Democracy for Utah - Immigration

Tribune endorses Democrat Bennion Spencer over Chris Cannon's replacement

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:28:29 -0600

The fuel that has driven the [Jason] Chaffetz campaign, and brought him a stunning 18-point victory over six-term Republican Rep. Chris Cannon in the primary election, is illegal immigration. Cannon's reasonable and humane policy — one of the reasons we endorsed him in the primary — was no match for Chaffetz' xenophobia. He would incarcerate undocumented immigrants in tent cities while they await deportation. And he would offer no "path to citizenship."

We agree with Spencer that the Chaffetz plan is a despicable display of intolerance for political gain, and that it does not represent mainstream values in Utah. Both candidates would improve border security, a good thing, but Spencer believes the government should crack down on businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers. And he supports creating an avenue for law-abiding undocumented workers to become citizens after payment of a fine.

For us, the chief difference between the candidates is that one has the instincts of a collaborative problem-solver and the other has the markings of a self-righteous zealot.

Unintended consequences

Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:10:25 -0600

Los Angeles Times:

When Alejandro Severino crossed illegally into the United States in 1999, there was no going back.

As security tightened on the U.S. side of the border — new barriers were built and it was flooded with Border Patrol agents — a return to central Mexico to visit his wife and child carried the risk that he might not be able to get back to his job in Phoenix.

It made the difficult decision to have his family join him here easier.

Studies show that because it is harder to crisscross the border, illegal immigrants who intended to be in the U.S. for limited stretches may increasingly be choosing to bring their families with them — and settle permanently.

Anonymous Liberal, posting at Glenn Greenwald's blog Unclaimed Territory:

According to the USA Today, the Senate is currently only one vote shy of the 67 votes needed to pass the "Flag Desecration Amendment." If so, I'm convinced the amendment will go down in history as the dumbest law ever written. [...]

Despite my natural disinclination (apathy?) toward burning flags, if the Flag Desecration Amendment passes, I'm going to be awfully tempted to burn one for the first time, if for no other reason than to protest the passage of such a mind-bogglingly stupid amendment. And I have a feeling I won't be alone. It seems likely, therefore, that the primary consequence of this amendment will be to dramatically increase the level of flag burning in this country.

If you doubt this is true, just ask Professor Robert Goldstein, who's an expert on the subject. This Senate Report quotes Goldstein as saying: "We've had more than twice as many flag burnings since this became a front page issue in 1989 than in the entire [previous] history of the American republic."

Maha's rules of protesting

Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:26:43 -0600

From Barbara O'Brien at Mahablog (this is an overview; see the link for the full details):

Long-time Mahablog readers probably have noticed I am ambivalent about protest marches and demonstrations. Even though I take part in them now and then, on the whole I don't think they have much of an effect.

Ah-HAH, you say. The immigration marches just showed you. So why isn't the antiwar movement marching all the time?

Good question.

Sometimes it ain't what you do, but the way that you do it that matters. Some demonstrations have changed the world. But in my long and jaded experience some demonstrating is a waste of time. Some demonstrating is even counterproductive. What makes effective protest? [...]

Be serious.

Be unified of purpose.

Good protesting is good PR.

Size matters.

Be sure your opposition is uglier/more hateful/snottier than you are.

Demonstrations are not enough.

It's essential to be able to work with people in positions of power to advance your agenda. And if there aren't enough people in power to advance your agenda, then get some. Frankly, I think some lefties are caught up in the romance of being oppressed and powerless, and can't see beyond that.

Remember, speaking truth to power is just the first step. The goal is to get power for yourself.

What does the public want on immigration?

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:10:26 -0600

Pollster Ruy Teixeira at Donkey Rising examines U.S. attitudes toward immigration. Read the whole post for the details, but these are his six main findings:

The public believes immigration is a serious problem and levels of concern appear to be growing.

The public generally believes that immigrants don't displace American citizens from jobs.

On the other hand, the public does believe immigration depresses wages.

The public overwhelmingly wants tougher action to keep illegal immigrants out of the country.

But there is little enthusiasm for an enforcement approach that focuses exclusively on illegal immigrants themselves and removing them from the country, especially when posed against alternatives.

The public is open to a guest worker program for illegal immigrants and to making it easier for them to obtain citizenship, but only if certain strict conditions are met.

With regard to #5, "49 percent said the best way to reduce illegal immigration from Mexico was to penalize employers, compared to 33 percent who chose increasing border patrols and 9 percent who favored building more fences." This is the common-sense solution — reduce the demand for cheap, illegal labor and you reduce the supply of illegal labor.

Define the Stance

Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:58:34 -0600

I remember when "knee jerk liberal" was an insult to me and my fellow liberals back in my college days even though we would stage a protest at the drop of a sign of paternalism. I know I have gotten older and wiser, as my first reaction to the recent e mail from the college dems to meet and march for immigrant rights was "What rights? Which immigrants?"

It wasn't particularly clear to me what the stance was, and why I or anyone else should show up for their march (on Sunday at noon, by the way, at the City/County Building). The issues surrounding the laws for immigration in the country are so complex, and I don't pretend to understand all of the ramifications and complications. However, if we in the Democratic party are to be taken seriously, then I think it is important that we more fully educate ourselves before we join a cause that appears to be a just one. We need to allow all sides to be heard without fear of the appearance of bigotry.

Gov. Dean predicted GOP's anti-immigrant blitz last year

Mon, 03 Apr 2006 10:35:36 -0600

Gov. Dean in the Washington Post last year:

Saying Bush had used race and gay rights to divide the electorate, Dean said, "In 2006, it's going to be immigration; that's who he's going to scapegoat next." He said Democrats must favor tougher enforcement of existing immigration laws and provide tighter border security, but said a balanced immigration policy would provide a way to give many of the 11 million illegal immigrants a path to legal status.

Immigration is a distraction from outsourcing

Sun, 02 Apr 2006 12:00:10 -0600

Lost your job? Republicans want you to blame immigrants, not corporations (Digby):

I'm sure that with all the legislation, hysterical coverage and massive protests that [immigration] has become "number one" to more people lately, but I will be very surprised if it comes even close to being the number one issue any time soon. This country has a lot of problems.

[Chris] Matthews could have illuminated this debate if he had noted that according to the latest Democracy Corps poll, the single most important foreign policy issue is globalization and outsourcing. It's more important than terrorism and Iraq. I found that surprising. It explains why there is so much anxiety over immigration right now. The threat of cheap foreign labor is very real to people, they feel powerless to stop it, and the most immediate face of it is low-wage Latino migration to the US.

The forces shaping this are massive and it cannot be finessed by crude nativist rhetoric no matter how much people want to run populist campaigns and are tempted to pull out that well-worn playbook. The sharp feelings about immigration right now are a symptom of something much bigger and dislocating than Latino day laborers — and it seems that on some level, the public knows it. It's possible that politicians can cynically divert voters' angst over globalization by stoking anti-immigrant fervor, but it appears to me that it would be a short-term solution at best. Deporting every illegal immigrant and putting up a 25-foot wall won't solve this problem. Globalization will continue apace, people will still want to buy massive quantities of cheap disposable stuff and working people are going to be squeezed.

Republicans know they can work a certain percentage of the population into a frenzy over immigration, just like they did in 2003–2004 about gay marriage.