Democrat's New Immigration Strategy …Sort Of

The Democratic Party finally released what appears to be their official strategy/talking points intended to counter the Republican immigration wedge.

Now, I'm not a high paid consultant, or a professional Washington strategist with a long history of losing campaigns, but for the life of me I can't seem to figure out what the Democratic leadership is trying to accomplish with this plan.

Up until now it appeared that the "Republican-lite" strategy developed by Rahm Emanuel and the DLC centrists looked like it would become the party line. But with this new strategy, recently released on the party's website, I frankly haven't a clue what the Dems ultimate plan is.

The strategy in essence revolves around a few key concepts:

• The Republicans are using the immigration issue for political gain


• The Republicans had plenty of time to fix immigration and didn't


• The Republicans have been unable to secure the border


• The Republicans are using fear and bigotry to scapegoat immigrants


• The scapegoating isn't working

Of course there's one glaring omission in this strategy …. there isn't any sort of a alternative plan proposed

Nowhere is there a word about what in fact the Democrats are going to do about immigration. Not even the usual vague call for "comprehensive reform that secures our border while providing a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants." And you can just forget about specifics.

But what’s even more troubling is the tone and tenor of the talking points

Despite having majorities in Congress for twelve years and a President in the White House for the last seven years, Republicans ignored the issues of border security and immigration reform until it became politically convenient. To distract from their failure to address the issues and to distract from their failed economic policies, Republicans turned immigration into a wedge issue for electoral gain that has relied on scapegoating people and dividing Americans.

From border walls that were never funded to trying to criminalize immigrants, their families, and even clergy, the Republican legacy on border security and immigration reform amounts to failure and scapegoating….

• For Years, Administration’s Catch and Release Policy Left Gaping Hole In Nation’s Security, While Targeting Mexicans.

• Through First Five Years of Bush Administration, Apprehensions of Illegal Immigrants Dropped, Deportable Aliens Declined, and Audits of Employers Dropped.

• DHS Has Wasted Millions On Failed Border Security Programs.

• Bush Administration Underfunded Border Security Called For By 9/11 Act.

• Republican Congress Provided Only Half of Mandated Border Agents, Killed Democratic Attempts to Meet Full Mandate.

• 2001-2005: Republicans Killed 5 Separate Attempts to Increase Border Security Funding By Over $2 Billion.

• 2005: Republicans Voted Against 650 Border Patrol Agents.

• 2003: Republicans Voted Against $750 Million for Border Security.

• But the GOP Didn’t Even Fund the Fence, Only Offered "Down Payment" On Fence Construction; Billions More Needed To Build.

What exactly are the Dems trying to say here?

Are they going to build a better wall?

Fund more Border Patrol Agents?

In essence, are they saying they will do the job the Republicans haven't been willing or able to do?

It looks like they're trying to send the message that when it comes to "border security" the Republicans have been as ineffective as they were with Katrina, Iraq, and the economy, and the Dems can do a better job.

And while this strategy might play with some discontented Republicans and swing independents, it raises serious questions about the Dems commitment to meaningful reform that doesn't rely on simplistic solutions like wall building and armed guards every 50ft along the border.

If trying to "out-Republican the Republicans" on border security is the best the leadership can come up with, they need to go back to the drawing board and start reworking this idea. For one thing, the Republicans own the misguided "border security" concept, and those that agree with them will never be convinced that the Dems could ever be as "tough"…or cruel … as say Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter are trying to force the Republican Party to be.

So obviously this strategy must be aimed at a broader audience. Those swing voters, independents, and Democrats, who polls show would support legalization of the 12 million unauthorized immigrants, but still want "strong border enforcement"

And here is where this strategy has its greatest flaw.

Instead of using the Republican's inability to "secure the borders" as an opening to introduce the broader, more sweeping changes, that would eventually decrease illegal entry and mass economic migration, they imply that they can simply do the same job … but better.

Instead they should be saying that after all these years the Republicans cannot physically seal the borders, because trying to "physically" seal the borders is not the answer. No wall can be high enough, and no amount of money spent, large enough. There have to be other, more complex, and comprehensive ways of controlling immigration:

• Things like adjusting free trade agreements so they don't foster poverty in sender nations.



• Things like working with foreign governments in sender nations to ensure that they not only respect human rights, but worker rights and economic justice.



