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...

Democratic Platform Immigration Plank: The good, the bad, and the ugly

From the Democratic Platform Committee comes a draft of what will be Obama's immigration plank.

As expected, it's a mix of both good and bad.

On the good side there is a commitment to take up comprehensive reform within the first year, a plan to regularize the status of the 12mil undocumented migrants already living in the US, an acknowledgment that conditions in sender nations that foster increased migration must be dealt with, a reaffirmation of the commitment to the principles of family based immigration, an increase in the number of available visas, and a call to fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy.

On the bad side, the platform is still mired down in the language of enforcement and criminalization that marked previous failed efforts at reform.

Calls for increased border enforcement and security as a means to regulate migration, and promises of getting tough on those who "disrespect the law", while perhaps smart political theater, are not constructive ways to address a broken immigration system, and only add to the divisive and dehumanizing nature of the debate.

While mentioning the devastating effects of "raids that are ineffective, tear apart families and leave people detained without adequate access to counsel", the platform falls short of actually denouncing those raids and either calling for their end, or at the least, requiring a moratorium on them until reform is taken up and passed.

Additionally, with the fingerprints of centrist pollsters and spinmeisters all over it, it's notable to see the language shift from one of providing undocumented migrants the "opportunity" to become full members of society, (as has always been the verbiage) … to "require(ing) them to come out of the shadows and get right with the law" …this is no small difference.

While meaning essentially the same thing as a matter of policy, to require one to get "right with the law" implies an inherent criminality….and illegality …again fueling the same dehumanizing frames that have led to increased violence and hatred directed at immigrant populations.

Lastly, there are the labor aspects of this platform. While claiming to take a tough stance against those employers who exploit undocumented workers, the platform falls somewhat short of guaranteeing real protections for both native and immigrant laborers. It specifically targets those employers who fail to pay minimum wage…but makes no mention of a living, or prevailing wage.

This is an important distinction …to allow employers to pay immigrant workers a minimum wage, when it is far bellow the prevailing standards, is no less exploitive or destructive than failing to pay minimum wages for those jobs that warrant it.

While this platform is a decent starting point from which to proceed forward…it leaves too much to be desired as a declaration of leadership on this issue.

..but we are yet to see how the Republican's cobble together an immigration plank that satisfies it's anti-immigrant base while still allowing their standard-bearer a modicum of self-respect and credibility. …it should be quite a trick

text of immigration plank after the fold

..DRAFT..

Immigration
America has always been a nation of immigrants. Over the years, millions of people have come here in the hope that in America, you can make it if you try. Each successive wave of immigrants has contributed to our country's rich culture, economy and spirit. Like the immigrants that came before them, today's immigrants will shape their own destinies and enrich our country.

Nonetheless, our current immigration system has been broken for far too long. We need comprehensive immigration reform, not just piecemeal efforts. We must work together to pass immigration reform in a way that unites this country, not in a way that divides us by playing on our worst instincts and fears.

We are committed to pursuing tough, practical, and humane immigration reform immigration reform in the first year of the next administration.

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. 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. They are our neighbors, and we can help them become full tax paying, law-abiding, productive members of society.

At the same time, we cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. The American people are a welcoming and generous people, but those who enter our country's borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.

We need to secure our borders, and support additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.

We need additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better technology and real-time intelligence.

We need to dismantle human smuggling organizations, combating the crime associated with this trade.

We also need to do more to promote economic development in migrant-sending nations, to reduce incentives to come to the United States illegally.

And we need to crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants, especially those who pay their workers less than the minimum wage.

It's a problem when we only enforce our laws against the immigrants themselves, with raids that are ineffective, tear apart families and leave people detained without adequate access to counsel.

We realize that employers need a method to verify whether their employees are legally eligible to work in the U.S., and will ensure that our system is accurate, fair to legal workers, safeguards people's privacy, and cannot be used to discriminate against workers.

We must also improve the legal immigration system, and make our nation's naturalization process fair and accessible to the thousands of legal permanent residents who are eager to become full Americans.

We should fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy that hampers family reunification, the cornerstone of our immigration policy for years.

