Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

Anyone interested in different strategies for addressing the immigration issue, from a Democratic view point, should read this article from the Democratic Strategist.

The article is most compelling - regardless of your political persuasion - for its historical analysis, and I really can't do it justice by paraphrasing. Seriously, anyone who likes historical discussions should check this out.

But I will quote the least interesting part of the article, simply because it is relatively short. The article concludes by recommending the following "talking points" (and I actually disagree with this part of the article, but here it is anyway):

"Let’s get specific. Here’s what the Dems can say:

We believe the border must be secured, immigrants must follow the rules and obey the law and people who come to this country to live must be willing to accept our values and assimilate into our way of life.

But there are two places where Democrats break with the Republicans:

First, we will not support proposals that will separate children from their parents. This is just plain immoral. A fair immigration system must not only control the borders, it must be enforced in a way that is fair, humane and in accord with American values and the American way.

Second, we’re going to put the blame for the problem where it belongs. The people coming here to work didn’t want to leave their homes, their parents and relatives and the communities where they grew up. They are economic refugees from an economic Hurricane Katrina unleashed in Mexico and other Latin countries by the extremist free market polices that have been championed by the Republicans ever since the 1980’s.

The same Republican economists who don’t want all Americans to have health insurance and won’t protect American workers from outsourcing, downsizing and unfair trade are also the ones who helped make a mess of Mexico’s economy in the 80s and 90s and left these people with no alternative except to leave their homes to seek a better life. We have to fix the immigration mess, but the right place to start is by recognizing who made the mess in the first place.

These talking points are intentionally limited to achieving two goals: to focus the debate on real-life children and families rather then faceless abstractions and to directly link immigration to the Republicans broader failures in defending the economic interests of ordinary Americans. To the extent that the debate can be fought on this terrain, the Democrats will hold a significant advantage.

Beyond this, of course, there are the broader challenges of devising effective long-term programs and policies that can win majority support. The D-Corps memo actually contains quite useful polling data on the ways in which support for relatively balanced proposals vary depending on which particular elements are included. Equally, a variety of proposals have been offered for more flexible, cross-border labor market reforms that would significantly reduce and regularize the flow of immigrant workers (see, for example, Princeton sociologist Alejandro Portes’ proposal in the October 2007 issue of The American Prospect).

But the most pressing and immediate challenge facing the Democrats is to drive a wedge between the racist and non-racist elements of the coalition the Republicans are trying to create and to link immigration with the Republican Party’s failure to defend the economic interests of ordinary Americans.. The Republican strategy ultimately depends on successfully blurring and obscuring these divisions and failures – not only from moderates and progressives, but from the middle-American “Reagan Democrats” in the coalition itself. A successful Democratic strategy, in contrast, will consist in successfully exposing the reality behind the façade.

The Democrats’ real choice is not simply between “moving to the right” and “sticking to principles”; it is between allowing the Republicans to set the terms of the debate or presenting an alternative narrative in which the Democrats are both decent and right on the issue of immigration and the Republicans are dishonest and wrong."

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

That article went from brilliant to horrific pretty damn fast.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
That article went from brilliant to horrific pretty damn fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right about here:

[ QUOTE ]
They are economic refugees from an economic Hurricane Katrina unleashed in Mexico and other Latin countries by the extremist free market polices that have been championed by the Republicans ever since the 1980’s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
That article went from brilliant to horrific pretty damn fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't think it was that fast. I really liked the historical stuff, which makes up the first 2/3 of the article. The rest of it I could have done without.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That article went from brilliant to horrific pretty damn fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't think it was that fast. I really liked the historical stuff, which makes up the first 2/3 of the article. The rest of it I could have done without.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, I should have said suddenly or abruptly.