• Things like examining and reforming our immigration codes to make them more practical, fair, and reflective of economic realities.



• Things like fixing our immigration bureaucracy so it can efficiently and humanely process the flow of immigrants in a timely and effective manner.

And these are but just a few of the things that should be talked about. There are many, many more.

If, in an ironic twist on Rovian tactics, the goal of the Democrat's attack on the Republican's inability to "secure the border" is to make a weakness out of their presumed strength of being tough on immigration, they need to fill that void with an alternative plan ... And it should be plain and simple to present to the American people:

"You can't build a wall high enough – We've got smarter answers"

Additionally this strategy has one other troubling aspect; the notion that the "Scapegoating is not working"

For one, it's just not accurate.

Anyone who has followed this issue over time knows that during the past two years the polling has been consistently shifting towards the right. And no wonder. Between Republican politicians beating the issue to death for a lack of anything else on the agenda, and the right-wing noise machine hammering away on it, the public increasingly moves further and further from the center. The MSM has only added to this shift by allowing Republicans a pass on important issues of the day, by letting them focus the debate on immigration. The trend is obvious, and unless the Democrats start to effectively counter the immigration wedge, any predictions about it's political power a year from now are speculative at best.

The second, and more troubling, aspect for concern about underestimating the effectiveness of scapegoating immigrants is that it demonstrates a total disconnect with the concerns of the very Latino voters the Democrats are so sure are guaranteed to flock to the party.

In fact, the "scapegoating" page on the website links to an article about the political price the Republicans will pay for demonizing Latino immigrants.

But, at the same time, Democrats are trying to convince voters that just because the polling shows that immigration is currently not a "top tier" issue for the American people, or that the wedge didn't work in the last two election cycles, somehow this demonstrates scapegoating's ineffectiveness.

But this sends a message that runs contrary to Latino's everyday experiences.

Latino voters know all too well the ramifications of current toxic political environment. They are appalled by the constant racial and ethnic attacks that pass for political discourse. Hate crimes against Latinos are at record levels and nearly daily there are stories of raids and roundups of "illegals" portrayed as subhuman criminals. And yes, Latinos see this as a product of a rabidly xenophobic and racist Republican party…. But Democratic downplaying of the impact of scapegoating, simply because it might prove politically ineffective, marginalizes it's true impact.

This, coupled with the implied emphasis on "border enforcement" and lack of a meaningful alternative comprehensive plan in this strategy cannot be viewed as good news for Latino voters.

We can only hope that as we move forward with this election and this issue, the Democrats will gain some further insight, and the courage to start to take a true leadership roll, and not only neutralize this issue politically…but actually come up with some real and meaningful solutions.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dems sin cojones – how about you just take baby steps

For the first six years of the Bush presidency the Democratic leadership continually stepped away from the hard fights. At each impasse, whether it was war funding, judicial appointments, or oversight, they acquiesced to the ruling majority out of fear that they would be even further marginalized. Yet, even after regaining control of the Congress, they still behave as if they are the minority party. With a President whose approval ratings are in the toilet, and a Congress where Republicans would rather "retire" than face the electorate, one would think that Democrats would be emboldened. But to the contrary, the mere thought of being called "weak" on any given issue by the Republican noise machine drives them to abandon all principle, and grab hold of the right-wing bandwagon for dear life.

Nowhere is this truer than with the Republican formulated wedge issue of immigration reform.

Despite consistent polling that shows the vast majority of the American people prefer a comprehensive policy that is firm but fair, an accusation of supporting "amnesty" or being "weak" on border enforcement, leaves the Democratic leadership quivering and looking for "middle ground" that's been defined more by the fringes of the Republican Right than the American people.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the advice doled out by Democratic strategists like Rahm Emanuel and the beltway boys at Democracy Corps and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. Emanuel has advised Democratic candidates to avoid the "third rail of American politics" and shift to the right on immigration issues, while James Carville and other DLC/centrists are advising that despite the fact that much of the current anti-immigrant sentiment is based on "improbable" beliefs, and "impressions (that) conflict with the facts", Democrats would be wise to pander to the misinformed and ignorant and play it safe with a triangulated "Republican lite" strategy.