Given the importance of both keeping families together and supporting American businesses, we will increase the number of immigration visas for family members of people living here and for immigrants who meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill, as long as appropriate labor market protections and standards are in place.

We will fight discrimination against Americans who have always played by our immigration rules but are sometimes treated as if they had not.

Read More...

Summary only...

Time for a Reality Check

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

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

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

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

Over the following months things looked even brighter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House OKs seizing vehicles from illegal immigrants

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

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

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

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

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

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

AJC

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

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

And herein lays the problem.

In some ways we have deluded ourselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NCSL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More...

Summary only...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

OBAMA: So we've got to fix that.

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

And the problem that we have...

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

BROWN: All right, Senator Obama.

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

Go ahead, John.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

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

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

(LAUGHTER)

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

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

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

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

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

BROWN: All right.

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

BROWN: All right, Senator Clinton.

(APPLAUSE)

Senator Obama, go ahead please.

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

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

(LAUGHTER)

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

... to sending people back.

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

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

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

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

(APPLAUSE)

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

Read More...

Summary only...

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...

Losing the war of words

Last week when speaking on the immigration, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said that "For the American people, and therefore all of us, it's emerged as the third rail of American politics, and anyone who doesn't realize that isn't with the American people."

For many in the migrant-rights movement these words mark a crucial turning point. As a leading voice in the DLC/centrist wing of the Democratic Party, Emanuel's comments telegraph a message that in order to further cement an almost guaranteed Democratic victory next November, the Democratic establishment is more than willing to pander to the right and throw immigrants under the bus.

Today, Democracy Corps, the Democratic centrist think tank published a full statement on their recommendations for handling the immigration issue going forward. Needless to say the group founded by James Carville, Robert Shrum and Stanley Greenberg, not only echoes Emanuel's sentiments, but expands upon them.

Having completed their polling and focus groups, they found that much of the misinformation and propaganda propagated by the Right over the last two years has found its place in popular opinion, particularly with those who identify as the all important independent swing-voters.

Although admitting that many of these opinions are "improbable" beliefs, and "impressions (that) conflict with the facts", these Democratic strategists advise that candidates take positions that pander to them.

As much as this says about the cynical and self-serving nature of the Democratic centrists, it also speaks volumes to our own inability to control this debate. We, as advocates for migrant-rights and meaningful reform of our immigration system, have allowed two years of a constant barrage of lies, distortions, misinformation and bigotry, to essentially go unchecked.

Where is our counter to Lou Dobbs, who daily spouts out "facts" that have little basis in fact? Where is our FAIR or Center for Immigration Studies, who publish reams of dubious research and studies to further their cause? Where are all our talking-heads to fan out across the airwaves to counter right-wing spin? ….all these things don't exist, and as such the American people have been fed a daily dose of xenophobia and misinformation for over two years now. And now we ask, "How come we're losing this battle for hearts and minds"

According to polling sponsored by Democracy Corps, pollsters Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found that Democratic voters are most concerned about war and health care … but for independents it was "illegal immigration" and dependence on foreign oil.

For Democratic voters, being bogged down and spending billions in Iraq is the top issue (38 percent), followed closely by leaders having done nothing about health care (34 percent) and the loss of American jobs to China and India (29 percent).

For independents, the top issue underlying the discontent is ‘our borders’ having been ‘left unprotected and illegal immigration’ growing – cited by 40 percent, with no other issue a close second. The second most mentioned issue is ‘America doing nothing about our dependence on foreign oil and about global warming’ (31 percent).

Democrats: Finding Their Voices As Agents Of Change, Democracy Corps, Stan Greenberg ,Al Quinlan, and James Carville

And it is these independents that the strategists are most concerned with. Willingly pandering to their greatest fears and misconceptions.

