Politico is reporting that Democratic operatives have crafted a new "get tough, no empathy" approach to discussing comprehensive immigration reform, sounding more like Republicans if they want to pass the reforms. The new approach is the result of extensive polling by Democratic firms according to Politico.
There is a kind of stupidity that is unique to pollsters. I recall the brief 2004 campaign of Gen. Wesley Clark. His pollster told the staff that Democratic primary voters did not respond well to the military, and were more concerned about health care and domestic issues. The staff was instructed to stop referring to Clark as "General Clark." He was henceforth, "Wes." The change was reflected in campaign literature. While leafleting in a neighborhood of mostly veterans in Muskogee, Oklahoma, the pamphlets left on door handles or mailed to Democratic voters failed to mention that Gen. Clark was a four-star general whose previous job had been Supreme Allied Commander at NATO. Mind you, the only rationale for Clark’s candidacy was that as a military man who had opposed the Iraq War as a strategic blunder, he could garner the anti-war vote without appearing weak on defense. No one looked at Clark as a viable candidate because he did his own taxes and, consequently, had special insights to the tax code. Campaigns do not just need pollsters, they need narratives, and when the pollster argues for a way of talking that does not fit into any conceivable narrative, find a new pollster.
So, why should Democrats avoid aping Republicans on immigration reform? First, if you get close to the fire, you are gonna get burned. Latino voters have learned to listen to the words and inflections of candidates. They know when they are being thrown under the bus. They know that someone who refers to "undocumented workers" is being more truthful to the circumstance of their situation than someone who uses the phrase "illegal aliens." Second, we are never going to out-tough the GOP on this issue. They own the "get tough" approach and the Democratic response should be to show how utterly ineffectual the get tough approach has been.
Most importantly, there is a better way to get immigration reform through the Congress and that is to focus, and continue to focus on the way current immigration law separates families and breaks apart communities. There are human stories about how current immigration laws destroy communities and families, the kind of stories that do not only make it on to the news but on to the soft news, those fuzzy 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. time slots that focus on human interest stories, time slots that aim at swing-voting, older women and stay-at-home Moms.
There is a religious aspect, and religious language, that further dramatizes an alternative approach: Just the other day a group of conservative evangelical pastors, including the president of the National Association of Evangelicals and a rep from the Southern Baptist Convention, came to Washington and held a conference call to discuss the need for comprehensive immigration reform. The effort was coordinated by the group Faith in Public Life which is increasingly making its presence felt in the power corridors of Wasington. One of the lessons you learn in Political Strategy 101 is that anytime an issue divides the other guy’s party, you seize it. Immigration reform splits both the evangelical Christian and the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP from the nativist Tom Tancredo wing. It does not so divide the Democrats: There are, at a maximum, maybe twenty-five House Democrats that might need to vote against the bill.
Finally, as I argued two weeks ago at NCR, the proper way to up the ante on immigration reform is not to start talking like Republicans but to send up to Capitol Hill the exact same proposal that President Bush sent up in 2006. Do not tweak the language or amend anything. Send the exact same proposal. Now, many Republicans didn’t like Bush’s proposal and they killed it, but some of them signed on and let them explain now why they would oppose it if they didn’t then?
Pollsters have way too much authority in contemporary political campaigns and it is stunning to me that candidates, that is the principals, continue to cede such authority to staff. Letting Mark Penn run the show surely did not do much for Hillary Clinton just as Gen., excuse me, Wes Clark’s pollster did not help him win the nomination in 2004. A good narrative will always trump anything you can get a focus group to tell you and, on immigration reform, the Democrats have a great narrative: It is the right thing to do. It is the American thing to do. It is the Christian thing to do.
I lived in what was then West Germany for a total of 9 years during the heyday of the fortified Inner German Border. When I hear the American Conservative Party (or whatever you can call these people) do the ''good fences make good neighbors'' thing, two things become clear. First, they never read the Robert Frost poem they are misquoting. Second, they have no idea just how porous that border truly was. The East German records, now that they are available, show hundreds of ''probable departures'' monthly. The West never disputed this, since the whole point was to portray the Warsaw Pact as a near-invulnerable force of 7-foot tall killing machines (and that was just the admin techs). Most of the people who crossed the supposedly impermeable border (in both directions) simply did so, kept their heads down, and melded into the community. But the myth lives on, and moch of the proposed Southern Border design is based on the Berlin sector of The Wall.
As an attorney who currently works primarily in the immigration field and formerly worked in the area of public benefits - primarily welfare and food stamps - I'd like to address the concern about government costs. First, many ''documented'' immigrants are not eligible for these benefits, let alone the undocumented. Second, many undocumented immigrants apply for an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number from the IRS and use it (legally) to report and pay their federal and state income taxes. And they are not eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, even for US citizen children. Finally, regarding the costs of processing of any legalization program: people applying for most immigration benefits have to pay significant fees. Until May 1, 2001, most undocumented persons applying for legal permanent residence (''green cards'') had to pay fees over $2000 to the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service for this step of the process alone. IIRC, it included a fine, over and above the usual fee, of $1000 and was actually a money-maker for the government
Immigration reform that acknowledges the humanity of the people who have come here to better their lives and are, even now, contributing to our communities and to our economy, is not a foolish thing to do; it is the right thing to do.
