I got a release about this Rick Perry ad, a release that also told that:
Governor Rick Perry finished a four-day swing through more than a dozen Iowa cities where he campaigned and helped build support for Republican candidates and county GOP parties…
I can’t believe it. He’s out there running. I really thought we weren’t going to hear much more from him after the “oops” campaign…
The ad was released by RickPAC.
File photo.
On Saturday, July 26, while on vacation, I posted “The pettiest thing I’ve ever heard Nikki Haley say,” which referred specifically to this comment about the refugee children from Central America being billeted in South Carolina:
“You want me to educate them, right? And you want me to pay their health care, right? It does cost us something”…
We had a moderately lively discussion of the matter here on the blog, and it got more buzz on social media than weekend items usually get.
Anyway, as I was writing that, I put in a phone call to the Sheheen campaign, seeking his thoughts on the matter.
I tried Phil Bailey, who works for Senate Dems and can usually put me in touch. He suggested I call Kristin Sosanie, the state party spokeswoman, who has been working closely with the campaign. I tried to call her a couple of times. Then I moved on…
I only went to that much trouble, on a Saturday on vacation, because I thought it was really worth knowing whether he took a different position from the governor’s, and no one in the MSM seemed to be asking him about it. But I figured two or three attempted calls from the coffee shop of a Barnes & Noble was above and beyond. I went on to write another, unrelated post and went back to my family and my vacation.
But after being reminded of it late last week, I reached out again to Kristin, reminding her of my previous call. She responded, “Yes, sorry we were on the road that day and I dropped the ball. Will talk to him and let you know, thanks!”
I bugged her about it again this morning, and received this response:
We don’t have any comment for you in this, sorry!
Which is disappointing.
When I mentioned last week my initial unsuccessful attempt to get a response on the subject, Doug Ross — ever the cynic — responded:
It’s another issue he has to avoid (like gay marriage) to try and hang onto Republican votes. If he says anything, it will be through a mouthpiece and be sufficiently obtuse as to not be clear what he thinks.
He’s trying to win an election, not be open and honest. I can picture the campaign meetings where consultants tell him what he can and cannot say in order to appease crossover Republicans.
I responded that I would hate to think that’s why I didn’t hear back, but the possibility did occur to me.
Anyway, I told y’all I would try again to get a response, and so I’m sharing what I got back. I told Kristin I was sorry to hear that they weren’t going to respond. And I am.
I received a text this morning at 9:52 from Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin, responding to my earlier post about the children from Central America:
Brad, Thank you for speaking up for the unaccompanied minors/children. I plan to take a formal position and to ask council to join me too. Steve
I responded that that sounded to me like a fine idea.
I was reminded of what happened 10 years ago, when a tide of resistance in Cayce rose up against the Somali Bantu moving here, and then-Columbia Mayor Bob Coble made it clear that they would be welcome in Columbia.
I have this vivid image in my mind — which unfortunately, I’ve been unable to find on the web — of Mayor Bob embracing the father of a Bantu family arriving at the airport, with the rest of the family standing by.
What a great message that was, and it washed away the earlier, uglier impression that our community had given.
It would be great to see the city of Columbia similarly distance itself from our governor’s ungracious reaction.
I hope the council can see its way clear to do just that.
I refer, of course, to this quote regarding the unaccompanied Central American children, part of the flood that has precipitated a crisis on our southern border, who have been placed with relatives in South Carolina:
“You want me to educate them, right? And you want me to pay their health care, right? It does cost us something”…
First, let me say this: Since it upsets you so much, governor, let me assure you no one’s asking you to pay for this. The rest of us, the people of the United States (and if you’re right, of South Carolina) will pick up the tab. Don’t get your wallet out. And while I know there are plenty of people in our state who resent the children’s presence as much as our governor lets on to, I for one don’t mind the spare change that will be my share.
Second, those 350 children — if they stay, which remains to be seen — can be absorbed into a state of 4.7 million so completely as to be unnoticed. The federal government placed them here quietly and discreetly — which was the proper way; these kids have been through enough — and you likely wouldn’t know they were here had the feds not told you.
