly of Mexican origin, but large numbers of people from other countries - Nigerians and Pakistanis and Indians and Filipinos - people who've come to this country for the same reason that immigrants have been drawn to this country for generations: the notion that they can pursue and better life for themselves but, most importantly, for their children, if they work hard and apply themselves.

…I think what we saw in those marches is the face of a new America. America is changing and we can't be threatened by it. We have to understand that we are going to be better off united than divided.

…to those who are fearful of these immigrants, in some cases because they have come to represent a loss of control for the country and its borders, I would just say to them that we can't have a country in which you have a servant class that is picking our lettuce or plucking our chickens or looking after our children or mowing our lawns but who never have the full rights and obligations of citizenship. That's just not the kind of country that I want to have my children grow up in and my hope is that over the coming months we can come up with the kind of comprehensive, thoughtful legislation that I think the Senate bill reflects and we can have strong border security, we can have employers do the right thing by hiring those who are here legally in some fashion, but that we also provide all those families, children, elderly people and teenagers that I saw in that amazing march on Monday the opportunity to be full members of the American community.

Barack Obama on Immigration Marches, May 4, 2006

Read More...

Summary only...

Yes We Can

video link

There is something happening when people vote not just for the party they belong to but the hopes they hold in common - that whether we are rich or poor; black or white; Latino or Asian; whether we hail from Iowa or New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina, we are ready to take this country in a fundamentally new direction. That is what's happening in America right now. Change is what's happening in America.

You can be the new majority who can lead this nation out of a long political darkness - Democrats, Independents and Republicans who are tired of the division and distraction that has clouded Washington; who know that we can disagree without being disagreeable; who understand that if we mobilize our voices to challenge the money and influence that's stood in our way and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there's no problem we can't solve - no destiny we cannot fulfill.

…We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics who will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks to come. We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we've been told that we're not ready, or that we shouldn't try, or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.

Yes we can.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.

Yes we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights.

Yes we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.

Yes we can.

It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballot; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.

Yes we can to justice and equality.
Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can repair this world.
Yes we can.

And so tomorrow, as we take this campaign South and West; as we learn that the struggles of the textile worker in Spartanburg are not so different than the plight of the dishwasher in Las Vegas; that the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in America's story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea –

Yes.

We.

Can.

Barack Obama . com

Read More...

Summary only...

Crusader Huckabee and God's Law

The past twenty-four hours have provided even further insight into just what a Huckabee presidency would look like. Last night in Warren, Michigan, Huckabee concluded his remarks to a cheering crowd by explaining the need to rewrite the Constitution to better reflect "Gods standards".

Then today, speaking to a crowd of about 300 in Rock Hill, South Carolina, the good reverend, further honing his anti-immigrant credentials, called for a stop to all immigration of people from "countries that sponsor or harbor terrorists." The Huckster managed to tie together in that simple statement both the specter of terrorism and the rabid anti-immigrant rhetoric dominating the discourse in the Republican field.

While these two events would seem unrelated, they say much about Huckabee's world view, and what role he believes religion should play in public policy

[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within "God's standards," which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to "pray and then work hard, and in that order," to help him secure a victory in Tuesday's GOP primary.

link

Obviously, amending the Constitution so that it better aligns with Huckabee's version of "God's law" shows a total disregard for the very separations outlined in that document. But his call to essentially end immigration from a great many countries that just happen to be Islamic, says equally as much about his vision of America as a "Christian Nation." While not having to say the words, Huckabee, when referring to "nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists," sends a message that couldn't be clearer to his supporters…. "No more Muslims...they threaten the future of white, Christian America"

"There's a couple of things we're going to do differently…. "I say we ought to put a hiatus on people who come in here ... if they come from countries that sponsor and harbor terrorists."

"Let's say, until you get your act in order, and we get our act in order, we're not going to just let you keep coming and threaten the future and safety of America," he said.

"Every one of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 came here legally. Our government welcomed them in," Huckabee said.

Link

As a pastor in his previous life, Huckabee is no stranger to the concept of "the crusade". Evangelicals have been throwing "crusades" since the early days of Billy Graham. But the Huckster seems to be taking the concept far too literally...more in line with it's original medieval origins. He's waging a campaign against not only "fanatical Islam" that he believes threatens his "Christian Nation", but homegrown heretics, and non-believers, unwilling to submit to his version of the "word of the living God."

