The Raw Politics of Immigration Reform Should Lead to Legislation

There are numerous reasons why it would be wise for Washington to address the nation&'s failed immigration policies sooner rather than later and finally fix a system that no one on either end of the political spectrum believes is either functioning properly or serving the best interests of the people . Even though studies show that reforming immigration would be a boost to the economy at a time when it could surely use one, and human rights issues make reforming the system a moral imperative, many still believe that it's an issue too politically hot to handle.

Since nothing yet has provided the requisite motivation to those in Washington to move forward and tackle reform, it&'s time to start to look at it through a prism they can understand: Pure Machiavellian political calculation.

As has been rightly pointed out, reform cannot be a one party affair, and to get it accomplished there will have to be some reaching across the aisle and bipartisan compromise. Yet, given the current polarization in Washington, accomplishing such a task might seem to be impossible ... until of course we look at the alternatives.

It's quite obvious at this point that the American electorate is furious, with discontent across the political spectrum from left to right ... and more importantly the middle.

Confidence in Washington is approaching record lows with few having faith in elected officials to fix the serious problems facing the nation. 60% believe that the country's heading in the wrong direction. The elation of 2008 that a new era of change was upon us, and that the gridlock and partisan politics of the past might finally give way to effective governance, has quickly given way to distrust and cynicism.

Those from both parties now face an angry public more intent than ever to throw the bums out of office.

On the right, all but the most hard-core reactionary conservatives face challenges from the far-right extremes of their party. In Florida, one-time party favorite, Charlie Crist, looks like toast with teabagger Marco Rubio crushing him in the polls. Former standard bearer, John McCain, daily tries to distance himself from every past position he's ever held in hopes of warding off primary defeat. In NY23 the pitchfork and torch crowd lunched a successful coup, driving out the party favorite, ultimately handing the election to the opposition.

Fueled by the vitriolic rants of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, and living in an information isolation-bubble created by the FOX News noise machine, the angry mob has become emboldened and threatens to tear their party apart in a frenzy of fratricide.

On the left, the inability of the administration and its Congressional allies to deliver on their promise to usher in a new era in Washington has had a different effect. While the right-wing base is energized, the historic coalition that Obama built of youth, ethnic voters, and independents is withering away due to ambivalence and disillusion.

As we saw in NJ, VA, and most recently in MA, the Obama coalition simply failed to show up at the polls. And those that did were the disenchanted independents still looking for change who thought they'd find it in a pick-up truck driving, faux-populist, "independent Republican."

But as much as both parties are having problems with their respective bases, it's the magic 40+% unaffiliated voters who now create the most problems for both.

They're sick and tired of the partisan bickering, political posturing, and gridlock that prevail in Washington.

They're scared. They see a faltering economy, endless wars, high unemployment and an uncertain future, and they want something done.

They watched the protracted political sausage making that mired down the health care debate, the convoluted economics of the stimulus bill, and the daily theater of the absurd as obstructionist Republicans did everything in their power to derail an Obama presidency ... and they're fed up.

They want to clean house, and few incumbents will be safe from their wrath.

Realizing this, both parties have telegraphed their electoral strategies.

Republicans will attempt to run as outsiders, trying to convince voters that somehow Washington careerists are in fact, fresh faces with new ideas, all along stalling and trying their damnedest to prevent anything from getting accomplished that might make Obama look good.

The Democrats, with Obama in the lead, will hammer away on those very same stall tactics and try to lay the blame for all the gridlock and partisan rancor in Washington at the Republican's feet.

But both these plans contain Achilles heels that could doom them to failure.

As a new poll just released by non-partisan independent pollster Research 2000 of over 2,000 self-identified Republicans shows, the base has moved so far to the extreme they could become toxic for incumbents in all but the reddest of red states. Particularly given Obama's still very high personal popularity.

• 63% think Obama is a socialist
• only 42% believe he was born in US
• 39% want Obama impeached.
• 53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama
• 23% want to secede from US
• 24% believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win
• 31% believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people
• 73% think gay men and women shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools
• 31% want contraceptives outlawed

In order to paint themselves as outsiders, Republicans, who make up only 22.5% the electorate, will be forced to embrace those in their party who have already firmly staked out that ground ... the teabaggers and birthers who flocked to last summers town halls to "take their country back."

Having to cater to this constituency not only to ward off primary challenges or raise funds, but to appear "mavericky" enough, Republicans run the risk of alienating the independents and moderates essential to winning general elections. In many ways, in order to remain viable in general elections dominated by centrist independents, Republicans will need to distance themselves from what now appears to be the public face of their party.

A recent Gallup poll shows just how risky catering to the base could be. It's still a very blue country:

Overall, 49% of Americans in 2009 identified as Democrats or said they were independent but leaned to the Democratic Party, while 41% identified as Republicans or were Republican-leaning independents In total, 23 states plus the District of Columbia can be classified as solidly Democratic, with a 10 percentage-point or greater advantage in party affiliation in favor of the Democrats. This includes most of the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions, most of the Great Lakes region, and the Pacific Coast.

Another 10 states can be considered Democratic leaning, in which the state's Democratic supporters outnumber Republican supporters by at least 5 percentage points but less than 10 points. These are Missouri, Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, and Tennessee.

Four states are solidly Republican, with a better than 10-point advantage in Republican affiliation -- Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, and Idaho. Alabama qualifies as the lone Republican-leaning state, with a 6-point advantage in Republican affiliation.

That leaves 12 states that are competitive, with less than a 5-point advantage for either party. Among these 13 states, 6 tilt in a Republican direction: Montana, Nebraska, Mississippi, Texas, North Dakota, and Kansas. Six tilt toward the Democratic Party: Georgia, South Dakota, Louisiana, Arizona, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.

Gallup

Republicans would need to replicate their "Massachusetts Miracle" across the electoral map in order to succeed … something far easier to crow about, than do.

For Democrats, the "blame it all on the Republicans" strategy is risky also. Congressional Democrats' approval ratings are in the toilet, only slightly higher than the Republicans:

PARTY	APPROVE	DISAPPROVE
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS:	37	59
CONGRESSIONAL GOP:	21	63

This low standing in most part due to their perceived inability to get anything accomplished and getting mired down in the toxic partisan bickering that has marked this Congress.

Attempting now to point fingers at the opposition is a dicey proposition.

With all his substantial personal charms and political skills, even Obama would be walking the fine line between criticizing partisanship and engaging in it… A risky move even in a far less volatile political climate.

It's even riskier when attempted by far less well-liked and politically talented Democrats who run the risk of sounding like they're just making shrill excuses for their bad behavior.

But perhaps both parties would be better served if they actually just did the people's bidding and found a way to get something done. It would serve them well to roll up their sleeves and put partisan political gamesmanship aside long enough to get at least one piece of major legislation passed this session. It would be in both their political best interests.

Republican's would be able to defuse Democratic attacks about being obstructionists and have some claim to the middle at a time when the extreme base of the party appears to be anything but, and Democrats would prove they can get something done.

It's for this reason that the time to address immigration reform has come.

• It's the kind of "tough issue" that polls have constantly shown the American people want tackled.
• It has the support of a broad coalition that includes labor, business, and faith-based organizations.
• Good arguments have be made for the economic benefits of enacting reform
• The demographics work…neither party can survive long-term without the Latino and New American vote
• Polling shows the majority of Americans favor reform
• It's received bi-partisan support in the past
• Restrictionist campaigns have consistently failed at the polls

From a purely political point of view this seems to be a no-brainer.

 

 

 

-----------------

SOME USEFUL INFO ON REFORM

1. Fact Sheet: How Immigration Reform Would Help the Economy
by the Center for American Progress

A fact sheet summarizing recent research on the benefits of legalization.

2. “The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform”
By Raul Hinojosa for the Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center

This report finds that comprehensive immigration reform that includes a legalization program for unauthorized immigrants and enables a future flow of legal workers would result in a large economic benefit—a cumulative $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years. In stark contrast, a deportation-only policy would result in a loss of $2.6 trillion in GDP over 10 years.