Of course for a nation that has been fed on a daily diet of right-wing coolaid about this issue for over two years, no "third way" is to be found on this issue. If the last Republican debate taught us nothing else, it is quite evident that the immigration wedge will be played to its fullest extent in the coming election. Additionally evident is the fact that for those who have formulated the wedge, no "middle ground" is acceptable. With Republican front runners falling over each other to "out Tancredo, Tancredo", ironically leaving ultra conservative, John McCain and evolution denier, Mike Huckabee as the apparent voices of reason, "triangulation" appears to be a losing strategy at present.

The only way to start to shift this debate from its increasingly right-wing bent is for the Democratic leadership to move away from a defensive position to an offensive one and present a reasonable and rational alternative to mass deportation and "elimination through attrition". Unlike other issues from the war to judicial nominees, where they have consistently played a reactive role trying to insulate themselves from right-wing attack, rather than a proactive role of formulating policy and strategies to institute needed change, on this issue they must start to take the lead.

But how can a party that has spent 25 years cowering in the shadow of the Gipper, willingly proclaiming that the "era of big government is over", while searching out a "third way" to undo the ravages of the a Southern Strategy that realigned the political base, suddenly rediscover it's moral compass and to take a leadership role in what is quickly becoming a defining social issue of the 21st century? How can they regain the mantel of social consciousness that defined the party for nearly 50 years starting with FDR?

Simple – grow a spine.

Ok. I realize that's a tall order… One that has little chance of actually happening.

How about they just take baby steps and start to diffuse the right-wing talking points one by one.

Now I realize that figuring out a way to counter the well thought-out policies of the right, like expulsion through attrition, mass incarceration in detention camps, elimination of judicial review, warrant-less arrests and revoking the 14th amendment, might seem difficult. After all, they might be tarred as "pro-amnesty", or worse yet, asked about their position on allowing unauthorized immigrants to drive legally with insurance. …So let's not go to those "sticky issues" right away, and deal with one that most people can agree on: enforcing labor laws and regulations.

Whether one has drunk hardily of the Lou Dobbs cool-aid and totally accepts the premise that unauthorized immigrants "destroy good-paying American jobs" by willingly working for sub-standard wages in conditions better suited animals than humans, or is more enlightened and sees the larger picture of both the global economic realities of unregulated capitalism, and the systematic destruction of the working and middle-classes to the benefit of the elite classes both here and abroad, most can agree that the exploitation of immigrant workers has not been beneficial for anyone.

So why not build on that simple idea as a starting point.

The problem with the exploitation of workers is at its core not a problem of lack of enforcement of immigration laws in the workplace, but rather the lack of enforcement of labor laws in the workplace. Unfair labor practices, failures to adhere to wage and hour regulations, unsafe working conditions, lack of employee protections, harassment or obstruction of efforts to organize ...these are not IMMIGRATION problems, but rather LABOR problems.

link

A simple and illustrative example of this can be seen in the case of Michael Bianco Inc, the New Bedford Mass. textile manufacturing company raided by immigration enforcement officers last March resulting in the arrest and deportation of over 350 immigrant workers.

The raid followed an 11-month undercover criminal investigation, according to statements from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston.

The plant’s owner, Francesco Insolia, and managers “knowingly and actively” recruited increasing numbers of illegal workers to meet demands of multiple Department of Defense contracts since 2001. In 2004, the company received an $82-million defense contract, according to allegations in the affidavits filed in support of search warrants executed yesterday. More than 500 people work at the Bianco plant.

Workers who waited outside after proving their legal status said Bianco textiles manufactures backpacks, ammunition pouches and other gear for U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and that government inspectors often visit the plant. Bianco textiles also specializes in the manufacture of handbags and other fine leather goods.

The affidavits allege that Insolia, 50, of Pembroke, Mass., “intentionally seeks out illegal aliens because they are more desperate to find employment and are thus more likely to endure severe workplace conditions he has imposed.”

Those conditions allegedly include “docking of pay by 15 minutes for every minute an employee is late; fining employees $20 for spending more than 2 minutes in the restroom and firing for a subsequent infraction; providing one roll of toilet paper per restroom stall per day, typically resulting in the absence of toilet paper after only 40 minutes per day; fining employees $20 for leaving (the) work area before break bell sounds; and fining employees $20 for talking while working and firing for a subsequent infraction.”

Link

But Insolia's violations of the most basic labor protections and laws went far beyond illegally fining employees.

Five former employees and one current employee of Michael Bianco Inc., filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Boston, charging the company with setting up a fake corporation, Front Line Defense Inc., to avoid paying time-and-a-half wages for overtime shifts.