This video speaks volumes about Huckabee's willingness to not just blur the lines between church and state ...but to make the state the vehicle to enforce the "laws of God":


Video Link

In the past, Huckabee has made no qualms about calling for a movement to "take this nation back for Christ.", and perhaps we need to keep this in mind as the witty and engaging candidate further charms his way into the mainstream of political discourse. He's on a crusade. Today he's advocating barring immigration from Islamic countries, tomorrow, if given the power, he would change our very Constitution to better reflect his vision of a Christian America. And if the American people ignore that fact, swayed by his folksy, "aw-shucks" kind of appeal, …they do so at their own peril.

Special Bonus:
I happened to stumbled upon this while searching for graphics …This has to be Huckabee's favorite cartoon from his childhood. Because he's obviously taken it to heart:


Video Link

(a hoard of varmints invades Texas and uses up vital resources, they are rounded up and scheduled for deportation, then Crusader Rabbit organizes and wins an election and all the troubles end. ...It must have left quite an impression on little Mikey)

Read More...

Summary only...

Rumors of demise greatly exaggerated, the wedge won't die

The press, pundits and blogosphere have been abuzz with rumors of the death of the "immigration issue".

Citing the failure of anti-immigrant sentiment to translate into votes at the ballot box in the recent presidential primaries, the chattering classes have been quick to discount the issue's real effectiveness as an electoral wedge.

A stategy that "immigration is a non-issue" has been the de-facto official company-line from the DNC since early December when they released a new set of talking points on the issue after the failure of the wedge to deliver in the key off year races.

But now the Republicans seem to be picking up the mantra as well.

In tonight's debate in S Carolina, Republican Fox News only devoted one round of questions to the topic, this in contrast to previous debates where large blocks of time were spent on the issue.

Arch-Conservative, Robert Novak, commenting on the results from New Hampshire, wrote, "There is a growing body of evidence that making immigration the No. 1 issue is a political mistake."

Clearly, the specter of a presidential election dominated by anti-immigrant rhetoric is beginning to slip off the radar. In fact, if Mitt Romney fails to take Michigan this coming Tuesday the anti-immigrant crowd will be left out in the cold with no viable standard bearer.

How they will react to this abandonment is yet to be seen …But it shouldn't be assumed they will go quietly into the night.

The national media, political strategists and chatterati, fixated on the horserace that will dominate political discourse for the next ten months, are now viewing all things through the prism of presidential politics.

They've been quick to point to the failure of one-trick-pony, Tom Tancredo, and his evil doppelganger, Duncan Hunter, to gain any traction with their rapid anti-immigrant rhetoric, or Romney's failure to deliver, as a sign that immigration is a dead issue.

But this logic has a fatal flaw.

It’s based on the performance of individual candidates and assumes that the "immigration issue" is the sole determining factor for their failure. It discounts the fact that no single issue, no matter what it is, or how compelling, can make a highly flawed candidate electable.

Take Tancredo for example. He was utterly unqualified for the position he was vying for with no real credentials and absolutely no appeal beyond the fringe. He could hardly be considered a viable candidate. He had no more chance then Mike Gravel or Ron Paul from the start and most likely couldn't get elected dog catcher in a national election.

Duncan Hunter ….. who?
He was hardly the most well-know, likable, or charismatic congressmen in the bunch, whose only redeeming quality seemed to be that he looked like a scary, middle-school, Vice-Principal who could make kids eat their vegetables.

And then there's Romney.

Besides having a seemingly bottomless pocketbook and a willingness to flaunt it, all the charms of used-car pitchman on late-night TV, and the demeanor of a reptile, his unique inability to stick to one position, or have consistent principles, makes the previous presidential contender from Massachusetts, once vilified for being a "flop-flopper," look like the Rock of Gibraltar in comparison. Romney's apparent failure has far more to do with Romney himself, than any of the myriad of positions he's taken.

And of course let's not forget Grampa Fred …..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

But this has not prevented the experts from ringing a death knoll for the "immigration issue."