Immigration and Welfare Reform

Critical to the success of the ‘New Democrats’ in 1992 was Bill Clinton’s pledge in his presidential announcement a year earlier to “end welfare as we know it.” It featured centrally in his campaign…

The centrality of illegal immigration to the current discontent about the direction of the country may be taking us back again to a welfare moment. Just as many workers with moderate incomes, uncertain employment and health insurance could not understand why they were being taxed to subsidize the long-term idleness of those on welfare, many Americans are just perplexed that this country has lost control of the borders and winks at illegal employment, taxing the resources of local schools and hospitals and much more. Many of the voter responses to welfare were racist to be sure, as now with the response to illegal immigration, but many are not.

How can George Bush, they ask have us on a “terror alert,” and yet he is “not really interested in doing anything about a barrier between Mexico and the United States”? “Isn’t it amazing?” “We’re under a big threat, but he won’t do anything about the borders.” Voters think this is just a first responsibility of leaders who are supposed to be protecting the country. Based on their votes on ‘homeland security,’ ports and the 9-11 Commission, Democrats agree with that first principle.

How can we be paying out government benefits and all this money when we are so financially strapped? Here, responses range from just sheer amount of money the country is paying for their support – “it taxes everything … twenty fold” – to the improbable belief that many are on welfare or food stamps and induced to say here. Some of these impressions conflict with the facts, but many speak concretely about hospitals that can’t deny health care and schools that must cope with the children and special language needs. For others it is more basic: “I’m self-employed “and couldn’t afford health insurance for a year. “We can’t afford to do anything because we’re paying for health insurance. They just go in and get it free.” The discussion of benefits leads to some pretty ugly responses, “Send the people back that don’t have [papers]. Our country has been too kind. I’m sorry.”

And with all the problems with jobs and the economy, how can you give over sectors of the American economy? Some do say that “tons of illegal immigrants in this country” are “doing a lot of jobs that nobody else wants to do.” But that is almost always contested in the groups: “I got boys that can’t find jobs, and I know high school kids that can’t find jobs because” the immigrants are willing to work many more hours for less. “Where is our jobs program for kids in [town] to dig those things out?” They think, not implausibly in some cases, “Let’s get control of what’s coming in and then there are jobs for our people.” With underlying worries about being forced to work at Wal-Mart, they think the illegal immigrants who work hard and for less “are driving the service industry out of our country.”

The voters most angry about the issue are those with a high school education, African Americans and those in rural areas, both black and white. This is also the top frustration for voters who want to vote Democratic for president but hold back from supporting our leading candidates. For all these target groups, their second frustration is ‘losing American jobs to China and India’ – part of a more general and poignant critique, why are our country’s business and political leaders not standing up for American workers and employees and more broadly, America.

Voters want control of the borders and workplace and recreating an immigration system that works and oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants – positions supported by about two-thirds of the country. For them, that is the starting point, the common sense of the issue. If political leaders do not start there, they are not likely to be heard on other steps. But it is possible to build on those points to a progressive direction and comprehensive reform because people hold other views related to the issue.

• Many people talk about the impracticality of expelling the current ‘illegals’ and indeed, their importance to the economy: “The thing is that you can’t necessarily ship all of them out of here.”

• Despite comments about welfare and benefits, most talk about the immigrants as workers, indeed, hard workers with good values. They talk about business owners who describe them as “the hardest workers that my brothers have hired.” One woman in Colorado observed, “I had that honor, and I will actually say, it’s an honor because these people outworked every American citizen at this sweatshop that I worked at, except me.”

• Some recognize that you have to help the children: “The children shouldn’t have to suffer.”

• People are looking for a system not that excludes immigrants but regularizes the system to put people on a lawful basis. Instead of wasting money building a fence – “It’s just stupid. If we had a reasonable immigration policy we wouldn’t have the illegal immigration problem.” Others recognize the economy needs them but “we need some system in place” to make sure we are dealing with lawful people, not terrorists. While opposed to the impact on the service industry, one woman acknowledges: “People that come to this country have the right to come for a better life.” A majority of the country – unlike many in the world – believe legal immigration is positive for the country.