The workers said that they were routinely ordered to clock out after working a full day shift and then to clock back in for evening shifts. Then they were paid with two separate checks, one from Michael Bianco for day shifts and another from Front Line Defense for evening shifts, to make it appear they had not exceeded the 40 hours a week that would trigger overtime pay, the workers said.

Lawyers for the workers described Front Line Defense as a phantom company, whose principal officers were relatives of Michael Bianco's owner, Francesco Insolia. … Front Line Defense's business address was in the same brick building that housed the Michael Bianco factory, according to the lawsuit. …

The lawsuit seeks back wages for all 500 current and former employees, including 360 immigrants, mostly Central American women, who were detained in a March 6 raid, which was the largest local sweep of allegedly illegal immigrants. Even those who have been deported are due back wages because fair wage laws do not distinguish between legal and illegal workers….

Link

And all this went on under the watchful eyes of Pentagon inspectors who regularly scrutinized the plant.

Pentagon inspectors didn't report on alleged illegal hiring practices and wretched working conditions at a New Bedford sweatshop because it wasn't their job, a spokesman said yesterday.

"It's not our responsibility," said Dick Cole, a spokesman for the Defense Contractors Management Agency, which monitors federal contractors as they perform work for the Pentagon.

…

Cole acknowledged that Pentagon inspectors regularly visited New Bedford's Michael Bianco Inc. before last week's massive raid by Homeland Security agents, who found hundreds of illegal immigrants toiling in "deplorable" conditions as they made backpacks for U.S. troops.

But he said inspectors, who visited Bianco two to four times a week, were focused on ensuring that the firm was making quality products and meeting Pentagon deadlines for deliveries, not on making sure Bianco was complying with federal wage, safety and hiring laws.

Boston Herald, March, 14, 2007, pg.7

Additionally, the Department of Defense maintained an office inside the plant, staffed by full-time inspectors charged with overseeing the operation.

A spokesman for the U.S. Army Soldiers System Center in Natick, Mass., which oversees the work, said that a Department of Defense inspector maintains an office at the plant, but was unaware that any of the workers were undocumented.

….

According to a spokesman for the U.S. Army Soldiers System Center in Natick, Mass., a representative from the Department of Defense has an “on-site” office at the plant, where he is charged with inspecting all of the gear that is shipped to the military.
Link

While the owners and managers of Michael Bianco Inc faced charges for "conspiring to encourage or induce illegal aliens to reside in the United States", their only punishment for all the labor infractions so far has been limited to an Occupational Safety and Health Administration fine of $45,000 after identifying 15 violations, including chemical, mechanical, and electrical hazards.

Bianco is not alone in this lenient treatment for gross violations of labor standards and laws. Smithfield Foods, and Con-Agra subsidiary, Swift & Co., both targets of previous large-scale immigration raids, and serial labor abusers, have seen no ramifications for their exploitive practices.

It should be clear to the Democratic leadership that this situation leaves them with the perfect opportunity to shift the immigration debate in their favor while allowing them to regain their position as the party of workers rights.

In order to raise the standards for all workers, both US-born and immigrant, the labor and employment laws of this country need to be more strictly enforced.

Currently "workplace enforcement" revolves around the government rooting out unauthorized workers and deporting them. The businesses rarely receive any punishments and when they do they quickly pass those costs on to consumers through higher prices as part of the cost of doing business. But the terrible working conditions that have relegated those jobs to ones that only undocumented immigrants will accept remain the same.

This paradigm needs to shift. The government needs to shift its focus from attacking the symptom of unfair labor practices, to attacking those practices themselves.

Instead of swat teams of ICE agents storming factories and meatpacking plants looking for undocumented immigrants, we need armies of inspectors from the Department of Labor, OSHA, and other agencies, looking for labor violations and evidence unfair labor practices. This is how you raise the standards for all US workers.

link

This seems to be a no-brainer.

While the right-wing can try to obfuscate and twist reality to suit their reactionary agenda, refocusing the debate to worker protections and raising the standards for all workers, whether they are US-born, naturalized, legal residents, or unauthorized immigrants, is not only a progressive idea that has been a basis of Democratic principles, but a position that no right-thinking American would oppose.