"The same Republican economists who hate sunshine and like to leer at your wife's ass when you're not around also screwed up Mexico." lol

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That article went from brilliant to horrific pretty damn fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right about here:

[ QUOTE ]
They are economic refugees from an economic Hurricane Katrina unleashed in Mexico and other Latin countries by the extremist free market polices that have been championed by the Republicans ever since the 1980’s.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean that all poverty and suffering in Latin Countries arent the direct result of what the Republican party in the US have done the last 25 years? [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] I mean they were all rich and happy before Reagan stole all their money, right? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

Damn free market extremists.....pure evil

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That article went from brilliant to horrific pretty damn fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right about here:

[ QUOTE ]
They are economic refugees from an economic Hurricane Katrina unleashed in Mexico and other Latin countries by the extremist free market polices that have been championed by the Republicans ever since the 1980’s.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean that all poverty and suffering in Latin Countries arent the direct result of what the Republican party in the US have done the last 25 years? [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] I mean they were all rich and happy before Reagan stole all their money, right? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I mean that republican policies are not "free market policies". It's like blaming the california power crisis of a few years ago on "deregulation" when in fact the utilities were still regulated. It's deliberate misuse of the word, strawmanning, jargon propaganda.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

Hi Wynton,

Unlike a lot of other repubs, I am for laxer policies on immigration and amnesty. However the bottom line is that no one in another country has a right to immigrate here, or to try to force us to accept their immigration. Regarding the two most important divergences the article mentions between repub and dem policies:

[ QUOTE ]
First, we will not support proposals that will separate children from their parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy answer to this problem. Just change our citizenship law from one of jus soli to jus sanguinis. That way no more conning Uncle Sam by sneaking into the US 8 months pregnant so your child can be born here and you can cry, "He's a US citizen! You can't deport me and separate us!". You should have to have at least one parent be a US citizen to be a citizen or be naturalized yourself. Period.


[ QUOTE ]
Second, we’re going to put the blame for the problem where it belongs. The people coming here to work didn’t want to leave their homes, their parents and relatives and the communities where they grew up. They are economic refugees from an economic Hurricane Katrina unleashed in Mexico and other Latin countries by the extremist free market polices that have been championed by the Republicans ever since the 1980’s.

[/ QUOTE ]


Did we make all those countries borrow more money than they could afford to pay back? Do we make them keep cronyist and semi-corrupt governments in power that only benefit the richest elites? Are we responsible for failed socialistic policies of those countries? No is the answer to all three.


Again, I think we should be more liberal with allowing more immigration from Latin America especially, as opposed to other areas. And that we should as well be more willing to amnesty long standing illegal residents even though it is rewarding their illegal immigration. But the bottom line is that we don't owe citizenship to those of other countries and the arguments of the dems above are worthless.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

As I said, the weakest part of the article is the part I quoted. Even as a Dem, I find the rhetoric about blaming the free market simplistic and, even worse, counterproductive.

What I liked about the article was how it connected the concerns about immigration with various groups, like Reagan Democrats. And based on presumably correct polling data, the point was that the so-called anti-immigrant movement can and should be looked at as containing distinct groups, with distinct concerns.

At a real basic level, there appears to be reason to believe that some who appear hostile to immigrants have a degree of racism or bigotry. But many, or most others, are reacting out of economic insecurity and a perception that the rule of law is being ignored.

I do think that Democrats better figure out an appropriate rhetorical answer for the general election. But blaming the free market is a sure loser, politically.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

Wynton,

Would you have any problem changing from jus soli to jus sanguinis?

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]

Did we make all those countries borrow more money than they could afford to pay back? Do we make them keep cronyist and semi-corrupt governments in power that only benefit the richest elites? Are we responsible for failed socialistic policies of those countries? No is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ignorant of SA politics/history IMO. "At least somewhat" is the answer to all three.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did we make all those countries borrow more money than they could afford to pay back? Do we make them keep cronyist and semi-corrupt governments in power that only benefit the richest elites? Are we responsible for failed socialistic policies of those countries? No is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ignorant of SA politics/history IMO. "At least somewhat" is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]


While "somewhat" might be true of the first two, how can it be true of #3? Have we been forcing socialism on LA countries? And even so, do they get to decide unilaterally that the remedy is that we accept however many of their citizens, without limit, as can place a toe on our shores?