3. Restriction or Legalization? Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform
by Peter B. Dixon and Maureen T. Rimmer for the CATO Institute

A report which finds that legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for American workers and households. It would also allow immigrants to have higher productivity and create more openings for Americans in higherskilled occupations. The positive impact for U.S. households of legalization under an optimal visa tax would be 1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion. 

4. The Economics of Immigration Reform: Legalizing Undocumented Workers a Key to Economic Recovery
by the Immigration Policy Center

April 2009 analysis of how legalization would protect our workers, raise wages, and get our economy moving again.

5. Policy Brief: New Immigration Reform Bill Supports America’s Middle Class
Drum Major Institute for Public Policy

A Legislative Analysis of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009(H.R. 4321) sponsored by Representative Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and 92other co-sponsors

6. The Labor Movement’s Framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
AFL-CIO and Change to Win

Announced in April 2009, this is the labor movements unified framework for comprehensive immigration reform.  This framework is a critical sign of support for the Administration and Congress to address immigration reform -- and to ensure that it remains a priority on the legislative calendar. It is also an important sign that immigration reform is an important part of economic recovery.

7. Loving Thy Neighbor: Immigration Reform and Communities of Faith
by Sam Fulwood III for the Center for American Progress

This report documents how  a wide range of faith groups are showing a new, unexpected, and grassroots-led social activism that’s rooted in theological and moral ground. While loud and shrill anti-immigrant voices dominate much of the media attention regarding immigrants and especially the undocumented, faith community activists are caring and praying in the shadows of public attention.

8. The Role of Local Police: Striking a Balance Between Immigration Enforcement and Civil Liberties
By Anita Khashu for the Police Executive Research Foundation

While this report focuses on and provides critique of the role of local police and immigration enforcement, one of the major findings is the need for enactment of comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

 

 

Read More...

Summary only...

Let's talk future flows

The most common explanation that comes from the right for the current failure of the immigration system is of course lack of enforcement. They claim the problem would be easily solved if only we spent more time, money, and effort locking up or deporting unauthorized immigrants, or patrolling thousands of miles of border to keep them out. They couple this with an argument against providing a normalization of status for 12 million undocumented immigrants based the failure of the 1986 IRCA amnesty.

They have taken these two ideas and tied them into nice package to form the foundation of their narrative in opposition to immigration reform. A narrative that essentially says; "You can't reform immigration unless the borders are totally secure...and you can't have an 'amnesty' because we tried that before and it only opened the floodgates to more 'illegal' immigration by rewarding lawbreakers."

This simple narrative has allowed them dominate debate and set the parameters of how CIR has been crafted in all past attempts, with a heavy reliance on enforcement and border security, restrictive guest worker programs, and in return, some limited normalization of status for some the undocumented population.

We see it's influence even in the framing used by Democrats when addressing the issue. Such as President Obama's statement in the SOTU:

"And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -- to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation."

The problem for reformers is that, although based on faulty logic and misinformation, the narrative is compelling, easily understood, and unfortunately accepted by not only large swaths of the American public, but by those on both sides of the aisle in Washington.

It doesn't matter that border security and enforcement measures have grown exponentially since the mid nineties with no resulting decline in unauthorized entry, and that enforcement expenditures today are at their highest level in history. Or that deportations and detentions are at record levels. Or that it was not until the recent economic meltdown that we saw any decline in unauthorized migration.

It also doesn't matter that the true reason for the failure of IRCA was that it made absolutely no provisions or plans on how to address "future flow" ... it had no systems or mechanism in place to determine, regulate, or control, the future level of immigration going forward.

The determination of the number of the immigrants that are legally allowed to enter the country each year was left to politicians (and their lobbyist friends) who set quotas, and to low-level bureaucrats who administer them. Once enacted, these quotas were rarely revisited or adjusted in the last 24 years to reflect economic realities or other needs.

The result of this lack of foresight, and unwillingness to address the issue of regulating future flow, led to a defacto "free market" for immigrant labor with flows determined by market forces and greed.

It has left millions of needed workers, who should have had a legal path to entry if the system was in fact responsive to economic needs, in a state of limbo whereby they are easily exploited and marginalized.

But at the present time the opposition narrative still trumps the truth ... it makes for better sound bites and is easily digested without the need for too much thought or analysis.

But, if we are to enact truly meaningful and lasting reform we must find a way to offer up solutions and narratives that can be just as easily packaged and resonate not only with the left and in pro-migrant circles...but also with the middle.

We must offer up an alternate solution that is not only humane and practical, but also "common sense."

The key to both fixing to our broken system, and creating a narrative by which to win support for reform, lies in formulating an effective and practical plan for addressing future flow. One that truly addresses both domestic labor needs and the global forces that drive migration. One that is responsive to real world situations and events with enough flexibility to be adjusted to changing circumstances.

Such a plan would allow us to not only insure that our reform measures would in fact have long lasting positive effects, but also supply us with an alternative narrative base on sound principles, and built on foundation of factual realities, that could counter the opposition's enforcement only positions.

We must be able to offer up a plan to the American people that says we have a practical solution that will guarantee that our immigration system will be responsive to our economic and social needs. It will supply needed workers when economic conditions warrant, it will keep families together, it will supply ample opportunity for innovation and education to keep us competitive in a global economy, and provide refuge to those most in need.

But most of all it will flexible and fluid, able to respond to shifting needs and circumstances. It will not be based on the wants or needs of special interests or those wishing to exploit the system, but rather on what is in the best interest of the American people and those looking to make a better life.

We must be able to assure the American people that a functioning and responsive immigration system will end the cycle of unregulated and uncontrolled migration.

It will end the inequities and injustice inherent in "market driven," Laissez-faire, systems that look only to make profits at the expense of people. That controlling the flow of immigration based on rational needs is far more effective than trying to control it through tough enforcement of the rules of an already dysfunctional system.

Currently, labor and big business are in the process of hashing out a compromise on just how they would like to see future flows handled:

.... The AFL-CIO's Ramirez indicated that she and other labor leaders are trying to reach a compromise with business representatives on a complicated section of the bill that would set guidelines to regulate the use of migrant workers on either a temporary or permanent basis. Labor organizations have supported a plan for a new Presidential commission to help establish criteria and calculate labor needs. Business groups have said that they would not accept a commission that could be politicized and not suitably responsive to "market forces." This issue may seem esoteric, but as legislative efforts to enact immigration reform move haltingly along, the ability of labor and business to agree on the fundamentals of migrant worker programs could make the difference between a viable bill and yet another failed effort to fix the broken system. ...

Labor's Ramirez suggested that the commission proposal would not be a deal breaker. "In terms of creating a system--let's put the word 'commission' aside--that contemplates economic need and makes decisions on visas based on demonstrated need, that's attractive to us both [business and labor]. So I think there is lots of agreement on how to move forward." Ramirez said that labor would want to insist that migrant workers involved in "future flows" be assured worker protections and rights. Labor is also pushing to make sure that recruiters who bring in foreign workers are better regulated. But she made it clear that the commission idea was more of a subject for negotiation than a key demand. "It's about crafting a system," she said, "not calling it a 'commission.'"

Jeffrey Kaye-HuffingtonPost

We can only hope that as labor and business leaders meet behind close doors to decide the fate of millions and the future of our immigration system and economic security, they can go beyond their usual partisanship and parochial concerns, and instead carefully craft a system that takes into account what will ultimately be best for those most effected....and what is best for all our futures.

Read More...

Summary only...

Gutierrez to release his principles for new immigration reform bill … we've got a few of our own.

On Tuesday Oct 13th, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus led by Rep. Luis Gutierrez(Il-D), will be joined in Washington by 2,500 representatives of labor, immigrant advocacy and civil rights groups, and faith-based communities from across the country to unveil what is being touted as a list fundamental principles behind a new progressive, comprehensive immigration bill to be introduced before the end of the month.

"I am overwhelmed by the support of immigrant, faith-based and community-based organizations in urging me to introduce comprehensive immigration legislation. I look forward to joining them on Tuesday so that I can share with them more specifically the key principles that will form the basis of such a bill," said Rep. Gutierrez.