Perhaps once the Democrats learn to take these simple baby-steps back towards their roots as a party, we can discuss some of those other "scarier" aspects of the debate like reforming the quota system, normalizing the status of the current unauthorized population, addressing the free-trade policies that drive migration, and maybe even sometime in the future …..those troublesome drivers licenses. ….who knows, somewhere along the line they my actually grow a backbone.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Word

An anonymous poster left a comment in one of my recent posts on immigration reform meta issues that has left me grappling for an answer. He/she raised a point that in some ways goes to the heart of the pro-immigrant movement's current inability to break the apparent right-wing stranglehold on the "immigration debate."

Having brought this issue to the national forefront for use as a possible electoral wedge, the restrictionist forces behind the immigration debate have had the opportunity frame the issue from the start in a way that has left the pro-immigrant movement struggling to find its voice in opposition to their policies. They quite frankly seem to be shouting us down at every turn.

They have managed to deflect criticisms of bigotry and racism by simply denying them and claiming instead their concern for "the rule of law", they brush off claims of xenophobia by stating opposition not to immigration, but rather "illegal" immigration.

This has left those of us in the pro-immigrant movement to try to come up with an effective counter. And it seems that thus far we have not been able to find the words or phrases that can neutralize their carefully crafted spin.

As my anonymous friend said:

The word for what abolitionists fought was "slavery." The word for what South Africans fought was "apartheid." Words for what the civil rights movement fought (and fights) include "racism" and "discrimination." Those words convey a clear, one-word enemy. A wrong that needs correction.

In one word, can you say what the wrong is that needs correction in our fight for immigrants?

We all agree that calling the problem "immigration," or the "immigration problem," or even "the illegal immigration problem" misses the point. There is a problem from our point of view, but we have not distilled it down to one word. We have not offered a substitute for the framing of this issue as the "immigration" issue.

Immigration is what people do to come here. The problem is really what we do to people who come here.

What is the word for that?

The word for what abolitionists fought was "slavery." The word for what South Africans fought was "apartheid." Words for what the civil rights movement fought (and fights) include "racism" and "discrimination." Those words convey a clear, one-word enemy. A wrong that needs correction.

In one word, can you say what the wrong is that needs correction in our fight for immigrants? What if we could invoke that word when we speak on this subject? Would it make it more clear where we are coming from?

To move in this direction, I have at least tried to stop referring to this issue as the "immigration" issue. I try to use the word "immigrant" and not "immigration" where possible when talking about the issue in general - because the "immigrant" word personalizes the people we are fighting for. I also use the phrase "immigration bureaucracy" when I'm talking about the problem. But if I'm really looking for a one-word enemy to call out by name, "immigration bureaucracy" fails the test by being two words, and the phrase is not as crisp or to the point as "slavery," "apartheid," "racism," or "discrimination."

I have heard our friends and allies use the words "isolationism," "xenophobia," or other words. Are these the words, then? Are these the one-word enemies?

If so, between the two, I'd pick "isolationism," because it describes the policy instead of just the emotion behind the policy. But I wonder whether it's exact enough. Lots of policies fit under the isolationism umbrella, however, many of them applicable to how we interact with people outside this country. We are fighting primarily for people in this country. Maybe "xenophobia" is the better of the two after all.

Is there an even more compelling noun that describes the policies we fight, on behalf of our immigrant neighbors? Is there one noun that truly isolates what it is that we are really against - or for?

While neither a noun nor what we are fighting, "welcoming" is a word that has been used with a measure of success, and the word still reverberates today. Just by using the word in public, I think we have pushed the boundaries of the debate in our direction. And we also gave people the courage (or at least a common vocabulary) to express with one voice what some in the city were already feeling and saying in other ways. But "welcoming" is not the enemy.

"Invisibility" is a word that I saw Univision use once, and that word conveys the idea of being physically present but nonetheless outside of society. Or to say it another way, with apologies to Shakespeare, "to be here but not to be - estar pero no ser - that is the question."

"Excommunication" is a word that seems to capture the spirit of unjust exclusion, and it has the added benefit of calling religion to mind, which is a frame that favors our position.

But I suspect that you think these words fall short. We may truly be at a lack for words, or more accurately, at a lack for the one word.

Please tell me I'm wrong. In one word, tell me what we're fighting. And then tell everyone.

