Interesting analysis of how Dems should address immigration

[Wynton]

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."

[bobman0330]

That article went from brilliant to horrific pretty damn fast.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

[Wynton]

[ 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.

[bobman0330]

[ 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

[Bedreviter]

[ 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]

[pokerbobo]

Damn free market extremists.....pure evil

[pvn]

[ 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.

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

[Wynton]

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.