"We simply cannot wait any longer for a bill that keeps our families together, protects our workers and allows a pathway to legalization for those who have earned it," continued Rep. Gutierrez. "Saying immigration is a priority for this Administration or this Congress is not the same as seeing tangible action, and the longer we wait, the more every single piece of legislation we debate will be obstructed by our failure to pass comprehensive reform."

"We need a bill that says if you come here to hurt our communities, we will not support you; but if you are here to work hard and to make a better life for your family, you will have the opportunity to earn your citizenship. We need a law that says it is un-American for a mother to be torn from her child, and it is unacceptable to undermine our workforce by driving the most vulnerable among us further into the shadows."

"I believe the support base for this kind of compassionate and comprehensive legislation is strong and far reaching, and I believe the votes are there to pass it. I have always said that immigration reform will not be easy; but it is time we had a workable plan working its way through Congress that recognizes the vast contributions of immigrants to this country and that honors the American Dream."

We have yet to see Rep Gutierrez's recommendations, but after years of controversy and partisan fighting, we are still no closer to any meaningful new national immigration policy than we were over eight years ago when President Bush first claimed he would make it a top priority upon taking office. Much of the blame for this situation clearly rests on the shoulders of the anti-immigrant wing of the Republican Party, who chose political expediency and a divisive brand of slash and burn political theater over the responsible execution of their duties.

But, there have also been divisions within the Democratic Party that have helped stall the effort. While generally stating support for some sort of "comprehensive reform," there has been little consensus on exactly what that reform should entail.

We’ve seen numerous compromise bills, intended to find a “sweet spot” that would appease all parties, go down in flames after concessions were made to restrictionists to accept their far-right policies as a prerequisite to even bringing the issue to the table, only later to find that no matter how many concessions were made, or how restrictive or punitive the legislation ...they were never satisfied.

In the absence of meaningful reform, undocumented immigrants still daily traverse the borders risking their lives, and sometimes losing them, in order to find work and security in the United States.

Hundreds of thousands of migrants have been incarcerated in order to line the pockets of a growing private prison system rife with abuse and neglect, or to appease the shrill voices of those who look to draconian enforcement as the sole means of regulating the flow of migration.

Billions of dollars more have been squandered in a time of economic instability on failed attempts to seal the borders with walls and technology purchased from the same companies that willingly emptied our national coffers for the last eight years in the “war on terror” both here and abroad. … all because of our reliance on the failed “enforcement only” policies of the past.

Additionally, the divisive and racially charged rhetoric surrounding the debate has fostered a growing culture of hate that has led to increased violence aimed at immigrant and ethnic communities.

Given this situation, the need to address immigration reform is pressing.

But in order for any reform legislation to be effective, and more importantly, be a permanent solution that will stand the test of time, we must end the failed policies of the past that rely solely on enforcement and deterrence. Instead we should work towards a flexible immigration system that can be responsive to all the push and pull factors that drive migration globally.

A properly formulated and functioning immigration system should not only address the labor and economic needs of the US, but also the forces in sender nations that drive migration globally, whether they be economic, political, social, or humanitarian in nature. It should protect all workers, both native-born and immigrant from exploitation, and end policies that foster an underground economy that makes "criminals" out of millions of hard working people both native and foreign born.

Unlike the past, we should judge future legislation and policy not by how successful it will be at apprehending, deporting, or incarcerating migrants ... but rather on how little apprehension, deportation and incarceration would be necessary.

With that said, what follows are twenty-five principles that should be included in any truly progressive immigration reform legislation …

25 KEY PRINCIPLES TO MEANINGFUL REFORM

1. End policies that rely only on enforcement and deterrence as the sole means of regulating migration.




2. Address the root causes of immigration, and change US policy so that it doesn't foster and produce conditions that force hundreds of thousands of people each year to leave their countries of origin in order to simply survive.




3. Tie all current and future trade, military, and foreign aid agreements to not only worker protections both here and abroad, but also to their ability to foster economic progress and social justice for the working class and poor in sender nations.




4. Formulate a reasonable, humane, fair and practical method for determining the levels of immigration going forward. Establish an independent commission free from the pressures of political expediency and business interests to review all the pertinent data and set admission numbers based on labor, economic, social, and humanitarian needs.




5. Provide a path to legalization for all current undocumented immigrants living and working in the US, free of restrictions based on country of origin, economic status, education, length of residency, or any other “merit based” criteria.




6. Secure the borders by first ensuring that the vast majority of new immigrants have the ability and opportunity to legally enter the country through legal ports of entry by increasing the availability and equitable distribution of green cards. This would curtail the flow of migration through illegal channels. Only after that, should enforcement begin to ensure compliance, or any work to physically secure the border take place.




7. Increase the focus on enforcement of all labor and employment laws. Increase penalties on employers who engage in unfair or illegal labor practices. Increase funding for government oversight and inspection.




8. Opposition to a "temporary guest worker" program as the primary vehicle for employment based legal entry on the grounds that it provides no benefit to the American people or the immigrants themselves. It only provides big business with a disposable work force, and prevents immigrants from becoming a viable force in the workplace or full fledged members of society.




9. Foster an immigration policy that strengthens the middle and working class through encouraging unionization, increased naturalization, and immigrant participation in the electoral process.




10. Include the language of the DREAM Act that would allow children and young adults brought here as children, and raised in the US, a conditional path to citizenship in exchange for a mandatory two years in higher education or community service. Undocumented young people must also demonstrate good moral character to be eligible for and stay in conditional residency. At the end of the long process, the young person can have the chance to become an American citizen or legal residency by completing their educations and contributing to society.




11. Included the language of the Uniting American Families Act that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow permanent partners of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, including same-sex partners, to obtain permanent residency.




12. Include the language of the AgJobs bill that seeks to relieve chronic farm labor shortages by supplying undocumented migrant agricultural workers a legal opportunity to enter the county and a path to legal status and eventual citizenship. It also bolsters labor rights and protects workers from exploitation.




13. Repeal the sections of the 1996 law that redefined vast numbers of crimes as deportable offense when committed by immigrants. Imposing harsh penalties--often permanent exile--on immigrants for minor criminal convictions like shoplifting or possession of marijuana.




14. End permanent detention of all migrants for immigration violations not related to violent crimes.




15. Simplify the immigration system by eliminating and condensing the hundreds of various visa classes into a smaller, more manageable, classification system that allows for not only easier navigation of the system, but better analysis of current immigration needs.




16. End policies and programs that rely upon state and local law enforcement agencies to usurp the role of the federal government and engage in the enforcement of federal immigrations codes.




17. Bring U.S. immigration law in line with international human rights law by reforming asylum and refugee law and strengthening protections for children, crime victims, and victims of human trafficking




18. Modernize and streamline the immigration process and eliminate the backlogs for those already in the queue. Simplify the paperwork process and utilize technology to cut wait times and bureaucratic delays.




19. Make family reunification simpler by expanding the “immediate family” classification to reflect the cultural realities of many non-western or traditional societies from which immigrants come.




20. Allow immigration judges the discretion to treat cases on an individual basis and make decisions based on the specific the circumstances and outcomes of the case.




21. Make punishments of immigration crimes commensurate with comparable crimes in other areas of the law. A misdemeanor or civil violation of immigration law should not carry with it a punishment that would be comparable to a felony in a criminal case.




22. End, or raise, the per-country cap that favors smaller nations with fewer immigrant applicants over larger developing nations and those countries that have long traditional ties to the US.




23. Update the Registry Date in Sec 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to reflect the historical pattern of periodic updating. Current date should be updated to 1996.




24. Eliminate 'crimes involving moral turpitude,' an amorphous legal holdover from Jim Crow




25. Recognize that immigration is a vital part of maintaining a healthy and vibrant America. It is what has set this nation apart from all others since its inception. To close our borders to new immigrants is to cut off the lifeblood that has always made this nation grow and prosper.

