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.
I think the idea is to neutralize the issue rather than win it.
Explaining a rational plan to disincentivize illegal immigration takes a lot of words and can’t be boiled down into 30-second ads very effectively.
The path of least resistance is to point to the ineffectiveness of the Republicans, talk about their lack of sincerity, convince the press it isn’t the vote-getting issue the GOP thinks it is so that they’ll focus less on an issue that cuts the Republican way…
Suggesting that the GOP is engaging in racism is a way to put them on the defensive on their lone issue, although it also alienates lots of people that have legitimate concerns about illegal immigration.
Unless you can convince the Dems that this issue benefits them (and it doesn’t) they are not going to come out with a positive plan and highlight it.
When asked in a debate, they’ll say all the right things. But for short media appearances and ad buys, you’ll see them hit these talking points.
It is a fairly safe way to go. Things may change depending on the nominee. But not much.
The problem as I see it is that this particular wedge has legs that will make neutralizing it very difficult without actually addressing it.
The Republicans have spent a lot of time, effort, and planning to craft it, and unlike past efforts like gay marriage, flag burning, or even abortion, this one has the potential to resonate with a far greater percentage of the general electorate.
The Dems are quick to point out that the scapegoating of immigrants is an intentional ploy on the part of Republicans to shift the blame for their failed policies.
But to get the average American voter to see the connection between wage stagnation or lack of affordable health with failed Republican policies, when they are bombarded with propaganda about “illegals” driving down wages or “flooding emergency rooms” seems to be a tough call.
That’s the whole point of the wedge, to take every insecurity and anxiety caused by Republican failures and direct them towards immigration. That’s it’s power, and why it’s so dangerous….it has “something for everyone” so to speak.
This is why a “path of least resistance” might not cut it in the end.
I agree that getting bogged down in the complexities of the issue won’t play well in 30 sec sound bites. … but trying to neutralize it by pointing out the republicans failure to secure the border, or that it’s not that “important an issue” won’t cut it either.
Will the Dems come out with a positive plan…probably not, your right.
But will the Republicans continue to hammer away at them claiming that at least they are willing to do something about a “problem” they concocted up in the first place …you better believe it
Those are all great points.
A few reactions…
The Republicans didn’t concoct this issue. A lot of people are very upset by the high level of illegal Hispanic immigration and it’s not all based on insecurity and racism. One thing the Democrats risk doing is pissing off these people by suggesting their concerns are not real or that they are rooted in bigotry. That’s why the Dems can’t say the issue is unimportant and they have to be careful about accusations of racism.
The positive plans actually don’t poll well and are easy to demagogue. That’s why the Dems prefer to be vague, say that they are for ‘comprehensive reform’ but not say what that means.
This is actually the correct plan and tracks closely with historic conversations on Social Security and raising taxes. If the solution isn’t popular, pass it off to a bipartisan commission.
People do not want to hear that we can’t build a big enough fence. They want to hear that we can stop illegal immigration somehow. The Dems are going to criticize the Republicans for their border strategy on two grounds. One, it hasn’t been effective, and two, they haven’t put the resources into it to even try to make it effective. Maybe the Dems will offer more border guards…it’s not the worst thing in the world.
To take the power out of the message, the Dems have to undermine the Republicans credibility on the issue, make people think the constant harping on it as intolerant, and show that they take immigration seriously, but will have to approach the solution in a comprehensive way. Then they change the subject to areas that are related to a comprehensive solution but not, yet, in the public mind.
If I’m advising them, it’s get off the issue as fast as possible and move it to CAFTA, to health care, to the environment, to education. The Dems are killing the Republicans on every issue, and they do not want to try to win on the issue of immigration. That plays into their opponents’ only real strength.
It also is an area where a lot of Democrats are vulnerable in red leaning districts…so there is no unity on the issue within the caucus.
It’s frustrating, but it isn’t a bad strategy.
From a strategic point … I’ll give you much of this.
As far as this being a concocted issue .. I have to disagree.
