|
|
|
 Editorials | Issues | February 2008 
Immigration, the Democrats' Invisible Issue
 Maya Schenwar - t r u t h o u t
go to original
| | Both Obama and Clinton support employer sanctions, which would punish those who hire undocumented immigrants. | | |
As the Republican presidential candidates pepper their debates with "aliens" and "amnesty," immigration issues are noticeably absent from the Democratic primary scene.
In the Republican primary campaign, "immigration reform" is never far from candidates' lips. In Florida, former candidate Rudy Giuliani advocated a steep increase in enforcement, saying, "We can stop illegal immigration if we stop it right at the border." Mitt Romney told South Carolina that under his watch, all undocumented immigrants would be sent home to "get in line with everyone else." Former candidate Fred Thompson called for a nation of "high fences," while Rep. Tom Tancredo ran almost solely on a platform of immigration crackdown.
The public wants to hear about immigration: in a recent Zogby poll, more than 76 percent of respondents called the issue either "very important" or "somewhat important" to their decision in the primary election.
Yet until Thursday's debate in California, the Democratic candidates barely broached the issue. During the South Carolina debate last week, the candidates referenced immigration only once, when asked if their respective health care plans would cover undocumented immigrants. (All of them said no.) In the California debate, Obama and Clinton both tagged immigration a "difficult issue" and showcased their work on "comprehensive reform," but did not delve into the specifics of what that reform might mean. The debates are illustrative of a continued avoidance of the issue throughout the past year's campaign, according to Douglas Rivlin, director of communication for the National Immigration Forum.
"Immigration has been a real lightning-rod issue on the Republican side, where they've been playing a game of quien es mas macho, who can be the toughest," Rivlin said. "But it's not an issue that [either of] the Democratic candidates has a long, clearly articulated series of positions on."
Public opinion on immigration is hard to gauge, he said, because the people who are outspoken about it are almost universally against it. This "fired-up base" ties undocumented immigrants to twin threats - job loss and terrorism - that play to the public's vulnerabilities, making a pro-immigrant platform a risky position, even for a Democrat.
Plus, any candidates who champion the rights of the undocumented have one distinct disadvantage in electoral politics: the 12-13 million people for whom they advocate can't vote.
Moving into Super Tuesday, the tide may shift.
"The candidates played it safe in the states with low immigration rates - New Hampshire, South Carolina," Rivlin said. "But as we move toward California, New York and Illinois, a harsh anti-immigration platform may be a huge liability. And it will be in the general election."
Enforcement First
When the remaining Democratic candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, do talk about immigration, they both sketch a general two-pronged plan similar to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that almost passed Congress last year: tighten border control and establish a route to eventual citizenship for undocumented individuals.
"[Clinton, Obama and former candidate John Edwards] are the Siamese triplets on immigration," said Nativo Lopez, president of the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), which initially endorsed former candidate Dennis Kucinich. "They stick to the talking points of the Democratic leadership."
MAPA now supports Obama - with reservations. Lopez notes that both Clinton and Obama emphasize hard-line enforcement rhetoric, first and foremost.
Obama, who cosponsored a bill to impose employer penalties for hiring illegal immigrants, said on the Senate floor that comprehensive immigration reform would mean both "beef[ing] up border security" and "drying up the pool of jobs that encourages illegal immigration."
Clinton has echoed those goals.
"I'm in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, which includes tightening our border security, sanctioning employers who employ undocumented immigrants, getting the 12 million or so immigrants out of the shadows," she said in a South Carolina debate last spring. "After 9/11, we've got to know who's in this country."
Both candidates support the construction of a border wall between the US and Mexico.
Unlike Clinton, however, Obama supports granting driver's licenses to undocumented individuals. He frames it as a "law and order" issue, noting that police have more information on people who are registered in the Department of Motor Vehicles database, and everyone is safer when all drivers have undergone licensing exams.
According to Arnoldo Garcia, director of the Immigrant Justice & Rights Program at the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, all the remaining candidates from both parties have emphasized the nebulous concept of "security" over human rights.
"The Democrats and Republicans have a pact of sorts," Garcia said. "They agree on the enforcement piece: police the interior, build up the border wall - and subject immigrants to onerous conditions if they're going to stay here."
Citizenship: A Long Path
Both of the Democratic hopefuls - along with Republican John McCain - support a "path to legalization" for undocumented immigrants already living in the US, shifting away from a policy of blanket deportation.
Yet Clinton and Obama are quick to warn against equating their new approach with "amnesty." Under either of their plans, "illegals" would go to the back of the line in their applications for residency and citizenship, waiting behind millions of existing out-of-country applicants.
If the Democrats' plan were implemented a year from now, today's undocumented immigrants would wait an estimated 15 years to gain citizenship, according to Javier Rodriguez, coordinator of the March 25th Coalition and initiator of the 1.7 million march for immigrant rights in Los Angeles in 2006.
"In comparison, the amnesty law approved by Reagan in 1986 was very generous," Rodriguez said. Under that program, the wait for citizenship was approximately six years.
Taken in combination with a guest-worker program - which both Democrats support - the "path to citizenship" would solidify an underclass of vulnerable noncitizens, according to Lopez.
Five percent of US workers are currently undocumented immigrants.
"The Democrats use a lot of rhetoric, but when you get down to the details of the hoops these people would have to jump through, the whole thing is really a massive temporary worker program," Lopez said. "We're talking about subservient-wage positions for up to fifteen years."
Both Obama and Clinton support employer sanctions, which would punish those who hire undocumented immigrants. According to Obama's campaign site, this policy would "remove incentives to enter the country illegally." In reality, it would drive more undocumented individuals to the underground cash economy, opening them up to human rights violations and exploitation, with no access to legal protection, according to Garcia.
"These candidates are just expressing the views that will win votes," Garcia said. "But those votes are being won on the backs of immigrants."
A Key Time
Though Lopez's top pick is out of the race, and Rodriguez would choose Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney for his ideal president, both acknowledge that the vast majority of Latino voters will vote Democratic. Once the primaries are over, they hope to pressure the Democratic nominee to adopt a more pro-immigrant position - including a revision of "free trade" policies like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which they say have spurred illegal immigration by reducing agricultural jobs in Mexico. Unauthorized immigration from Mexico has more than doubled since the passage of NAFTA [hotlink: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf].
"The Democratic candidates support enforcement measures equal to what Bush is doing, and at the same time, they support free trade agreements that result in continued undocumented immigration to United States," Lopez said, adding that he endorsed Kucinich partially because he advocated the repeal of NAFTA. "They're at loggerheads between themselves."
Yet though Clinton and Obama are by no means poised to scrap NAFTA, they've both indicated plans to revise it. And although neither is pushing for the legalization-based reforms that immigrant rights groups like MAPA advocate, both support a break with the status quo emphasis on deportation.
Thus, according to Rodriguez, this election season may be viewed not as a dawn of inevitable change for immigrants, but as a key window of opportunity. He and other immigrant rights activists are working to cooperate with antiwar and universal health care advocates to formulate policy proposals that will make immigrant-friendly reform more palatable to the Democratic nominee.
Rodriguez and his co-organizers are targeting the August Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, as a chance to push a pro-immigrant message, both from within, via Latino delegates, and from without, via rallies or marches.
However, just because public consensus says the time is ripe for a shift in immigration policy doesn't mean new ideas will prevail, according to Rivlin.
"There's a huge opportunity for the Democrats here," he said. "Whatever we do on immigration over the next four years will be a major undertaking. But for a candidate to explain why legalization is good for America - it takes a lot of homework to make that case."
Maya Schenwar is an assistant editor and reporter for Truthout. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us