Any legislation that claims to be truly progressive, pro-migrant, and in the best interests of both immigrant communities and the American people, should incorporate these principles to be not only effective long term, but practical, and most importantly humane.

Read More...

Summary only...

Good Immigrant-Bad Immigrant: codifying a caste system

On Thursday, President Obama will once again meet with the movers and shakers in the Immigration Reform debate. Having already punted the ball down field, postponing any meaningful reform until next year, Obama will take this opportunity to reassure those concerned that he hasn't forgotten them, and more importantly, their constituents and members who worked so hard to put him in office.

And when the niceties and glad-handing are over, they will hunker down to the kind of horse trading that goes on in proverbial smoke filled rooms.

Political calculations and public relations strategies will as much topics of conversation as policy and legislative change. And when the smoke clears, we'll be one step closer to some sort of Frankenstein compromise, cobbled together of various bits and pieces of previous legislative initiatives, concessions to numerous special interests, and easily sold sound bites intended to mollify the great middle of the uninterested or uninformed.

And so it goes

But one thing we know will be included in the Great Compromise of 2010 will be the division of all immigrants, both current and future, into a two tiered caste system that places one value on those with education, skills, English language proficiency, or financial resources, and another on the vast majority of others who come with little more to offer than a yearning to make a better life.

We first saw this division of future immigrants into "desirable" and "undesirable" in the merit based system proposed in the 2007 legislation.

According to that system, each new prospective immigrant would be rated according to his or her "desirability" and ability to "contribute" to society. Points were given for English language proficiency, educational achievement, ability to be employed in certain fields, job history, whether one had personal health insurance, and finally, family ties.

Under this system, the Migration Policy Institute found that a marked shift in immigrant demographics would result. A shift from an essentially hemispheric migration model that favored family reunification and opportunity for the kind of low-skilled workers that have traditionally made up immigrant population for over 100 years, to a global model that favored high skilled immigrants with access to higher education and English language acquisition.

Put more plainly … those who came from countries that can afford to educate their populations to provide the skills needed in a new global economy would be welcome.

Those from regions too poor, rural, or politically unstable to provide world class educations … they'd be shit outa luck.

Additionally the system would have meant a defacto closing of the door to our closets neighbors.

After spending 200 years meddling and destabilizing our southern neighbors for either profit or geopolitical machinations, the vast majority of prospective immigrants from the region would be ill equipped to compete in a system that placed added value on certain attributes they lacked, while making sure to minimize the valuable contributions they have made not only in the past, but could continue to make in the future.

But that's all past history .. right? The bill crashed and burned.

This time around is different.

We've got a majority in both houses, a liberal President, and a right-wing in shambles … no need for ridiculous restrictions just to mollify a minority of rabid racists bend on stemming an imaginary "invasion."

Well think again.

One of the cornerstones of Chuck Schumer's seven-point plan to finally accomplish what Tom Tancredo couldn't, reintroduces a new merit system for the 21st century:

we need to recognize the important contribution that high-skilled immigrants have already made, and must continue to make, toward revitalizing and reinventing the American economy.

No immigration system would be worthwhile if it is unable to attract the best and brightest minds of the world to come to the United States and create jobs for Americans—as has been the case for Yahoo, Google, Intel, E-Bay, and countless other companies.

That being said, any reformed immigration system must be successful in encouraging the next Albert Einstein to emigrate permanently to the United States while, at the same time, discouraging underpaid, temporary workers from taking jobs that could and should be filled by qualified American workers.

link

While Schumer vaguely alludes to the institution of an immigrant caste system …. The Council on Foreign Relations, who appear to have written the blueprint for Obama's immigration compromise, flesh it all out:

Attracting Skilled Immigrants

The United States needs to develop a conscious and explicit policy for attracting highly skilled immigrants. For most of its history, America has enjoyed a considerable skills and education advantage over its largest economic competitors. This is unfortunately no longer the case. Other countries are producing highly skilled workers faster than the United States, and such individuals will be in increasingly high demand in the U.S. economy in the coming years.

America’s economic future, as well as its diplomatic success, depends greatly on its ability to attract a significant share of the best and brightest immigrants from around the world.

The Task Force recommends that the United States tackle headon the growing competition for skilled immigrants from other countries and make the goal of attracting such immigrants a central component of its immigration policy. For decades, the primary goal has been to ration admission; in the future, recruiting the immigrants it wants must be the highest priority.

… The Task Force recommends that quotas for skilled work visas like the H-1B visa be increased, but fluctuate in line with economic conditions. Similarly, the number of employment-based green cards should not face a hard cap, but should be allowed to increase and decrease as economic conditions warrant. Under most economic conditions, the number of employment-based green cards should be significantly higher than current levels.

For those in the United States on temporary work visas, with the exception of seasonal work visas like the H-2A and the H-2B, the Task Force recommends eliminating the current requirement that these visa holders demonstrate the intent to not immigrate to the United States. Such a requirement is an anachronism that does not reflect how immigration to the United States actually takes place for most people, and does not recognize the U.S. national interest in encouraging some of those visa holders to remain in the United States permanently

The Task Force therefore recommends eliminating the nationality quotas for skilled workers.

link [pg.84]

According to this plan, skilled workers would get more green cards, no national quotas, and not be subjected to real temporary status. They would be actively recruited and their path to citizenship made as easy as possible.

And what about the unskilled …. They get to come as guest workers:

Temporary Worker Programs

Although the U.S. economy has exhibited an enormous and continued appetite for low-skilled labor, the immigration system simply does not recognize the demand. The quotas for employment-based admission by low-skilled immigrants are minuscule, and in practice most of the demand is filled by unauthorized immigrants. Recognizing that the U.S. economy has had and will continue to have a significant appetite for low-skilled workers is a critical part of gaining control over illegal immigration.

.. The Task Force recommends a two-pronged approach. First, the United States should recognize that, subject to economic fluctuations, continued demand for low-skilled labor is likely to be an ongoing feature of the economy. Therefore, the United States should allow greater numbers of lowskilled immigrants to enter on work visas, with the option of seeking permanent residence if they wish. Those numbers should be adjusted regularly based on the needs of the economy, with the goal of enhancing U.S. competitiveness. At the same time, the government should create an expanded seasonal work program—but one that is easier for employers to use and that provides better protections for the foreign workers employed in it.

link [pg.87]

The unskilled, according to this plan, are allowed to enter the country on temporary work visas that have the option to become permanent down the road, or as temporary seasonal workers (see: agricultural workers), who will be presumably treated better than currently is the norm.

This plan is not much different from all the previous guest workers programs proposed in the past from McCain-Kennedy to the Grand Compromise. A promise of some sort of future permanent residency is offered in return for temporary worker status.

This division of the immigrant population into two distinct castes, one actively recruited and provided with an easy path to permanency, another "allowed" to enter under temporary visas or "tolerated" as agricultural guests workers, sets up a dichotomy that is not only morally vacant ..But contrary to a common sense approach to immigration reform.

Any system which attempts to codify some arbitrary value placed upon the worth of human beings, and the contributions they make to society, can never succeed as public policy.

How can the worth of those who provide your food, build your homes, or care for your youngest and oldest, be of any less value than that of those who work in any other fields .

This whole notion runs contrary to the ideals on which not only the nation was founded, but that attracts so many to come here in the first place.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Long Look in the Mirror

Last Friday night around 11:30 PM, an unidentified Latino man walked down Division Avenue in Patchogue NY.

As he approached the intersection of Division and West Avenues, three white teens hanging out in a nearby parking lot called out to him. Seconds later he was struck in the face, knocked to the ground, and as the teens shouted racial slurs, robbed of cash and other personal items. .... Just another case of "beaner hopping" in Long Island's Suffolk County.

Nine months earlier, within a stones throw of last Friday's incident, Marcelo Lucero was walking with a friend, minding his own business, when seven teens decided he would be their next, and final, victim in a long night of physical harassment of Latino neighbors played out as sport by the gang of marauding racist youths.

Within moments, Lucero lay on the ground bleeding to death from stab wounds….wounds inflicted as part of a sick, racist, game.