As an attorney who currently works primarily in the immigration field and formerly worked in the area of public benefits - primarily welfare and food stamps - I'd like to address the concern about government costs. First, many ''documented'' immigrants are not eligible for these benefits, let alone the undocumented. Second, many undocumented immigrants apply for an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number from the IRS and use it (legally) to report and pay their federal and state income taxes. And they are not eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, even for US citizen children. Finally, regarding the costs of processing of any legalization program: people applying for most immigration benefits have to pay significant fees. Until May 1, 2001, most undocumented persons applying for legal permanent residence (''green cards'') had to pay fees over $2000 to the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service for this step of the process alone. IIRC, it included a fine, over and above the usual fee, of $1000 and was actually a money-maker for the government
Immigration reform that acknowledges the humanity of the people who have come here to better their lives and are, even now, contributing to our communities and to our economy, is not a foolish thing to do; it is the right thing to do.
Those undocumented who are working with "false papers" will never see their Social Security benefits but do have the payroll tax withheld anyway. My experience with the undocumented indicates that it is very difficult and rare for them to able to fradulently became eligible for welfare, food stamps, etc.-most would never risk that level of involvement with the government.
Facts, not narratives matter. Come to the border and see what daily life is like and then draw your conclusions and make your suggestions.
Are you saying that Mr. Brazier is not speaking the truth?
And do you yourself live on the border about which you're reporting? If not, could you please tell us where you're obtaining information that runs counter to what someone living on the border reports?
This does not deny that the drug trade moves a lot of "product" through the area and that those involved with the drug trade on this side of the border sometimes solve their internal squabbles violently, but some of the comments to this posting are painting a picture of rampant violence and lawlessness in the U.S. border communities that simply is a ridiculous exaggeration. El Paso, in the far west of the state, was within the month rated as one of the safest cities in Texas-it is right across the border from Juarez, currently one of Mexico's most violent cities.
Facts matter-try to be knowledgeble before speaking so emphatically.
But any narrative will not be persuasive succesful with the voters in a general election if they are not authentic, believable and realistic.
Noone belives that the southern border of the United States is secure. Rather after decades of much talk little progress has been made to secure the southern border. Effectively the southern border is an "open border" where every day thousands of people crossover into the United States relitivley effortlessly and freely. Hundreds of thousdands of individuals arrive in the United States every year since the last immigartion reform law of 1986 that was suppossed to control the flow of illegal immigaration to United States. After decades of unsecured borders, the cumulative illegal immigration is in the millions. This is unacceptable to most Americans.
Most Americans do not want "Open borders" or "Open immigration" where the borders are not controlled and as many people who want to enter the country may do so without the consent, knowledge or control of the federal government. TRejection "open borders" is not "getting tough". Border control and immigration control are fundemental duties that any rational government must perform to perserve law and order. The ongoing lawlessness, mayhem and chaos on our southern borders is directly casued by the chronic failure of our federal government to control and secure our southern borders and control immigration.
Any realistic, believable and politically viable narrative to sell immigration reform must secure the borders and control the number of non-criminal people entering this country for legal immigartion purposes.
As been proven in the last several years, it is a wasted narrative to talk about immigrartion reform without first taking real action to secure our souther border.
More localization and less globalization. Only import things you don't have and can't make here and everybody else in the world does the same. It'll make for more security and stability all around.
THe problem is practical. The US & Mexico share a large border very difficult to patrol. There is a large economic gradient at work here, forcing migration northward. I thought NAFTA was supposed to slow this but the rural poverty in Mexico has become worse.
So, I propose, probably to the derision of the capitalist fundamentalists here, that all migrations be slowed down, people, capital, goods. Fences make for good neighbors.
I agree with you wholeheartedly when you note that the facts need to count, as we respond ethically to situations like the situation of illegal immigration.
I am deeply concerned with the responses of some of my Catholic brothers and sisters to various political issues, when those responses seem to set the data aside for ideological spin that ignores accurate information about a topic.
I'm even more concerned when core gospel values that have to norm our discussion of issues like this - our call to think first and foremost about the effect of our decisions on the least among us - are ignored as partisan ideological dogma dictates our viewpoint and response.
How have we come to such a point in our church, I wonder?
The one wild card in all this is why are there so many illegal aliens or undocumented workers in the country with 10% unemployment and 20% underemployment. Why aren't some of these unemployed doing some of the work? Around where I live some of the illegals are getting over $20 per hour and that is more than census workers make. But it is not as cushy.
There is massive criminality on our southern border overfowing from Mexico. The numerous drug cartels of Mexico personnel cross the unsecured border to distribute drugs in the United States. In Mexico they have killed 23,000 people within the last year in war between Mexican drug cartels these killing overflow into the United States. Mexican drug traffics have killed numerous Americans on crossing the border especially law enforcement and border partol personnel. Also crossing the border are various other types criminals engaged in prostitution, human sex slave trade, extortionist, thieves, kidnapers, murder for fire and arsonist and other criminal enterprises. How is it possible that this chronic condition reported in the news all the time not be known as a serious problem?
The U.S. needs to stop without apology the wave of criminal enterprises from Mexico from menacing our border states daily. Our unsecured border with Mexico is a real, chronic problem that demands correction.