As much as we all recoil at the notion of engaging in "framing" and "spin" when it comes to an issue that effect the lives of so many, sometimes when engaged in a war of words for hearts and minds, he who can present his case in the simplest and most easily digested terms holds the advantage .... perhaps it's time for us to search for "that one word"

Read More...

Summary only...

More Movement Meta

I believe the last round of negotiations on Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR), the so-called "Grand Compromise", provided a huge wake-up call for the immigrant-rights community. We found out just how badly the right-wing had out flanked us both in Washington and in the media and that any hope for meaningful CIR was now in the distant future.

Crafted in hopes to find a "sweet spot" that would calm the far-right, give business interests what they wanted, and appease those concerned with immigrant rights, the Compromise ended up to be nothing more than a gumbo of concessions to business and the restrictionst wing of the Republican party.

Despite the fact that a majority of Americans believe that the immigration system is severely broken and that those who have come here improperly deserve to be given the opportunity to stay and continue leading productive lives, a vocal and influential minority within the Republican Party managed to hold CIR hostage. They garnered concession after concession until the bill presented was an unworkable mess of restrictions, punishments and business concessions. All these concessions made in a vane attempt to appease this minority so that they would allow the "amnesty" that the vast majority of the American people want anyway.

As has happened time and again, when the closed doors were finally opened, and the super-secret compromise legislation revealed, many in the immigrant-rights community decided to play it safe with a "wait and see" strategy before endorsing or opposing the bill. This, in the hope that they might "work to make it better" through the amendment process.

And just as in the past, the amendment process was not meant for them, but rather those demanding greater and greater restrictions, and in the end, the bill received tepid support from a few organizations and outright opposition from others, and was killed.

Yet, this didn't stop the far-right for taking sole credit for its demise.

Lou Dobbs crowed about how "we the people have stopped the illegal alien amnesty bill", restrictionist Republicans gloated over the bill's failure, and Rush thanked his listeners for killing "shamnesty".

Yet, even though the bill was a train wreck from the start and probably never had any real chance of passing despite all the bravado from the Whitehouse, the grassroots campaign launched by the restrictionist movement was impressive to say the least. Over 700K e-mails and faxes flooded the Capitol in opposition to the legislation.

An effort like this is only possible because the ant-immigrant movement has a firm grip on much of the traditional and emerging new media.

Along with their legion of talk radio propagandists, they have Lou Dobbs' daily hour long cavalcade of hate on CNN, Pat Buchanan posturing as NBC's resident immigration expert, and a full roster of immigrant bashers occupying the seats over at FOX News to dominate the traditional media.

On the Web the ant-immigration movement is broad and far-reaching also.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and its affiliate organizations, The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and Numbers USA dominate. CIS, through its "studies and research", and Numbers USA, through their legislative "analysis," provide talking points and misinformation spread throughout the web and the main stream media. Numbers USA alone has a membership of 447,000 and played a large roll in orchestrating the restrictionist grassroots effort last spring. This web presence is magnified by the hundreds of blogs and other web sites that take their cues from FAIR and the other more traditional lobbying efforts.

So where does that leave the immigrant-rights movement?

Right now … in the dark.

We have no true counter to this restrictionist effort.

In the traditional media, print journalism does manage to get to the truth sometimes, and there is the occasional positive piece on TV. On the web there is a disjointed community of web sites and blogs trying to reach an audience, but in general nothing comes close to the coordinated effort put on by the right.

In my last post I discussed the lack of a coordinated message and unified goals as one chief stumbling block for the movement. But there are others.

Even if a set of goals and messages were formulated, we have no effective means to disseminate them. Sending a lone representative from the NCLR off to face Lou Dobbs on his home turf, or writing op-eds in hopes that they sway public opinion don't constitute an effective media strategy.

Along with a unified message we need a strategy.

We need infrastructure.

We need tools.

We need coordination.

We need to reach the point where not only is our message getting heard, but the opposition's message is being debunked or vilified. We need to be able to ensure that every time a CIS "study" is quoted as fact, it can be countered. We need to make it possible that when a restrictionist pundit or expert quotes the same old Borjas study on the adverse effects of immigration on those at the bottom of the economic ladder, it can be countered with the newer Peri study that debunked it. But that kind of information needs to be not only readily available, but but people need to know it's out there. But most of all, we need to be willing to confront some of the uglier aspects of this debate and not let the underlying racism and xenophobia that motivates some, receive a free pass out of fear WE will look too confrontational.