Despite international outrage, investigations by Justice Department, changes in police personnel, and various other attempts to stem the tide of anti-Latino violence in an area so notorious for its racist attacks that the Mexican government has long warned travelers to avoid it, the attacks obviously continue.

But, should we really be surprised.

What has really changed since that night back in early November when Marcelo Lucero's life oozed out onto the cold Long Island pavement?

The Hope? …The Change We Can Believe In? … The chants of Sí Se Puede and the promises made with them? … The awakening of the "Sleeping Giant" that drove Latinos and immigrant communities to the polls in record numbers? … The election of a black man, the child of an immigrant?

All of this has meant nothing to those held in the tentacles of the ever-expanding immigrant detention industry.

It's meant nothing to those profiled by local authorities at traffic stops and street corners around the country.

It’s meant nothing to those hoping against hope that they, or love ones, can simply live their lives without fear of deportation.

It’s done nothing to protect those who only want to work and make a better life for themselves and families, free from exploitation and abuse.

And most of all, it has done nothing to stem the tsunami of violence and hate that has afflicted this nation for years.

It's easy for Liberals, Progressives, and left-leaning media types, to point self-righteously at the obvious knuckle-draggers that lead the charge against social change and a more equitable society.

From the "birthers" to Sarah Palin, to Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck and a new generation of "dixiecrat" politicos from deep red states, the easy targets are abundant.

They're painted as ignorant, hypocritical, hillbilly, hold-backs, who represent not the views of the majority … but a small, yet vocal, minority of dinosaurs riling against the inevitable march of time.

Yet, these same Liberals and Progressives, so smug and self-righteous, fail to look in the mirror for even a moment to see that they are just as much responsible for events like those that happened in Patchogue, as any hirsute hillbilly or plasticized pitchman from the far-right.

They have not only accepted the racist frames and exclusionary rhetoric of the right on issues of immigration and immigration reform, they have embraced them.

When Rahm Emanuel(the son of an Israeli immigrant) first uttered his famous statement that "immigration is the third rail" of politics and should be avoided for political expediency, and that only a get-tough message would assure electoral victory, he telegraphed not just capitulation to the right, but willingness to accept their worldview.

We now see that the acceptance of the "immigrant as criminal" philosophy so prevalent on the right has morphed into the "get-tough" policies of the Obama administration and its surrogates like Chuck Schumer.

While Obama and his DHS move to increase raids, deportations and detentions in hopes of ploughing the way for legislative compromise, Schumer embraces the rhetoric of the right and calls for not only get-tough measures, but acceptance of terminology that reinforces the idea of the undocumented immigrant as criminal interloper

The first of these seven principles is that illegal immigration is wrong—plain and simple. When we use phrases like “undocumented workers,” we convey a message to the American people that their Government is not serious about combating illegal immigration….

… Above all else, the American people want their Government to be serious about protecting the public, enforcing the rule of law, and creating a rational system of legal immigration…

… People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the United States legally….

… Second, any immigration solution must recognize that we must do as much as we can to gain operational control of our borders as soon as possible. ….

…. Third, we must recognize that illegal immigration will never seriously be stifled unless and until we end the job magnet currently engendered by the seriously flawed I-9 regime. As we speak, any individual who steals a social security number and has access to a credible fake ID can get a job in the United States. ….

… Only by creating a biometric-based federal employment verification system will both employers and employees have the peace of mind that all employment relationships are both lawful and proper….

SCHUMER ANNOUNCES PRINCIPLES FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL

Clearly, the talking points first rolled out by the right during the Sensenbrenner legislation battle four years ago are not just still being thrown around … but have now somehow morphed into a "liberal," pro-reform platform. …a platform accepted not only inside and outside the beltway by both politicos and advocacy groups, but by the broader, supposedly left-leaning, universe.

We hear little push-back against this acceptance of "immigrant as criminal" framing outside of ethnic media and the "bomb-throwers" of the Latino/ pro-migrant blogosphere.

But until the broader progressive movement starts to reexamine its honeymoon with Obama's immigration policies and more importantly takes a long look in the mirror to see where their acceptance will lead, the growing pattern of violence like that in Patchogue will be just as much on their heads as those of the knuckle-dragging bigots who at least wear their racism on their sleeves for all to see.

Read More...

Summary only...

Immigration reform need not be a triple-headed hydra

This week the Obama administration finally announced a long overdue revamping of its immigration detention system.

The system, comprised of a hodgepodge network of 350 unregulated local jails, privately owned prisons, and federal correction facilities run by DHS has come under attack for it's failure to adhere to even the most basic civil and human rights standards. Numerous groups including Amnesty International and the government's own Accountability Office have documented the inadequacies in the system.

The failures include; inadequate or absent medical care leading to the preventable deaths of 90 detainees since 2003, young children held for long periods without access to education or recreation, detainees denied access to legal representation or family members, and the list goes on.

Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence of the failure of the system, the Obama administration until now refused to address the situation, even after having been ordered to do so by the Federal Courts.

So this weeks announcement that DHS will begin to finally take some control over the situation by reviewing the contracts with it's detention providers, establishing oversight, and ending some of the most grievous practices, is a welcome change.

But it is far from the sweeping kind of CHANGE™ we were led to believe to expect from this new administration.



Candidate Obama, time and time again on the stump promised sweeping, almost revolutionary change.

He challenged the nation to think outside the box and start to look at old problems through new eyes.

Where Bill Clinton claimed to feel our pain, Obama promised that working together we could end it… sí se puede

But now we find that from healthcare reform to immigration policy, Obama does not so much offer real change… but rather, promises to more competently and effectively administer the same failed policies of the past.

As DHS announced its "sweeping" new changes to the immigrant detention system , there was an underlying message of …"don’t get your hopes up folks …we ain't changing things that much."

Assistant Secretary of DHS, John Morton, while touting the move to a "truly civil detention system" made sure to add in that large scale detention would remain to be the norm…it would just be done "more humanely." He added that the new system would move from one focused on incarceration to one focused on deportation.

DHS head, Janet Napolitano, added that she actually foresaw an increase in the number of detianees held in the government's new "humane" prisons.

But this should come as no surprise coming from an administration that has voiced support for expanding the 287G system that gives local honchos like Arizona's Joe Arpaio carte blanche to terrorize whole communities. Or that looks to expand the failed e-verify system. Or worse yet, embraces Chuck Schumer's Orwellian national biometric identification system.

But this is all because rather than thinking outside the box . .. Obama seems firmly encased in it.

He and his brain trust simply can't separate themselves from the failed paradigm of viewing immigration policy as a matter of regulation of a criminal activity.

This is the same thinking that has produced every piece of failed immigration policy since 1986.

Rather than addressing the underlying social and economic realities both here and abroad that drive global migration, and working on a system that rationally an effectively works within those realities, this thinking has produced a system that relies upon punitive deterrents to attempt to regulate the flow of immigration.

This becomes evident when viewing actual legislation. Hundreds of pages are usually dedicated to various aspects of how best to punish those who enter the country without permission …and scant few pages dedicated to how the decisions as to whom, and under what circumstances, that permission should be granted.

This had led to the idea that reform of the system simply must contain three key components:

1. a method to allow businesses to get needed workers
2. a method to keep everyone else out
3. a method to deal with those who came anyway…now that they've become needed workers.

This has led to the three-headed hydra of Comprehensive Immigration Reform that mandates guest workers, increased enforcement and a path to legalization

In the minds of policy makers these three components seem to be inseparable.

Business interests can't envision an immigration system that doesn't supply them with needed workers, especially if they can be sent home and exchanged for fresh cheap replacements periodically

Advocacy groups can't imagine a system that doesn't normalize the status of the millions already here without permission.

And both are willing to view criminalization and punishment as a means of regulating immigrant flow.

But here is where that CHANGE™ Obama had promised so eloquently during his campaign should translate into a new mindset in DC.

