|
27 November, 2007
The Tired, the Poor, the Huddled MassesAccording to a questionnaire by Democracy Corps, Americans have a new top fear: illegal immigrants. On question number 57, they asked respondents why they felt the country was going in the wrong direction. The Top answer, with 40%, was “Our borders have been left unprotected and illegal immigration is growing.”(1) Illegal Immigration beat out our dependence on foreign oil and Iraq. How can this be? Illegal immigration does not affect the majority of the population, and it can be argued that the country gains a net benefit from the influx of laborers from the south. In 2004 gay marriage was the hot issue. This year, it didn’t even make the list. Either the American people are extraordinarily fickle, or something else is happening. What we are seeing is the effectiveness of the Republican media machine. They are masters of identifying wedge issues and pushing them to the fore of the public debate. Gay marriage was the perfect issue. It separated Democrats from evangelicals and latent homophobes in their own camp. Pragmatic Democrats were faced with a difficult decision: take a principled stance and risk losing, or concede on the gay marriage issue and possibly win. There was no coherent response from the party, and they lost both the issue and the election. In 2006, things were different. Iraq was the hot-button issue. In this case, it was more due to the reality of the situation than any smart moves by the Democrats. People were fed up with Iraq, and the Democrats happened to be in the right place at the right time to take over after the Republicans were ousted. However, Republicans already had their ticket back to power. They were pushing an immigration bill before the 2006 mid-term election,(2) but their effort to frame the debate was overpowered by their own scandals.(3) Even so, they were too disciplined to be diverted by issues of real importance. They knew immigration would hit a nerve, so they stayed on track. They are right. Immigration is an issue that can divide Democrats along many fissures. As a national security issue, Democrats can seem weak on terrorism if they don’t want to secure the borders. Labor unions are particularly sensitive to the loss of American jobs to cheap migrant laborers. Labor is traditionally a Democratic constituent. Also, in some Southern Democrats, there may be a latent racism that can feed a fear of foreigners. What about the growing population of Hispanics in America? They could be a huge Democratic voting block, but they could be lost if the Democrats take the wrong side on the immigration question. The New Republic asked a few top Democratic consultants how they would approach this issue.(4) Their answers, with some variation, were essentially: “run away!” It’s a thorny issue, and candidates can only inflate its importance by talking about it. Either ignore the issue or say as little as possible. I am not generally in favor of running away from anything, but let’s give the consultants their fair shake. Their advice makes sense from a certain point of view. Immigration is a false issue that the Republicans have latched onto. To discuss it is to validate the Republican frame. Unfortunately, I don’t think that line of thinking will work in this case. It has already become too hot. To ignore it would be akin to the Republicans ignoring dissatisfaction over Iraq in 2006. I only see one good approach to the topic. It is partially pragmatic, partially principled, and hopefully directed to the right places. Americans care about security, and they want their candidates to be tough on terrorism. They are legitimately concerned that the open borders could allow a terrorist to enter the country undetected. On the other hand, it is impossible to make our vast borders airtight. Walls and fences are colossal wastes of resources. My suggestion would be to separate it into three parts. First, the national security component: make the borders more secure via patrols and electronic surveillance. Take the terrorism issue away from the Republicans by being proactive. Second, the labor component: Place the onus on employers who hire illegal immigrants. As long as employers keep hiring illegal workers, they will keep coming over the border. The only way to slow illegal border crossings is to dry up the demand. Let your union supporters know that you’re still on their side. Third, the Hispanic component: support a path to citizenship for undocumented workers already in the country. This would reward immigrants who work hard and aren’t causing anybody any trouble. We don’t want to make the big new Hispanic voting block think we’re trying to kick them out of the country. The first two components are pragmatic, the third is principled. It is the third that will be the most controversial, and the most likely to lose a few votes. I believe the voters you would lose are borderline Conservatives anyway, and you’ll likely lose those voters to Giuliani anyway. You could potentially buy millions of Hispanic votes in exchange for a few borderline Conservatives. Also, principled stands appeal to moderate voters, who will respect your stance even if they don’t entirely agree with it. By hitting the right note on each of the three components, we have a chance to turn the wedge around. Instead of looking weak on security, we can be out in front on that issue. Instead of risking the support of Labor, we can shift the blame to management. Instead of alienating Hispanics, we can take on their cause. Best of all, we can knock the Republican leadership on its heels. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner is on the wrong side. On the issue of holding employers responsible for hiring illegal workers, he said "It is a huge unfunded mandate on employers."(5) He is on the side of businesses that are breaking the law! I say, let him take that position. Call him on it. Republicans want to rip families from their homes and deport them, but they want to give their rich friends a free pass. If worked effectively, we can make the Republicans regret they ever raised the issue. Having said all that, I still believe it is not the most important issue voters will face in 2008. You don’t have to make a speech on this, you just have to have the right answers when you are asked. When Nancy Pelosi was interviewed by Jim Lehrer, she effectively shut down the topic with short, direct answers.(6) Nobody could accuse her of being weak on the topic, but she didn’t allow it to dominate the discussion. The worst approach is to ignore the topic and not have an effective answer when the question comes up. That is why I strongly advocate attacking the issue head-on and killing it, so we can move on to the topics that really matter.
(1) http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/surveys/Democracy_Corps_October_21-23_2007_Survey.pdf
© 2007 Bryan Lower
Feedback:Email:bryan.lower@cox.net |