When we tested a comprehensive proposal in a bi-partisan poll for NPR, we got (44) percent support for a plan to increase enforcement on the borders and work place and deny most government benefits but recognizing we cannot expel 12 million, creates a path for citizenship for the law abiding – a big change in status with opportunities for fuller integration into America. That is likely a presidential issue that could gain further support with public debate. When we tested a plan earlier without the reassurance on benefits, the plan got only 39 percent, suggesting how challenging this issue will be for ordinary candidates without the full platform available at a presidential level. Even with the reassurance on control and benefits, 40 percent
of Democrats and a majority of African Americans favored the tougher Republican alternative that provided no path to legalization. This is a real wedge issue that Democrats need to get right.

But Democrats can get this right – genuinely attacking Bush for losing control of immigration, specifically, failing to manage the borders and no longer enforcing laws at the workplace. Democrats favor greater control and enforcement at the borders and restored penalties on employers for employing illegal workers. They would deny most government benefits, which is current law in almost all cases. Recognizing we can’t expel 12 million workers, Democrats accept some kind of legal status for those who are working, pay taxes
And are law-abiding – putting our values at the heart of the reforms that will further open up our society.

Voters are determined to vote for change and they want leaders who will work for the middle class, putting the interests of the public and country first, after the Bush years when leaders did not see the average person, when greed of executives and the self-interest of politicians determined our unfortunate course. That is the framework for Democrats to articulate their critique and progressive vision. The country wants to vote for change.

As anyone even vaguely familiar with the studies and research on immigration and its effects on both the economy and society can see, most of the "concerns" voiced in the focus groups are based upon misinformation and in some cases ignorance. From "welfare" and taxes to health costs and job loss, most if not all the opinions voiced by the focus group subjects were either blatantly false, or badly misinformed. But that really doesn't matter. People believe what they hear, and when they hear these "facts" spouted off day after day they become as good as real. It's the "big lie" theory of propaganda played out daily by right-wing politicians and their media allies.

As long as we, as immigration reform advocates, continue to fail at the crucial mission of shaping public opinion, we will continue to open the door for the kind of deception and self-serving pandering we now see coming from the DLC Democrats. We can rile against them all we want on matters of principle, but we know we are fooling ourselves if we actually believe that politics is currently moved by principle. It's moved by opportunity and power. And until we harness our own power to move this debate in a more positive direction we will continue to face defeat in the realm of public opinion, and with that abandonment by those who should be our allies.

There is one other important factor that needs to be taken into account when discussing the Democratic abandonment of meaningful immigration policy. Study after study shows that the Latino population will become the most important electoral demographic within the next few years. In states like New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Colorado, and Florida they may hold the key to 2008 victory.

But this power also seems to be going untapped. With the vicious Republican attacks on immigration issues, common wisdom has it that the Democratic Party will naturally be the beneficiaries of the Latino abandonment of that party. But should Latinos accept the DLC version of "Republican- lite" immigration policies? If this move to the right by the Democrats goes unchecked, what option does that leave? Latinos, and all other groups that contain large immigrant populations, need to come together and send a strong message that they will not be taken for granted. Their votes will not be won so cheaply. The Rahm Emanuels and James Carvilles of the world need to know that they should not be so quick to paint red states blue if in fact they expound views that are no different from their red state opponents.

We need to start to fight more effectively, we need to start to harness our power and direct it at countering the years of lies and propaganda promoted by the Republican Right. We need to let our Democratic "friends" know that they must hold true to the principles of equality, justice, and human-rights on which their modern party was founded …and if they fail that task…they are no better than their opponents....and should be given the same electoral consideration.

Read More...

Summary only...

To my Lou Dobbs Democrat friends

In last election cycle one of things we kept hearing about was the rise of a new demographic, the "Lou Dobbs Democrat." Dems, who for one reason or the other found Lou's mix of protectionism and reactionary populism appealing. Taking up the anti-"illegal" immigrant mantra of the right, our Lou Dobbs Democratic friends like to wrap their enforcement-only positions in the trappings of labor politics. ….they just want to protect American jobs and workers.

Most, if not all, opposed any attempt at forging a comprehensive plan for reforming our failing immigration system, and many in fact favored the strict and punitive legislation introduced by the Nativist Right. Just yesterday they were joining in the chorus of those claiming that the DREAM Act, a bill that would have provided thousands of undocumented kids the chance to earn a legal place in society, was nothing more that another "amnesty" from the far left.