Romney ran commercials that aired more than 12,000 times, mostly in Iowa and New Hampshire, promising to be rough and tough when it comes to illegal immigration. Romney used the debates and his commercials to blast his challengers, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Huckabee, for being soft on illegal immigrants.
…The results are in. In a state where voters had a clear choice to vote for Romney's tough stance on illegal immigration in the Republican caucuses, they instead turned out in historic numbers to vote Democratic. There they picked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who has unabashedly advocated an earned path to citizenship for the undocumented.
On the Republican side, Romney, despite his overwhelming funding advantage, came up short.
Chicago Tribune

the anti-immigration card didn't work in New Hampshire. Contrary to expectations, McCain won despite virulent attacks by fellow Republican hopeful Mitt Romney and others that he was being too soft on the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
According to exit polls, immigration was not among the three most important issues for Democrats, and was tied for third place among Republicans.
Miami Herald

Yet, what's not being reported or discussed is what's happening on the state and local level.

A quick search of local news reveals that immigration is far from a dead issue. It seems that almost daily some state legislator is offering up a new anti-immigration bill or resolution. This group comes to us from today:

House Republican leaders unveiled an immigration reform plan Monday that would bill the federal government for the cost of detaining illegal immigrants and prevent illegals from attending any public college.
House speaker unveils plan to curb illegal immigration in SC

The 2008 Legislative Session doesn’t begin mid-January, but already the topic of immigration is high on the agenda. In the state of Missouri, eleven bills pertaining to immigration have been pre-filed as of Dec. 26: seven in the House of Representatives and four in the Senate.
Link

Two immigration-related bills are heading to the full Senate Judiciary Committee.

A Senate panel passed bills that would require government paperwork in South Carolina be written only in English and ask Congress to call for a constitutional convention on immigration.
link

LINCOLN, Neb. — A state lawmaker wants to wave a big stick at companies who may be hiring illegal immigrants, threatening to take away their state-approved tax breaks if they knowingly employ them.
Link

Gov. Tim Pawlenty waded back into the immigration debate Monday, reaffirming his concern with an issue that is heating up his party's presidential nomination contest and drawing complaints that his motives may be political.

Pawlenty outlined measures to crack down on illegal immigration, signing an executive order to allow some Minnesota law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law for the first time, requiring new state employees and contractors to verify citizenship and ordering the review of millions of driver's license photos for possible duplication.

The governor also proposed -- again -- to reverse the so-called sanctuary laws that prevent local police from inquiring about residents' immigration status.

He said he'd cut state aid to municipalities that refuse.
Link

It took about three minutes for Sen. Jim Barone, D-Frontenac, to talk about illegal immigration at the Legislative Send Off Monday afternoon.

That's about how quickly legislators think it will take to get into the issue when they report for the start of the 2008 session.

"I'm sure we'll probably be talking about that at 2 p.m. next Monday," Barone said.

"I'm not sure that there isn't already something already filed," said Rep. Bob Grant, D-Cherokee. "We may be dealing with that at 8:30 a.m."

Immigration was the top issue discussed by Barone, Grant and Rep. Julie Menghini, D-Pittsburg, at the annual legislative send-off, where local business and city leaders gathered to listen and ask questions about the hot button issues over the next session
Link

So while of the top Republican ticket might end up not reflecting a strong anti-immigrant bent …. down-ticket, it will surly be a major issue. And this demonstrates the real power the wedge might have.

We've seen over the last two years what little power the Whitehouse really has in greater debate. Between congressional obstruction at the national level and action in statehouses and city councils, the anti-immigrant forces have continually moved their agenda forward. And we ignore this fact at our own peril.

Along with a continuation of restrictive and punitive legislation on the local and state level, it's obvious that immigration will play out as a determining factor this coming November not only in Congressional and possibly Senatorial contests, but also in races for state and local legislators. The specter of anti-immigrant ballot initiatives and referendums looms great just as the anti-gay referendums did in 2004.

The Republicans opened a Pandora's Box of hate and ignorance with the formulation of the immigration wedge, and it will be nearly impossible now to force those demons back into the box.

We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security simply because we don't hear a rapid debate over immigration taking place between the Presidential contenders. As long as candidates down-ticket can use the wedge….it's still viable ….and will not die.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama: Sí, se puede … almost

In an eloquent and stirring concession speech, Barack Obama ended his failed effort in New Hampshire with a rousing call for hope and change.