While many are concerned, this concern has been fostered and nurtured by the Republican’s through an intentional campaign of misinformation and misdirection.
Take for instance the “illegals drive down wages” argument.
If asked, the average American believes this is true. They hear it on a daily basis from Republican politicians, the right-wing noise machine, and now the MSM.
But just like they thought Saddam had WMD’s …they have been misled. Outside of the work done by contrarian economist George Borjas, nearly every study done shows that immigrants have a negligible negative effect on those at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder and a positive effect for the other 95% of the population.
This is why if you go back to the early polling on this issue from three years ago, you see little concern about it .
In fact even in mid 2005 when Frank Luntz first put out “Respect for the Law & Economic Fairness: Illegal Immigration Prevention” the polling showed this issue as little more than a blip on the radar.
By Dec 2005, and the passage of Hr4437 (inspired by Luntz’s framing on this issue)..the numbers start to rise a little. Then in the past year, this concern has started to manifest itself in substantial numbers of voters.
If asked why their sudden concern, many voters would answer that they just weren’t as “aware of the problem” before. (In fact a commenter recently posted that very quote by their mother in one of my diaries)….I argue that they are “more aware of the problem”…because of a campaign waged to make them so.
But at this point it matters not how we got here. The question is how do we deal with it.
I would approach it a little differently if I was to advise the Dems. I wouldn’t try to “get off the issue as fast as possible”
I would tell them to try use immigration as a way to segue into all the other issues: Discrediting the Repugs, while tying in things like CAFTA, the economy, healthcare etc.
For example talk about how free trade agreements like NAFTA/CAFTA have caused more poverty in sender nations and forced millions to come here to escape poverty ..and now Republicans want even more free trade.
OR.. how federal cuts to education and unfunded mandates like NCLB have destroyed the education system so badly that unlike in all other periods in our long history we are now unable to educate and assimilate the children of immigrant as we have always done in the past.
OR.. how a Republican Party run by big business has allowed a lack of government oversight and enforcement of US labor laws and workplace safety regulations to the point that employers have turned US factories into sweatshops and mines into deathtraps, where immigrant and US born workers alike work in Dickensian conditions for slave wages. And the Republican’s answer is not to punish the these employers for labor violation but rather deport the workers for immigration violations.
You can see where I’m going with this.
As an migrant-rights advocate I would prefer to “kill two birds with one stone” so to speak….defuse the anti-immigrant sentiment, attack a bunch of failed Republican policies, and position Dems to take the lead on this issue. (ok, that’s three birds)
Well, I don’t know what you are complaining about since this has been basically your and the great blog spam/troll roving gang with your open border/no immigration policy at all strategy. Basically name call anyone who disagrees or who points out how “policy” (or blog writings more like) are de facto open border a racist xenophobe or someone who “hates brown people”.
I lost count of the solid Progressives with strong left/Democratic credentials who are chased around the blogs, called racist xenophobes and on dailykos troll rated. So, the fact the Democratic party has decided to do the same thing, what a surprise. Problem is most of the American people really don’t want this entire agenda but don’t let that bother you.
Latest poll from PollingReport.Com
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Nov. 30-Dec. 3, 2007. N=1,245 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
“One proposal that has been discussed in Congress would allow illegal immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among other requirements. Do you support or oppose this, or haven’t you heard enough about it to say?”
Support Oppose Unsure
60 15 25
So only 15% oppose a pathway to citizenship just a week ago.
We had a very adequate solution to immigration in the Kennedy-McCain Immigration Act proposed a few years ago before extremist Republicans like Tancredo and Kyl dashed similar efforts in the House. Although the requirements for citizenship were made harsh to satisfy these extremists and their followers, it components, especially the guest worker program, resolved many concerns. The point is that these immigrant workers are part of our economy and needed, especially in agriculture. In years past, these workers simply came across the border, worked for the season, the returned to their families. Now with the security freaks succeeding in closing the gates to these workers, if they do come, they are unable to return to their home countries.