But now today, they must come face to face with reality. Their longtime allies on the right who have opposed any meaningful reform, and instead call for harsher penalties and stricter enforcement, are planning on stabbing them in the back.

The very architect of the most punitive of any immigration legislation passed so far is about to give it one more try.

James Sensenbrenner plans on reintroducing the House bill that started the whole immigration debate almost two years ago. When originally passed, HR4437 caused such controversy that millions took to the streets to oppose it.

Of course at the time, Lou Dobbs and his new Lou Dobbs Democratic allies cheered the bill. It would, they said, restore the rule of law, and secure our borders …and of course protect the jobs of US workers and the middle class.

But now our wayward Democratic friends are about to learn a harsh lesson in reality. Sennsenbrenner has slightly modified the bill in two very import ways:

The first is to readjust the census so that only citizens are counted. This of course will cause redistricting and the loss of Democratic congressional seats in the areas that have heavy legal immigrant populations (legal permanent residents)…and where will those seats be lost for the most part? Blue states of course, the Northeast, California, Illinois, and most important of all, the emerging blue areas of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada.

And what else does Mr Sensenbrenner add to his new bill?....oh yeah, he doubles the number of H1b guestworkers allowed into the country to work in high-skilled jobs.

That's correct…those who have argued all along against guestworkes, and particularly H1B, high-skilled guestworkers, now think that we really do need them ….you know ..to do those jobs US computer programmers and electrical engineers won't do.

Become an Original Cosponsor of the Border Enforcement, Employment Verification, and Illegal Immigration Control Act

Dear Colleague:



In 2005, I introduced H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act. This bill put immigration reform on the national agenda. Although the bill passed the House by a vote of 239-182, the Senate failed to act on it.

My constituents have made clear to me that immigration is a pressing issue. In fact, they recently rated it as the biggest threat to our national security. Although some in the House may have given up on immigration reform, we cannot afford to sweep this problem under the rug. It is in this vein that I again attempt to raise awareness of the serious problem that Americans face.

Next week I will introduce new immigration legislation. My new bill offers real solutions to end illegal immigration by securing our nation’s borders and cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. Many of the provisions in the new bill received bipartisan support in the 109th Congress.

The Border Enforcement, Employment Verification, and Illegal Immigration Control Act requires DHS to gain operational control over U.S. borders through the deployment of physical infrastructure, additional surveillance coverage and more effective deployment of personnel. This bill will help restore the integrity of our Nation’s borders and re-establish respect for our laws by holding violators accountable, including human traffickers, employers who hire illegal immigrants, and alien gang members who terrorize communities throughout the country.

I believe that the new legislation contains improvements over H.R. 4437. For example, it does not make illegal presence a felony. It authorizes $300 million annually in grants to states and localities for procurement of necessary items to facilitate their assistance in enforcing the immigration laws. It changes the census count to only include U.S. citizens, not those with work visas or “green cards” and those who entered the U.S. illegally, and it doubles the number of H1-B visas for skilled workers from 65,000 to 130,000.

I hope you will join me in sponsoring the Border Enforcement, Employment Verification, and Illegal Immigration Control Act to ensure that we secure our borders and turn off the job magnet that attracts illegal immigrants across the border. Please contact Michael Lenn at michael.lenn@mail.house.gov if you have questions regarding this legislation or wish to add your name as an original cosponsor.



Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Member of Congress

So to my friends in the Programmer Guild and the IEEE who fought tooth and nail to kill meaningful immigration reform I say …good job there folks.

To our New-Democrat Netroots champions who sided every time with the right on immigration issues claiming they were protecting US workers I say ….way to go.

To our centrist DLC Democratic leadership who see immigration as "the third rail of politics" and don't want to touch it, I say …hope that redistricting works out OK for you

And to all my Lou Dobbs Democrat friends I say …job well done. Perhaps this time when millions of "illegal aliens" pour into the streets to oppose Sensnebrenner's new bill, maybe you'll be there right with them chanting si se puede.

Read More...

Summary only...