Recently in U.S. Electoral Politics Category
The Republicans are celebrating their victory in New Jersey and there may be reason for pro-migrant supporters to celebrate as well. Chris Christie is not your standard Republican. In fact he has spent many years fighting Morristown, New Jersey mayor Donald Cresitello on Cresitello's desire to institute 287g. Cresitello actually had quite a distaste for Christie due to his constant push back on the 287g program. Prior to the election Cresitello stated about Christie:
I couldn't understand how a Republican could come out against a program to deport people who come here illegally and are accused of further illegalities. I figured the mayor might offer some insight. Chris Christie leans to the left of even some Democrats NJ.com
Last year Chris Christie stated in a town hall meeting:
"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."
"Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime that the U.S. Attorney's Office should be doing something about," he added of entering the country illegally. "It is not."
Christie: Immigrants are not criminals - NJ.com
Barack Obama recently explained to Univision anchor Jorge Ramos why he used the term "illegal immigrants" in his health care speech, prompting Rep. Joe Wilson to yell at him (via Latina Lista): Well, keep in mind what I was addressing. I was addressing misinformation by the other side that was engaging in scare tactics. So I was essentially quoting them. I was saying, "for those of you who are saying that illegal immigrants are going to be covered under this plan," I said that's not true. Right? So I'm using their language because I was addressing the misinformation that they are providing. And I was speaking directly to an audience, the American people, who because of this misinformation, I think actually were very responding often times in a negative way.I don't buy it.
Obama's use of the term dovetails with his ally Senator Schumer's public repudiation of the term "undocumented immigrant" in favor of the tough-sounding but legally meaningless term "illegal immigrant." Obama's usage dates back to a decision in early 2008 to adopt right-wing framing on immigration in the hope of later passing a legalization bill.
If that was the plan, it hasn't worked very well so far. We have no idea when the Democrats will introduce an immigration bill. Schumer keeps pushing the date back. I've seen little evidence congressional Democrats or the administration are interested in expending political capital on immigration. They want it to be easy. They want something handed to them on a platter, with the work already done.
Meanwhile, opponents of immigration reform are deeply committed to their cause. Most so-called supporters are lukewarm at best about the issue, and right now I place Barack Obama in that category.
I picked this video up from Atrios, but it's a good intro for a pitch to sign this petition asking your Congressional reps to support ACORN and the low-income communities ACORN serves instead of cowering before Glenn Beck.
Someone please tell Congressional Democrats that it is unbecoming to prostrate oneself before a supreme weenie like Beck.
Clearly, ACORN needs to do some internal housekeeping, including training and screening its employees better. Workers at community-based organizations should give clients advice on how to comply with the law, not circumvent it. But Beck's promotion of O'Keefe's video is a transparent political hit piece. If the GOP gets any nonwhite votes at all in the next twenty years, it will be despite the best efforts of Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh.
The movement's moment could arrive as early as Tuesday when Durbin reintroduces the bill with co-sponsor Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.Dreamactivist.org is also beginning to sound the war drums through their change.org blog. Thousands have already been invited to call-in in support of the DREAM Act through facebook. The DREAM Act will be the first major migration policy battle of the 111th Congress and the Obama administration.Saundra Amrhein - St. Petersburg Times (21 March 2009)
As such, I thought it would be good to step back and reflect a little bit on the politics of the DREAM Act. I've already written a post advancing a comprehensive argument for passing the DREAM Act during these trying economic times. It was published on Alternet this morning. Today, I thought I'd reflect a little bit on the political climate the DREAM Act faces.
The Bush Administration continues to abuse immigration law to trump up the stories of security threats it wishes immigrants posed--voters are much more compliant when they believe they are facing imminent external threats. George Bush looks wistfully back at his post-9/11 approval ratings and dreams of a populace permanently under siege.
First, Lyglenson Lemorin, the Haitian-born bumbler who threatened national security with ninja stars (not joking), to whom the feds couldn't get any criminal charges to stick, was recently ordered deported by Immigration Judge Kenneth Hurewitz in Miami. No such thing as double jeopardy for immigrants!
Judge Hurewitz's asylum denial rate, incidentally: 89.4%. The national rate: 59.8%. Interesting that Hurewitz was the one selected to hear the case. Did I mention that Immigration Judges and DHS prosecuting attorneys are both part of the executive branch?
Hearing Virgil Goode rant against anchor babies months ago inspired me to write an indictment of nativist attacks on the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution. I'm happy to report that another nativist Republican has lost his congressional seat to a more moderate Democrat. While Tom Perreillo is not the most pro-migrant candidate, I'll take him over Virgil Goode any day.Virgil Goode isn't alone in illustrating that nativism is a losing electoral strategy. An analysis by America's Voice (pdf) shows in "battleground" races for House and Senate seats pro-migration reform candidates beat nativists 19 out of 21 times.
So, not only is nativism a despicable electoral strategy, it's a stupid one too.
Lisa Falkenberg of the Houston Chronicle investigates a new Texas administrative rule that seems part of the state GOP's scheme to turn Texas blue in the next 10 years:
The Houston nonprofit executive was shifting weight in line at an Humble DPS office earlier this month, waiting to renew his driver's license, when he noticed a couple of people in front of him come away looking confused or exasperated.When he got to the front, he understood why.
The woman behind the counter ran his name, Jose Villarreal, in her computer. Then, he says, she promptly asked him to prove his citizenship.
Villarreal was taken aback. He was born and raised in South Texas, in a little town called Orange Grove, and moved to Houston in 1976. At 61, he'd never been asked by DPS to prove he was here legally.
"One, I was mad. Two, I was humiliated," he told me. "Why should I have to justify my citizenship, when, as far as I can tell, we have three or four generations of Villarreals living on this side of the border?"
When he asked questions, a supervisor handed him a copy of a new Texas Department of Public Safety rule aimed at preventing illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses.
"I read that over and said, 'This doesn't apply to me. This is for someone who's applied for citizenship,' " Villarreal recalled. "And they said, 'Well, the computer doesn't show you in here, so you're going to have to show a birth certificate.' "... the new administrative rule ... was quietly adopted over the summer by the Public Safety Commission after lawmakers refused for years to pass it. ... the one thing the rule wasn't supposed to do is snag citizens. The rule specifically states, "If U.S. citizen, no documentation needed." That's a bit of a Catch-22 since, in some cases, the state can't tell if you're a citizen without seeing documentation.
Because when one person's rights are disrespected, we are all diminished. Because we can no longer remain silent.
Because we stand at a tipping point in this, one of the crucial civil rights battles of our day.
Because we are not single-issue voters, nor single-issue human beings.
For these reasons and more, I chose to speak out today against those who would deny the basic right of marriage to same-sex couples. I will no longer be associated, however tenuously, with an institution that fights to reverse such a historic civil rights achievement.
Change will come. It's only a question of when, and of how much damage the churches will sustain to their long-term viability in the process of publicly battling civil rights.
More on how to take action here.