Perhaps he and all those working behind the scenes to enact a new version of Comprehensive Immigration Reform should take a fresh view of the situation and finally start to look at the problems in the current system in a truly COMPREHENSIVE manner…. "Comprehensive" as in encompassing ALL the various push and pull mechanisms in play that foster migration and the system's current inability to deal with them.

If reform were enacted properly, all the interested parties would be able to get basically what they need or want from the legislation, and there would be little need to worry about enforcement and punishments. A truly functioning immigration system would not create millions of undocumented immigrants and hundreds of thousands of detainees in prisons …It's that simple. The hard part is figuring out how to reform the system to reach that goal.

Instead of worrying about how best to build walls along our borders, or punish workers or employers, our leaders should figure out a better way to allow immigrants to enter the country legally, or better yet…have the kind of opportunities in their home countries that would allow them to stay if they wish.

But this would take big thinking … grand vision … and relentless political will.

Something we saw from candidate Obama …but sadly, not yet from President Obama.

As I've said before:

We will judge future legislation and policy not by how successful it's been at apprehending, deporting, or incarcerating migrants ... but rather in how little apprehension, deportation and incarceration is necessary

Our leaders should keep that in mind as they work to reform a dismally failed system.

Read More...

Summary only...

Reading the Tea Leaves: McLarty-Bush Council on Foreign Relations Report

After months of wading through the mixed messages and red herrings thrown out by The Administration and Democratic leadership, trying to figure out exactly what form the long promised initiative to reform US immigration policy will take, a rough blueprint for Comprehensive Immigration Reform has finally emerged from The Council on Foreign Relations.

If I'm reading my tea leaves correctly, the report, written by a nineteen member bipartisan panel, lays out what will become the "middle ground" consensus position that pro-reform forces will rally around. The fact that the panel contains representatives from the various factions of the newest version of the CIR coalition, including those with ties to advocacy groups like NCLR and unions like SEIU, along with economists, scholars, politicians and members of government agencies, leads me to believe that my hunch is most likely right.

In my last post introducing the report, I promised I would follow through with further examination and analysis of exactly what I believe those within the beltway are formulating for the upcoming legislative battle. In fact, that initial post in what will become a series of articles examining all the various aspects of the reports observations and recommendation, attracted the attention of Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America's Voice.

While I intend to follow through with posts covering all the good, bad, and ugly contained in the report in hopes of getting a firm hold on exactly what to expect when the CIR debate begins, Mr. Sharry made a point in his response to my post of singling out the Task Force's recommendations on immigrant detention and incarceration for their forward thinking.

Since immigrant detention has been a topic of much concern and conversation among those of the broader pro-migrant movement, I figure I'll start by taking Mr Sharry up on his challenge, and examine the Task Force's recommendations and observations on detention.

First off, I must commend the Task Force simply for the title of this section of the report: "Upholding American Values." The mere fact that they see the problems with the current system of detention and incarceration as a "values" or moral issue is a step in the right direction after years of tough talk and dehumanizing rhetoric whenever immigrant detention is discussed.

Upholding American Values

Even as the United States enforces its immigration laws vigorously, it is vital that this be done in a way that upholds core American values, humane treatment, and the dignity of the individual.

The Task Force believes three areas in particular are in need of immediate and serious review: incarceration policies, the severe penalties for some immigration and minor criminal violations, and policies on refugees and asylees.

The Task Force believes that all immigrants to the United States, regardless of their legal status, have a right to fair consideration under the law and humane treatment. We therefore encourage the administration and Congress to implement the following measures:

1. Expand the use of alternatives to detention.

Pilot projects in DHS have shown that programs that provide an alternative to incarceration— from restrictive measures such as ankle bracelets to less restrictive measures that are the equivalent of monitoring parolees—are successful in many instances at keeping track of asylum claimants or others facing removal hearings, and at lower costs than incarceration.

Although any individual considered a criminal or a security threat should be detained for as long as necessary, except in a few cases, asylum claimants or immigration violators are not who would ordinarily be thought of as criminals and should not be treated as such.

That same principle also calls for better treatment of those detained while they await deportation or adjudication of legal challenges or asylum requests. Those who must be detained for security reasons should be housed in facilities separate from regular criminal populations and as close as possible to their family and community, provided with safe and healthy living conditions, and given full access to medical treatment when necessary. Detainees should also be allowed ready access to legal counsel (and interpreters if needed), which in most cases is necessary for individuals trying to deal with the complexities of U.S. immigration law. Their terms of detention should be kept as short as possible.

2. Revisit some of the penalties passed by Congress as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

Congress should reconsider provisions of the 1996 laws that instituted mandatory three-year, five-year, ten-year, and permanent bans from the United States for certain violations of U.S. immigration law. Too often these bars on admission, rather than deterring people from remaining illegally in the United States, have posed an insurmountable hurdle to those who might otherwise be able to obtain lawful status by going abroad and applying for reentry. Although such provisions have their place, they should not always be mandatory, and there should be discretion for immigration officers and the immigration courts to waive them when appropriate.

Congress should also clarify the meaning of the term aggravated felony so as to limit mandatory deportations to those found guilty of serious crimes, especially crimes of violence, and to clarify the situations in which U.S. attorneys and immigration judges will be allowed to consider alternative penalties.

For its part, the administration should increase the discretion of immigration trial counsel to halt deportation proceedings in certain cases.

Before 9/11, government immigration lawyers had—and were encouraged—to exercise discretion to not seek deportation orders against unlawful immigrants in cases in which it would cause severe hardship for their families or for other humanitarian reasons. That discretion should be restored. Immigration judges should also have the ability to consider extenuating circumstances such as the nature of the offense, the time since it occurred, and an individual’s family ties to the United States in making decisions on cases involving aggravated felonies.

3. The administration should create an office within DHS that is responsible for refugee protection, and give greater priority for refugee issues throughout DHS and in the White House.

As recommended, the government should limit detention of asylum seekers, wherever it is consistent with security needs, and establish better treatment for those who must be detained. Congress must revisit the broad definitions of material support for terrorist organizations that were approved after 9/11 to ensure that those laws better target persons with genuine terrorist
ties or who have voluntarily aided and assisted terrorist organizations.

The government should also support efforts to rescue academic scholars facing persecution in their home countries. Further, the Task Force supports the recommendations of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, which calls for improvements in the treatment of asylum seekers who face expedited removal when they make their claims at a U.S. port of entry.

Finally, the Task Force recommends the creation of a new nonimmigrant visa category for endangered and persecuted scholars, which would significantly increase the U.S. capacity not only to protect lives but also to bring to this country some of the world’s most brilliant minds.

Read Complete report

Before going any further, I think I should mention a few basic guidelines that I believe to be necessary not only for any analysis of this section of the report… but all sections dealing with enforcement and punishment.

Firstly, I believe that it's not unreasonable to acknowledge that any law, from the simplest laws enacted by a city council concerning when and where one might park a car, to the most complex tax codes, must contain some sort of punishment component for those who fail to comply with it. And the same should hold true for immigration law. But with that said, a just and humane society ensures that the punishment is always proportional to the crime and not excessively punitive, and perhaps more importantly … is administered fairly and equitably regardless of any and all other factors. This obviously has been far from the case as far as immigration law is currently written and administered.

Secondly, any punishment component of reform cannot in fact take effect until after all other components have been put in place and enacted. Those on the right have insisted that no reform should take place until enforcement is well under way. Their rationale being that the American people want to make sure that the rules will be obeyed before granting any relief. But this thinking is backwards. To insist on continually trying to make a broken system work before fixing it makes no sense.

Once all the myriad of problems of current immigration law are address and the system is functional, practical, and fair, then punishing those who fail to obey those laws is reasonable … but until that time, it is merely cruel, arbitrary, irrational…and immoral. And as such, should stop until such time as new laws are enacted.

With those two premises accepted, analysis of enforcement issues becomes somewhat simpler and the goals more clear.

The Task Force's report makes quite a few excellent recommendations. While falling short of calling for a moratorium on detention as I would like to see, it does address many of the core issues.