Assuring his supporters that the campaign would move forward to ultimate victory, Obama, whose message of "change" was picked up by all the major candidates from both parties except McCain, refined his message of inclusiveness to contain the rallying cry of "yes we can".

Reaffirming the belief that when faced with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, the American people can rise to the challenge if they have the will to do so, Obama listed off a litany of historical occasions when an apparently quixotic quest became reality through the sheer power of will. The junior Senator from Illinios led followers in an emotional call and response, punctuating each occurrence with the phrase "yes we can".

We know the battle ahead will be long. But always remember that, no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics. And they will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks and months to come.

We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

For when we have faced down impossible odds, when we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes, we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can.

It was the call of workers who organized, women who reached for the ballot, a president who chose the moon as our new frontier, and a king who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the promised land: Yes, we can, to justice and equality.

Yes, we can, to opportunity and prosperity. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can repair this world. Yes, we can.

But conspicuously absent in the list of dreamers and visionaries who have shaped the fabric of the nation, was the man perhaps most associated with the phrase "yes we can"; Cesar Chavez.

With his omission of Chavez, and the movement he founded, Obama missed a golden opportunity to reach out Latino voters.

Although he referenced "the call of workers who organized", apparently referring to the UFW, Obama seems to have walked up to a line ….but was reluctant to cross it.

He mentioned a president who inspired us to reach for the moon, and "a king who took us to the mountaintop", but did not reference "the caesar" who coined his new rallying call. He just couldn't bring himself to say the words that would have demonstrated true solidarity with the nations fastest growing demographic …"sí, se puede".

Those three simple words, spoken in their original tongue, would have sent a clear message to all that Obama really means what he says when he speaks of his "new American majority… of rich or poor, black or white, Latino or Asian… ready to take this country in a fundamentally new direction"

While some might claim that Obama's use of the slogan in English is an obvious homage to it's originator, and by extension an outreach to Latino voters, the subtlety is easily lost on those not aware of the phrase's history.

This was no more evident than in an exchange between right-wing pundit Pat Buchanan and Air America's Rachel Maddow during MSNBC's coverage of the speech. When Maddow reminded Buchanan of the phrase's Spanish translation, he quickly jumped on it, barking and growling about Obama taking up the cause of "illegal aliens" ....until Maddow pointed out that it was in fact a slogan born out of union organizing, and had resonance for all working people.

And herein lies the problem.

Obama is well aware of the fact that for many voters, their only familiarity with with the phrase comes from the toxic debate over immigration, and when given an opportunity to really demonstrate his "new American majority" of inclusiveness, a chance to enlighten and teach by example, he took the path of least resistance.

For a man who recently claimed just how much words matter, and the great power they have to effect change, what is not said is often just as important as what is.


…oh, well, maybe next time… sí, se puede

Read More...

Summary only...

Huckabee's New Strategy - Embrace Hatred

Today, two important events demonstrated just how far to the right the Republican Presidential candidates are shifting on the immigration issue. The first was the endorsement of Iowa front runner, Mike Huckabee, by Minutemen founder, Jim Gilchrist –not so much for the fact that Gilchrist is once again trying to thrust his agenda center stage – but rather Huckabee's willingness to embrace it.

On stage at an event in Council Bluffs with Gilchrist ,Huckabee characterized the anti- immigrant vigilante as "a person who just got fed up with what he saw as a breakdown of his own government.…Since October of 2004 he's been one of the leading voices in this country trying to bring sanity to an issue that's spiraled.." adding:

"Frankly, Jim I've got to tell you there were times in the early days of the Minutemen I thought what are these guys doing, what are they about," Huckabee said. "I confess I owe you an apology." He said of Gilchrist, "nobody can question his commitment to his country."

Washington Post

The second event was an announcement by the leading civil rights watchdog group, The Southern Poverty Law Center, that the parent organization of the Washington think tank that's been credited with formulating Huckabee's new tough nine-point plan on immigration has been officially placed on their list of Hate Groups operating in the US.

In a statement issued today, the SPLC asserted that due to its ties to know white supremacists and promotion of racist ideas, the nation's leading anti-immigrant organization, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), would be placed on the Hate Group list. It joins other radical groups like the Neo-Nazi, National Alliance, and the KKK, who also share the same classification.