I'm not an "old media" guy so I can't really make too many suggestions as to how to crack that nut.

I do know that as much as I give credit to anyone willing to face down Dobbs or Buchanan, our official spokespeople have not done too effective a job when dealing with them. We need spokespeople willing to be as confrontational as our opponents, who won't be bullied or badgered, and are willing to call our opponents out when they mislead or misrepresent the truth or rely on jingoistic rhetoric or fear mongering. And most of all; They can't be afraid to call a minuteman a racist …because he is one.

But that said, much of the work to be done is in the new media and the web.

The web is where much of the misinformation used by our opponents emanates. Google up "immigrant taxes", "immigrant crime" "immigrant disease" or any of a myriad of other hot-button topics and I guarantee the CIS or some other restrictionist think tank or web site will come up to supply an endless stream of bogus studies and talking points. Those "facts" then swirl around the right-wing echo chamber from the blogs to talk radio to the MSM…. Eventually becoming accepted fact by the public.

The web is also where restrictionist advocacy and organizing takes place. Number USA being the most prominent site. Between its legislative analysis, candidate rankings, and on-line lobbying efforts, it’s a one stop shop for restrictionist action. But there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other websites and blogs raising money, influencing elections, lobbying legislation.

We need to do much better in this respect if we are to ever move our cause forward.

We have no strong "think tank" web presence like CIS or the Heritage Foundation etc.

We have no centralized or organized lobbying effort on the web.

We have no new media echo-chamber to magnify and disseminate information.

The broader Progressive blogosphere IS building those kinds of tools. But as of yet the immigrant-rights community has not reaped any benefit from it.

A few things could be done to rectify this situation in a relatively short span of time.

One would be to set up a central "think tank" type website that could aggregate the academic studies, reports, papers, demographic data, and everything pertaining to immigration and immigration reform. Then make sure that all advocacy groups, lobbyists, media people, bloggers, and anyone else who addresses this issue knows not only about the site, but how to easily find what they need.

Another thing that could easily be done would be to start to tie all the various pro-immigrant websites and bloggers together with a centralized set of tools for such things as contacting representatives, e-mail campaigns, voter registration, etc. Then start coordinating efforts and campaigns across the web to lobby for reform through these tools.

Out-reach to the already existing Progressive blogosphere is a must. They already have an existing infrastructure. But as of yet, most traditional immigrant-rights advocacy groups and organizations have virtually ignored this rapidly expanding movement. And quite frankly, in their ambivalence, have lost ground rather than gained in the last year as more and more reactionary populist ideas have made there way into Progressive discourse. From the Daily Kos to the Huffington Post, the pro-immigrat message is just not getting through.

Start a coordinated effort to use as much New Media as possible. Create viral videos through You-Tube, tap into social networking sites like Myspace, start reaching out to the blogoshere, all of this would be a good start.

Last year, through an uncoordinated effort of Spanish language radio, Myspace, websites, posters and flyers, the movement managed to put millions in the streets. With coordination one can only imagine what could be accomplished in the future.

But as I posted in my previous post, none of this can happen until all the hundreds of organizations and advocacy groups, large and small, start to work together and truly become a unified front.

Read More...

Summary only...

The immigration issue: two years out.

This October will mark the second anniversary of the publication of "Respect for the Law & Economic Fairness: Illegal Immigration Prevention", by Republican spinmeister, Frank Luntz.

Intended as a blueprint for winning the 2006 midterm elections, the 25-page memo laid out a strategy to provide cover for Republican candidates hampered by waning poll numbers. Luntz'a plan was to blame "illegal aliens" for all the nations social and economic ills, enabling a shift of attention from an unpopular war, unpopular economic policies, and an unpopular President.

Cleverly framing the issue in reactionary populism, Luntz's strategy pitted hard-working, tax-paying, "real Americans" against shiftless "illegals" looking for a free ride at the nations expense.

Of course with hindsight, we now know this strategy failed politically, polarizing and fracturing the Republican party. But Luntz's handiwork has had a lasting effect on national discourse and led to a level of societal toxicity that could have lasting effects well beyond his political machinations.

By December 2005, Congress passed the first in a series of "immigration reform" measures aimed at whipping up the electorate… the punitive, enforcement-only, Sensenbrenner Bill (HR4437). … a bill so vile it brought millions into the streets the following spring to oppose it.