It's recognition that "asylum claimants or immigration violators are not who would ordinarily be thought of as criminals and should not be treated as such." and that those who must be held for genuine security reasons be guaranteed safe and healthy living conditions, given full access to medical treatment and provided proper legal council is a huge step in the right direction. If even these few simple items became codified and guaranteed in the next round of CIR it would be a giant step in the right direction.

Also very encouraging is the Task Force's call to revisit the harsh penalties and enforcement measures enacted in the 1996 laws. Particularly important is the call to revise the changes made in 1996 that altered the classifications of what infractions could be deemed aggravated felonies….and limit them to those considered " serious crimes, especially crimes of violence." This is a welcome change from the punitive language we saw in HR 4437 and later in McCain-Kennedy and the Grand Compromise.

On a whole these recommendations make a good starting point for addressing the issue of detention. … But the Task Force leaves far too many questions unanswered and stops short of taking all necessary actions. It fails to address one of the root problems in the current detention system … the burgeoning business of for-profit immigration prisons and the total lack of oversight and accountability that is inherent with private sector incarceration.

As long as huge profits are to be made not only in criminalizing immigration violations but mistreating those incarcerated, there will always be a fatal weakness in the system.

Any CIR legislation must make detention issues a core component. It must demand complete transparency and accountability for all detention providers, be they privately owned or public at the state or local level. Strict guidelines must be set at the federal level that assures uniformity across the spectrum and harsh punishment for those violating those guidelines. It must, as a core principle, look not at how best to treat those detained… but how to detain as few as possible.

We will judge future legislation and policy not by how successful it's been in apprehending, deporting, or incarcerating migrants … but rather in how little apprehension, deportation and incarceration is necessary.

Read More...

Summary only...

Sometimes Secrets are Hidden in Plain Sight

Over the past few months much has been made of the possibility of the enactment of immigration reform by the current Congress. The President has promised on numerous occasions to make immigration reform a top priority, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), has assured that he has the votes to move legislation forward, and the Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who will take the lead on crafting any new legislation, has laid out a seven-point blueprint for new legislation.

Against this backdrop, advocacy groups are ramping up campaigns to lobby legislators and mobilize activists to aid in the upcoming battle. And while the effort to coalesce a unified front by the pro-reform forces is unprecedented, having both a level of organization and outreach unseen in past legislative battles, the campaign thus far has been long on familiar sloganeering and promises to trust the DC establishment to do the right thing, and very short on the specifics of what any new legislation will look like.

As those of us who have engaged in past reform battles know, (albeit more as outsiders and observers than real participants at the table), the devil really is in the details of any legislation, and those details are, more often than not, kept secret until the very last moments.

During the 2007 battle, much of the "compromise" part of the Grand Compromise was kept under wraps until the legislation was about to be moved to the Senate floor for the amendment process. In fact, a strategy to revise the legislation after passage in both houses, while in Conference Committee, or through legal challenge, was only revealed by DC insiders after the bill had already crashed and burned.

Those advocacy groups who have been privy to the past efforts to craft legislation have often acted unilaterally, without the knowledge of friends, allies, and those they claim to represent, to decide what principles and policies they believe are negotiable and expendable in the quest of compromise and consensus.

With that past history in mind, the current ambiguity surrounding the coming legislative battle becomes all the more troubling.

To say we have received mixed messages from both the administration and Democratic leadership would be a gross understatement. While talking about substantive change and reform that will be practical and truly humane on the one hand, we hear much familiar rhetoric and jargon that reinforces the failed enforcement centric policies of the past.

In fact, in just the past week we saw the passage of enforcement-only amendments in the Democratic lead Senate, and a reaffirmation of the administration's commitment to the failed Bush- era programs like E-Verify and (287)G. And while some argue that the political posturing and grandstanding we witnessed last week are just that … only political theater …. it is clear that without presenting clear principles, and a vision of what real meaningful reform will look like, we are left with little more to judge these actions by than the usual DC tendency to talk out of both sides of their mouths simultaneously.

Even in cases where the political leadership has laid out a rough blueprint for reform, it has raised more concerns and questions than reassurances and answers. Senator Schumer's seven-point guideline is a case in point:

In all, Schumer announced seven principles that he said would form the basis for the legislation he intends to introduce by the fall:

1. Illegal immigration is wrong, and a primary goal of comprehensive immigration reform must be to dramatically curtail future illegal immigration.

2. Operational control of our borders--through significant additional increases in infrastructure, technology, and border personnel--must be achieved within a year of enactment of legislation.

3. A biometric-based employer verification system—with tough enforcement and auditing—is necessary to significantly diminish the job magnet that attracts illegal aliens to the United States and to provide certainty and simplicity for employers.

4. All illegal aliens present in the United States on the date of enactment of our bill must quickly register their presence with the United States Government—and submit to a rigorous process of converting to legal status and earning a path to citizenship—or face imminent deportation.

5. Family reunification is a cornerstone value of our immigration system. By dramatically reducing illegal immigration, we can create more room for both family immigration and employment-based immigration.

6. We must encourage the world’s best and brightest individuals to come to the United States and create the new technologies and businesses that will employ countless American workers, but must discourage businesses from using our immigration laws as a means to obtain temporary and less-expensive foreign labor to replace capable American workers; and finally

7. We must create a system that converts the current flow of unskilled illegal immigrants into the United States into a more manageable and controlled flow of legal immigrants who can be absorbed by our economy.


Sen. Chuck Schumer

Schumer's reliance on increased border control and "tough enforcement" offers little new insight or leadership and owes more ideologically to the failed efforts of the past than any constructive model to actually effect meaningful change. And while he has clearly offered a more substantive picture of future reform than the administration, Schumer still leaves more questions than answers about legislative specifics.

The fact that this "new" initiative was welcomed by the DC advocacy establishment with few questions asked leaves one to wonder exactly how much has been learned from past failures, and perhaps more importantly, how much real change are they willing to fight for.

Yet, it is just this ambiguity and lack of specifics about future legislation that has allowed DC advocates and their Democratic allies to build an impressive new coalition and organizational infrastructure.

Playing a game of "we'll just have to wait and see what the legislation looks like", has allowed them to be all things to all people. Making promises that will never be kept and playing on the hopes of those seeking real change.

But luckily for us, an actual comprehensive blueprint for what the "middle ground" on immigration reform will look like was published last week by The Council on Foreign Relations.

The almost 150 page study, written by a panel headed by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Clinton Chief of Staff Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty III gives us perhaps the clearest indicators of where the triangulation on immigration reform will end up. … A secret clearly kept in plain sight.

And while the report makes some very sound and promising observations and recommendations, it also makes some that are highly troubling and others that are downright dangerous.

It divides the immigrant population into two segments; those deemed highly desirable (skilled, educated, English-speaking) and those deemed less desirable (unskilled workers) and suggests setting up a two tiered system whereby "desirable" immigrants are not only welcomed, but actively recruited, while the unskilled are subject to quotas, or must enter as guest workers. It endorses biometric data collection on workers to assure eligibility to work legally in the country, calls for increased enforcement both at the border and workplace, and supports increased enforcement cooperation between state, local and the federal government.

Many of the mainstream advocacy groups welcomed this report last week citing its clear call for comprehensive reform as a sign of progress and forward movement … but none addressed some of the more troubling recommendations it contained. ….But don’t worry … I'll be covering them in depth later in the week

If this study represents a starting point … the middle ground … from where the debate will proceed, we'll be in deep trouble again going forward.

We have already heard the same rhetoric contained in the report parroted by Reid, Schumer, and the administration.... Leading one to believe that it represents a consensus view.

And if those advocacy groups in Washington who supposedly represent the interests of the migrant population believe that this too is an acceptable "middle ground" from which negotiations should proceed it might be time for them to reexamine their priorities.

Read More...

Summary only...

Making the Immigration Argument in a New Economic Reality.

Come January 20, 2009 a new administration will take office in perhaps the most precarious times the nation has faced since the 1930's. Fighting two seemingly endless wars and with an economy on the verge of collapse, it is not an enviable position for any leader.