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did we make all those countries borrow more money than they could afford to pay back? Do we make them keep cronyist and semi-corrupt governments in power that only benefit the richest elites? Are we responsible for failed socialistic policies of those countries? No is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ignorant of SA politics/history IMO. "At least somewhat" is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]


While "somewhat" might be true of the first two, how can it be true of #3? Have we been forcing socialism on LA countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a case to be made that #2 led to the conditions that made politicians who espouse #3 possible in countries where we were propping up those cronyist and semi-corrupt governments while surreptitiously suppressing legitimate democratic movements.

So no, I don't think we "forced" socialism on South American countries, but 'people's movements' became appealing alternatives to the authoritarian regimes we were supporting.

I don't know about "responsibility for failed socialist policies", but I don't think it's fair to examine the history of some Latin American countries socialist histories without examining how those socialist governments came to power, their predecessors and opponents, and the role the US played in supporting said predecessors and opponents.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

They can always just default on their debt like Argentina did if they actually believe that to be true, as opposed to taking responsibility for their own actions. But the question remains that I asked above, do they get to decide unilaterally what the remedy is?

The real culprits of those countries problems are those rich elites. And how they must smile when US libs like you buy into such rhetoric that allows them to export their own poor they despise and were formerly oppressing with military governments and corrupt economic policies.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did we make all those countries borrow more money than they could afford to pay back? Do we make them keep cronyist and semi-corrupt governments in power that only benefit the richest elites? Are we responsible for failed socialistic policies of those countries? No is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ignorant of SA politics/history IMO. "At least somewhat" is the answer to all three.

[/ QUOTE ]


While "somewhat" might be true of the first two, how can it be true of #3? Have we been forcing socialism on LA countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a case to be made that #2 led to the conditions that made politicians who espouse #3 possible in countries where we were propping up those cronyist and semi-corrupt governments while surreptitiously suppressing legitimate democratic movements.

So no, I don't think we "forced" socialism on South American countries, but 'people's movements' became appealing alternatives to the authoritarian regimes we were supporting.

I don't know about "responsibility for failed socialist policies", but I don't think it's fair to examine the history of some Latin American countries socialist histories without examining how those socialist governments came to power, their predecessors and opponents, and the role the US played in supporting said predecessors and opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

*reluctantly agrees with dvaut*

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the question remains that I asked above, do they get to decide unilaterally what the remedy is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are Latin American countries claiming the right to unilaterally decide what the remedy is vis a vis American immigration policies?

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the question remains that I asked above, do they get to decide unilaterally what the remedy is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are Latin American countries claiming the right to unilaterally decide what the remedy is vis a vis American immigration policies?

[/ QUOTE ]


I meant that xorbie seems to be saying that we should accept without limit immigrants from those countries as redress for such perceived "wrongs", and that thus implicitly they, or at least their citizens, are claiming such rights. It's worth noting, whether it was right to do so or not on our part, that we are the ones who built the border fence and not Mexico. And what better excuse to give those rich corrupt elites in those LA countries not to change, than asserting we should accept as many of their citizens as are able to get here and lessen their own domestic political pressure to change.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the question remains that I asked above, do they get to decide unilaterally what the remedy is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are Latin American countries claiming the right to unilaterally decide what the remedy is vis a vis American immigration policies?

[/ QUOTE ]


I meant that xorbie seems to be saying that we should accept without limit immigrants from those countries as redress for such perceived "wrongs", and that thus implicitly they, or at least their citizens, are claiming such rights. It's worth noting, whether it was right to do so or not on our part, that we are the ones who built the border fence and not Mexico. And what better excuse to give those rich corrupt elites in those LA countries not to change, than asserting we should accept as many of their citizens as are able to get here and lessen their own domestic political pressure to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

How, exactly, was I seeming to be saying any of these things? What I'm saying is that, in this case as in most other cases, our particular problem might be helped by being honest and apologetic about our role south of the border in the past. Perhaps giving foreign aid that actually, you know, aids these countries might be a nice alternative to blowing tons of money on border control.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps giving foreign aid that actually, you know, aids these countries might be a nice alternative to blowing tons of money on border control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that allowing unrestrained immigration from those countries constitutes foreign aid? Immigration is the subject of this thread.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wynton,

Would you have any problem changing from jus soli to jus sanguinis?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking whether I think that this country should declare that, anyone who is born to or related to an American citizen is automatically a citizen, as opposed to declaring that anyone born within our borders is a citizen?