In the following two years, three other major pieces "immigration reform" legislation have been proposed, two in the Senate, last years Kennedy-McCain Bill (s. 2611), and this years "Grand Compromise" (s.1639). With the reintroduction of the STRIVE ACT about to take place in the House, a third now joins them.

But each of these legislative efforts has been highly flawed. This in large part due to the work first done by Luntz in 2005. Having set the tone and timbre of the debate early on, every successive piece of immigration legislation in the last two years has moved further and further to the right.

In an attempt to find the "sweet spot" in Republican politics that would appease the restrictionist wing of the party and their followers, who have been the subjected to an unprecedented propaganda campaign, while still leaving enough concessions to make the business wing happy, every imaginable kind of "compromise" and concession has been put forward..

The list of compromise proposals is long. Touchbacks, triggers, more guestworkers, heavy fines, English-only, Z Visas, Y Visas, more walls, conditional status, the merit system, are but a few. All of them having no real purpose except to reconcile the two opposing factions within the Republican Party.

The Democrats have faired no better on this issue.

While almost universally accepting the notion of "comprehensive reform", what is meant by that catch-all term seems to vary greatly from one Democratic politician to the next. Very few have been willing to step beyond the confines of the debate as currently framed and propose the sweeping kind of reform called for.

Nothing is mentioned addressing the neo-liberal free-trade policies that have been the root cause of much of the inter-hemispheric migration taking place today.

None seems willing to counter the talking points of the extreme far-right that are clearly based on xenophobia and ethnocentrism.

None will step up and tie immigration reform to a broader policy of workers rights for all US workers, whether native or foreign-born.

None seem willing to close the loopholes in immigration policy that have allowed unscrupulous employers to game the system in regards to work visas and manipulate US labor markets to the detriment of both foreign and native-born workers in certain sectors.

They have forgotten the very roots of their party… A party built on the sweat and sacrifice of working people of all nation origins, races and creeds.

Now content to triangulate positions based upon some misguided belief of where the "magic middle" exists on any given issue, the Democrats have conceded the field to the opposition on immigration reform as just they have on many other important issues.


This lack of strong Progressive and Liberal voices has allowed for national polarization. As the debate has unfolded over the past few years, the bulk of the discussion has been dominated by voices from an increasingly unfriendly traditional media. From right-wing talk radio personalities to TV news commentators and pundits, a constant flow of anti-immigrant rhetoric has proliferated. The list of prominent anti-immigrant voices is long and a daily barrage of misinformation and propaganda from Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and FOX news has managed to poison any meaningful national discussion.

Even in the "New Media," which has increasingly become dominated by a rapidly growing Progressive internet presence, strong pro-reform voices have not come to the forefront.

While Progressive bloggers have had exponential growth in both numbers and political influence over the past few years, the immigration reform community has not benefited from this explosive growth.

This in part is due to the very lack of cohesive message that plagues the movement in general.

Like the broader Democratic Party, Progressives and Reformers have been all too willing to accept an ever moving target, determined by those opposed to any sort of reform, when considering what immigration reform should and shouldn't look like.

Thus far the reform movement has yet to become any more than a loose confederation of groups and advocates, often with agendas at opposition to one another. The movement is yet to put forth a cohesive set of goals and expectations beyond the vague concept of "comprehensive reform".

In order for any large scale movement demanding reform to be effective, a firm set of unified goals and expectations must be set.

Rather than always reacting to what legislation has been presented to us, the movement must define a firm set of goals as to what true immigration reform should be, then take those goals and march with them. These goals, once set, should become the cornerstone on which meaningful reform is built and should be presented to our political leadership to become the bedrock on which policy is crafted.

The time is now for those who truly want to advance the cause of immigration reform to come together and begin the hard work of crafting just such policy.

Policies that will address what future immigration should encompass.

Policies that will ensure that not only the immediate concerns of those here today are addressed, but also the concerns of those who will follow in the future.

Policies that look at the global realities of how US economic and foreign policy decisions effect and contribution to worldwide migration.

Policies that will ensure that all workers, both US and foreign-born are treated with dignity and economic justice.

Unless we, as Progressives and reformers, begin this needed dialogue amongst ourselves and start the hard work of reaching consensus, will forever be playing catch-up behind the likes of Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan as they continue to frame the national debate with the words of Frank Luntz and the Republican spin machine.

Read More...

Summary only...