The country's leading anti-immigration organization — whose leaders have testified repeatedly before Congress and are frequently quoted in the media — has ties to known racists and a long track record of bigotry, according to a new report released today by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

The group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR):

• is the creation of a man who operates a racist publishing company and has compared immigrants to "bacteria;"



• has employed members of white supremacist groups in key positions;



• has promoted racist conspiracy theories; and



• has accepted more than $1 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation devoted to eugenics and to proving a connection between race and IQ.

The SPLC today added FAIR to its list of hate groups operating in the United States.

"FAIR's position on immigration is rooted more in its anti-Latino and anti-Catholic beliefs than in policy concerns," said Mark Potok, the director of the SPLC's project that monitors hate group activity. "Remarkably, it has still managed to infiltrate the mainstream and shape the immigration debate in this country."

FAIR helped defeat federal immigration reform earlier this year and has played a key role in fueling the fierce, anti-immigrant backlash in the United States. It was founded in 1979 by John Tanton, a man who has compared immigrants to bacteria and warned that high birthrates will allow Latinos to take over America. Still a member of FAIR's board, Tanton also operates The Social Contract Press, listed as a hate group for many years by the SPLC because of its anti-Latino and white supremacist writings.
SPLC

FAIR's ties to Huckabee come through its public policy wing; The Center for Immigration Studies, which the former Arkansas Governor has widely credited for the formulation of his new "get tough" immigration policy. In fact he pretty much just lifted the whole thing from a proposal by CIS executive director Mark Krikorian.

The nine-point immigration plan released Friday by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee came with a footnote:

"Note: This plan is partially modeled on a proposal by Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies." That proposal by the conservative anti-illegal immigration activist was published in the National Review in May 2005.

Not only is Huckabee's plan strikingly similar to the magazine piece – in some cases, it contains exact quotations copied over from the article

CNN

Its been well documented that FAIR, CIS and a network of other leading anti-immigrant groups are all in fact not only connected, but were all founded and under the leadership of one man; John Tanton, who for over 25 years has been the driving force behind the ant-immigrant movement. The groups share funding, leadership, and in some cases offices.

in 1985, FAIR would spin off yet another major Tanton organization — the Center for Immigration Studies, which presented itself as an impartial think tank and later even sought to distance itself from the organization that had birthed it.

Today, the Center regularly dispatches experts to testify on Capitol Hill, and last year it was awarded a six-figure research contract by the U.S. Census Bureau.

SPLC

SPLC on Federation for American Immigration Reform

The fact that Huckabee has chosen to align himself with CIS, Krikorian, and FAIR is not surprising. FAIR, through its networks of organizations, has become a leading political force in anti-immigrant politics. During the last debate over immigration reform legislation, FAIR affiliate, Numbers USA, was credited with a campaign that generated over a million faxes in opposition to the bill. Obviously with the adoption of Kirkorian's immigration policies Huckabee is hoping to put the full weight of the Tanton network behind his campaign.

This "new" Mike Huckabee is a far cry from the preacher turned politician who a few years ago called anti-immigrant legislation "Un-Christian"

Gov. Mike Huckabee Thursday denounced a bill by Sen. Jim Holt that would deny state benefits to illegal immigrants as un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life.

… Even if benefits to people who are in the U.S illegally could be stopped, "I don't understand how a practicing Christian can turn his back on a child from this or any other state," Huckabee said.

… The bill is modeled after a similar law in Arizona and supported by the newly formed group Protect Arkansas NOW. The group's chairman is Joe McCutchen

… Huckabee said he took exception to characterization of immigrants in the bill and by its supporters as exploiters of social programs. "They pay sales taxes on their groceries," Huckabee said. "They pay fuel taxes. If they're using a fake Social Security number, they're paying Social Security taxes and will never receive any benefit. It would be closer to the truth to say they're subsidizing Joe McCutchen and Jim Holt more than the other way around.

Arkansas News Bureau, 1/28/05

But then again, the old Mike Huckabee could never have gotten through the Republican primary process …not in the current toxic climate where hate groups, racist vigilantes, and politicians willingly join forces to pander and promote hatred and fear.

Read More...

Summary only...