As a practical matter, does it make that much difference?

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wynton,

Would you have any problem changing from jus soli to jus sanguinis?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking whether I think that this country should declare that, anyone who is born to or related to an American citizen is automatically a citizen, as opposed to declaring that anyone born within our borders is a citizen?

As a practical matter, does it make that much difference?

[/ QUOTE ]


How can it not make a difference? With citizenship only being bestowed if one or both parents were citizens, then the illegal immigrants have no sob story argument that the heartless gov't is deporting the mothers of underage citizens. I'm not saying it would significantly cut down on illegal immigration by itself, but it would remove a lot of the attractiveness of same if they knew they couldn't use the citizenship of children born here to try to leverage into legal residency for themselves. Should a pregnant woman who goes into sudden labor during an international flight layover be able to give birth here and that child magically be considered a US citizen as a result of same?

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

Bluffthis,

Frankly, I haven't given your distinction much thought; you may well have a valid point, though. Nor have I come up with my own policy preferences, even though I find the politics of the issue very interesting.

I do have a couple of general attitudes or predispositions, which concededly are not based upon any genuine study. As somewhat of an article of faith, I tend to believe that immigrants enrich this country and contribute more than their fair share. I'd rather err on the side of allowing more immigrants in legally than restricting them. And I doubt that immigrants (legal or illegal) are really stealing many jobs from our citizens. Once more, these are my predispositions, and I have no data to cite in support.

But I certainly recognize the need to patrol our borders, limit immigration numbers at some point, and enforce our own laws. The laws are absolutely necessary and to ignore them makes a mockery of the system.

One reason I find the politics fun is because I think the issue is genuinely complex. The depressing part is knowing that the major candidates will inevitably address the problem with slogans, rather than any kind of nuance.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps giving foreign aid that actually, you know, aids these countries might be a nice alternative to blowing tons of money on border control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that allowing unrestrained immigration from those countries constitutes foreign aid? Immigration is the subject of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I was adressing a really ridiculous argument that you made, which you then read a lot into. I was clarifying my faily relevent stance. I don't think anyone and everyone should be allowed in. However, these people come from a destitute part of the world and enter this country by and large to work long hours for low pay at jobs Americans don't want. Demonizing them seems contrary to the principles of this nation. I think you make it hard for people to enter this country, and those that do, you tip your hat and just let it be.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

xorbie,

Please don't trot out that BS emotional rhetoric like "demonizing" them and stuff. I said in my first post in this thread that I am in favor of more liberal immigration policies than a lot of people and I mean that. However the bottom line is that I think it is *we americans* who should decide immigration policies instead of illegal immigrants trying to decide it for us by fiat, and then some Americans trying to justify that. I.E. while I'm in favor of allowing "more" immigrants in than most conservatives, I believe it is *we americans* who should decide just how big that "more" is.

Re: Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration
 

[ QUOTE ]
xorbie,

Please don't trot out that BS emotional rhetoric like "demonizing" them and stuff. I said in my first post in this thread that I am in favor of more liberal immigration policies than a lot of people and I mean that. However the bottom line is that I think it is *we americans* who should decide immigration policies instead of illegal immigrants trying to decide it for us by fiat, and then some Americans trying to justify that. I.E. while I'm in favor of allowing "more" immigrants in than most conservatives, I believe it is *we americans* who should decide just how big that "more" is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the idea of trying to even define what "more" is. I don't really have any fundamental problem with illegal immigration, if they think it's worth the risk to get the meager reward, then by all means try it.

Also, I wasn't trying to imply that you were demonizing anyone, that was just my general stance on the illegal immigration issue. The demonization is just what happens (it seems) whenever you try to talk to most conservatives about it. As if, of all things, it's the Mexicans who are destroying this country.