While both candidates have avoided the immigration debate like the plague during the campaign, it has moved down the list of important issues for voters, replaced by more pressing issues like healthcare or the economy. But in order to address these more pressing concerns in any meaningful way, the new government will need to tackle immigration once and for all.

We cannot talk about supplying health care for 46 million uninsured Americans, and perhaps double that number that are underinsured, without addressing what is to become of the health needs of an additional 12mil undocumented immigrants. We cannot talk about fixing a broken economy and real economic justice for working Americans without addressing the 8 million workers living in the shadows and working in an underground economy.

The opponents of any kind of real economic change or healthcare reform will surely use the old canards about "illegal immigrants" to not only distract the American public from addressing the real problems that need to be addressed, but as an excuse to derail real reforms and change. It is for this reason that immigration reform must be dealt with sooner rather than later.

But after years of toxic and divisive debate, are the American people ready for a real and practical discussion of this issue? Or will they get bogged down, as in the past, in meaningless sloganeering and petty tribalism and xenophobia?

I think the answer depends not on the actions of the anti-immigrants right, who will inevitably try to turn all the collective fears and insecurities of the American public towards the immigrant population, but on the actions those looking for truly rational, fair, and practical reform.

It's safe to assume that no matter what happens in the Presidential race (although it appears we have a pretty good idea how that will end up), the American people are demanding change.

Additionally, both houses of Congress will be vastly different than they are today. Perhaps at no time in recent memory has there been a greater mandate for Washington to effect change of a seismic nature than the one that is about to be delivered.

Against this backdrop, those looking for meaningful immigration reform must see this as a new opportunity to reframe the debate. If they fail to do so, anti-immigrant forces will surely do it for them.

Six months from now we will be faced with a new paradigm.

Either immigration reform becomes just one part of comprehensive plan to revitalize a new 21st century America … just one component of an aggressive plan to address not only the nation's economic health but it future direction, or the anti-immigrant forces will have prevailed and we will be mired down in a divisive debate that will stunt all other reforms.

For us to reframe the debate, we have to acknowledge that current economic conditions put this issue in a precarious position and that increased blowback from the right is inevitable.

I would suggest that rather than trying to counter right wing framing (ie: immigrants are an economic drain, and in tough times we need to limit immigration and crack down on the undocumented), we should turn the presumed "strengths" of their arguments back in on them... sort of an "immigration debate jujitsu".

We have spent vast resources trying to debunk right wing framing, yet it still prevails. I suggest we need to turn this argument inside out to effectively make the case for meaningful reform.


Security:

Over the past 20 years we have continually increased spending on added border security, yet the numbers of the undocumented have continued to increase. Only now, with an economic downturn have we seen decreasing numbers. This of course is the result of basic free market principles.

But in a current economic crisis we can no longer afford to spend vast sums of money on failed security measures like walls and random high-profile (and high cost) "show raids" that target a few hundred undocumented immigrants who unluckily work at the wrong place at the wrong time.

These raids have only led to misery and destruction of hard working families. They have done nothing to curb the flow of undocumented workers.

Additionally the costs of detaining and processing even these relatively few undocumented immigrants has been astronomical...if these policies were taken to the wide-scale levels that would be required to forcibly remove over 12 million as suggested by those who oppose meaningful reform...the costs would make the recent economic bailout efforts look minor in comparison.

We need instead practical reform so that law enforcement dollars can be spent protecting citizens from criminal elements both domestic and foreign as opposed to prosecuting and persecuting hard working immigrants. We need to reform the system so that those who wish to come here to work and make a better life are able to do so legally. With wait times for new arrivals reaching 20 years, and no provisions made for those in many countries to ever enter legally, all the money the government could print will never be enough to seal the border.

We need the tax revenues/ Out of the shadows:

All those living and working in this country need to have the opportunity to contribute equally to the nations well being. We can no longer afford to have whole segments of the economy operating underground. Unscrupulous employers can no longer be allowed to use lack of immigration status as a means to cheat both employees and the American people. We have all seen the deplorable working conditions and the labor, health, safety violations, that have occurred in the few high profile "show raids" that have taken place. Not to mention the questionable record keeping and accounting practices that hide profits from taxation.

While not all undocumented workers work under such horrid conditions, with the vast majority working for the small businesses that line many American main streets, the very nature of their immigration status forces otherwise law abiding employers to skirt the law and engage in questionable practices to fill their labor needs.

Like the policies of Prohibition in the 20's and 30's, today's failed immigration system makes "criminals" out of million of hard working people both native and foreign born. And like Prohibition, has set the stage for an underground economy that allows the truly criminal and unscrupulous to cheat and steal from the American people.

The only way to remove 12million people from the underground economy is to make them full, participating, members of society and bring them out of the shadows by allowing them access to legal status.

This is not a matter of granting "amnesty" to those who have entered without authorization …. It's a matter of recognizing the reality that 12mil people living productive lives and working in this economy are not about to pick up and leave simply because ant-immigrant forces want them to … and that we all benefit by having them contributing fully in the light of day.

Economic Justice/ Workers Rights:

After a decade of stagnating wages, tax policies that favor the wealthiest Americans while penalizing the vast majority of working people, and an American dream that seems to be slipping out of reach for most working Americans, we need to once again restore the rights of working families to make a better life.

All workers, regardless of immigration status, deserve a safe workplace, a wage they can live on and support their families, the ability to make a better life for their children and provide them with a quality education, and the ability to access affordable healthcare. These are basic rights. These are the rights American workers fought long and hard to achieve. From the beginnings of the union movement in the nineteenth century, until nearly the end of the 20th, each generation of workers fought to make life better for the next. … and they succeeded.

But in the last 30 years American workers have been moving backwards rather than moving forward.

While the contributing factors to this decline in worker's standard of living are many, from outsourcing to union busting, deregulation to the dismantling of the progressive tax system, for us to turn this tide and return to the road towards economic justice, we need to include all workers. As long as nearly eight million workers are left out in the cold, and demagogues can turn worker against worker, no equity will be achieved.

In those industries that rely heavily on immigrant labor, this is most important.

The conditions we have seen in the factories and meatpacking plants that have been targeted by ICE speak volumes. Those conditions exist not because there are easily exploitable workers available….the exploitable workers are there because they are the only ones left willing to work under those horrendous conditions. They go where the work is, be it rural Iowa or N. Carolina.

Having driven out the unions with union busting tactics, or relocating to rural, right to work states with little regulation and government oversight, and high poverty rates, these companies proceeded to chip away at worker protections and rights until only the most exploitable and vulnerable in society would work there.

The largest pork processing plant in the nation, Smithfield's facility in Tar Heel, N. Carolina, readily hires a mix of undocumented workers, and prison labor to fill its labor needs. This is because conditions are so deplorable only those with little or no other options will work there.


This cycle needs to end.

To raise the standards for all workers, the vulnerability that comes with undocumented status must end. Once these workers are brought out of the shadows and allowed to join with all other workers to demand the conditions and compensation due them, all workers will benefit.

Conclusion:

This is just a start at examining possible framing changes that will move the immigration debate away from one dominated by restrictionists to one based on reality and progressive ideas.

Of course there are many more areas to explore such as Globalization and Neo-Liberal economic policies that drive migration globally and lower standards for all workers, including those in first-world nations. Or the need to address economic and social justice in sender nations and the role US policy plays in that dynamic. And these are other areas where new framing is needed.

Despite all the divisive rhetoric we’ve heard during this election cycle, and the reliance of some on the old attack politics of the past, it's becoming more and more evident that the majority of the American public are rejecting the calls to tribalism and simplistic slogans. They want meaningful and practical change, and are willing to listen, learn, and work towards that change. Never before in recent memory have the American people been so engaged. Certainly, the economy, the war, the heath care crisis, and many other problems have helped to wake them from their years of complacency. But, no matter what the reason, they have awakened from a long sleep and are ready to work for change.

If we are to be part of that change and make immigration reform part of a New Deal for the 21st century, we will need to take the lead, and make the American people understand that immigration reform is part and parcel of any real and meaningful change for the future.

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...