The Republican anti-immigration sentiment is really just a continuation of the greed-selfishness ethic introduced by Reagan, and continued mainly by Republicans over the years, to our own detriment. In this area, Bush is accepted, mainly because of his political belief that Hispanics could be enticed to vote Republican. The developing Hispanophobia, especially in the southwest is a direct consequence of the right wing extremism that Republicans have otherwise used to divide people and induce fear of….whatever it is. Taking away jobs, crime, drugs, cultural change, and even littering the desert. Republicans need a scapegoat and they found it in the Hispanics.
I would agree with most of what you’ve said, but must differ on Kennedy-Mccain, in regards to the guest worker provisions.
While certainly there is a place for guestworker programs in certian sectors like agriculture and other seasonal occupations, for the most part both Kennedy/McCain and the subsequent “Grand Compromise” this past spring relied too heavily on them as a way to appease business interests and form a political coalition.
Increasingly, there has been a shift in thinking on immigration from a permanent condition whereby new people enter and join society, to one that stresses it as a temporary condition that supplies business with a disposable workforce. Last year alone 500,000 more temporary work permits were issued than permenant resident(green) cards.
We saw this magnified in the “merit-point” system propose in the Compromise legislation that would in essence have relegated most new immigrants, and the vast majority of the unauthorized already here, to a permanent “temporary” status, unable to ever meet the merit guidelines to received green cards….Clearly setting up a codified two-tier society.
It is possible that many illegal immigrants really would really prefer to remain residents of their country of origin, but are forced to stay. But many would not. I would think that, given the sway of Hispanics toward the Democratic party, that alterations in those provisions might be attainable under a Democratic presidency and Congress.
Somehow, we must bring the 12 million immigrants now living here illegally into the system, and do so without the hurdles imposed by Kennedy-McCain. It is as if some believe that the American people need to punish them for being here illegally, instead of appreciating their contributions.
Democrats don’t need to follow the Republican-Tancredo hate machine.
and this is why this inane name calling and open border agenda is insane. You are now endorsing a corporate lobbyist’s wet dream that 74% of the American people vehemently oppose. That bill was written by lobbyists, the US Chamber of Commerce, NASSCOM (India’s version of the US Chamber of Commerce for tech), ITAA, “Compete America” (which is another lobbyists firm who wrote the SKIL bill).
There is a huge difference between arguing for a “pathway to citizenship” and promoting “comprehensive” immigration reform which is the corporate cheap labor lobby guest worker Visa agenda. The damn thing was analyzed by these very people with their own labor economics specifically to lower wages, labor arbitrage as well as facilitate global technology/knowledge transfer (called offshore outsourcing, remember that one?) and that is why corporations and their hordes of lobbyists were demanding it! They want to reduce their labor costs!
It’s also not enforceable and absurdly costly.
Do you honestly believe Congress would bring any bill, any topic to the floor multiple times that isn’t a corporate written agenda?
If you believe that I’ve got some real estate in Iraq I want to sell you.
Sadly, and I am not suggesting approval of the practice, but immigrants, new and old, legal or illegal, have been and are exploited by business. That is old news. Many, who were unable to take advantage of unionization, lived poor. But they were the first generation. Take the agricultural workers: where are their children today. Not in the fields. They benefited by education and are working at higher paid jobs and professions.
This process has been going on since, well even before the 19th century. No one in America, except Native Americans, is not related to an immigrant, in most cases people who came here not just to improve the life of their families, but to be able to feed their children, and subsequently found themselves exploited in a variety of labor situations.
No one likes it, the exploitation, that is. But the people who do come here today illegal come here for the same reason, out of choice, just as past immigrants did, to improve their lot. Some even come here just to work in order to send money back to their families, many of which live in abject poverty in other countries. They would not come here if employment at home could lead to adequate subsistence.
So keeping immigrants out on the pretext that they will be exploited is hardly a reason to shut the doors. This pretext obviously has little concern for the immigrant and his/her family. It is just a pretext, no more.