Third, I’m especially embarrassed that my governor said this at an RGA meeting in Colorado. It was bad enough for her to say it at home, much less in front of outsiders.
Now, in defense of Nikki Haley, she did say, in the midst of a bunch of other stuff expressing her great irritation at having these children underfoot, “We do care about these children. We do want them to be safe.” I like to think that’s the real Nikki Haley talking — or at the very least, someone who knows what is right, despite her real feelings, and feels compelled to give lip service.
But that just makes the rest of it sound that much worse, sets it in sharp relief. If you know better, how do you say such things?
Here’s how: It’s something you do when you have made a strategic decision to cater to the worst impulses in your constituency — the pettiest, most grasping, most miserly, least caring about the distress of a stranger. She is appealing to qualities that are the opposite of those exhibited by the Good Samaritan.
Reading her comments, a word popped into my head that I hadn’t thought of in years — niggardly. It’s a word people avoid today, because of its unfortunate resemblance to our language’s worst epithet. But it states the case.
Another point: I’m distressed that the governor is pressing the feds to tell where these children are. I heartily endorse this statement:
A note on Health and Human Services’ website says that the children’s privacy and safety are of “paramount importance. We cannot release information about individual children that could compromise the child’s location or identity.”…
Speaking of things I endorse, I’ll just end with what The State ended with:
“Why are we not recognizing that these children are facing imminent danger and families are doing what they can to get them out of that dangerous situation?” said Sue Berkowitz, director of the S.C. Appleseed Legal Justice Center. “I’m astounded that America is behaving this way.”
God bless Sue Berkowitz, who day in and day out does whatever she can for the least of these. If only more of us were like her.
Gov. Nikki Haley is walking a very fine line.
On the one hand, she decries the “humanitarian crisis” of those thousands of children, driven by desperation we can’t even imagine, who find themselves alone on this side of the border. We are told that “As a mother (emphasis mine), Republican Haley said finds it ‘disturbing’ that the migrant children would be left ‘to fend for themselves’ as they attempt to cross the border.”
Which, you know, suggests a modicum of compassion.
On the other hand, she wants to make sure that, as the government figures out what to do about this crisis, none of those children are sheltered here in South Carolina — not even on federal reservations such as military bases, which to my mind would be none of her business.
This sort of dims the halo of her compassion, to say the least.
The intuitive answer — Mexico — is correct as the answer to the question, “Where do most immigrants (or rather, a plurality of them) in South Carolina come from?” Nationally, about 15 percent of new immigrants come from our neighbor to the south, and that’s enough to put Mexico out ahead in most states.
That’s according to a map Slate put together based on Department of Homeland Security figures.
But what country comes in second? It may surprise you — it did me. It’s India. Where Nikki Haley’s people are from. Throughout the Deep South, Mexico is first and India is second. And in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, India comes in first.
The maps offer some interesting groupings. In the very center of the country — Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa — the second-largest immigrant group is from Myanmar. And in Tennessee and Idaho, it’s Iraq. I don’t know why.
Anyway, fun facts to know and tell…
I missed this last week, but it was brought to my attention by an alert reader today.
What you see above is from a Lee Bright Facebook page about a phone bank on May 2.
Wow. As in, like, wow…
I missed coverage of this over the weekend, but learned about it via a WSJ column this morning.
Jeb Bush really poked the Tea Party interlopers (you know, the ones who call real Republicans RINOs) in the eye. He called illegal immigration, at least in some circumstances, “an act of love.” The Fix quoted at greater length:
Photo by Gage Skidmore
There are means by which we can control our border better than we have. And there should be penalties for breaking the law. But the way I look at this — and I’m going to say this, and it’ll be on tape and so be it. The way I look at this is someone who comes to our country because they couldn’t come legally, they come to our country because their families — the dad who loved their children — was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table. And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family. I honestly think that that is a different kind of crime that there should be a price paid, but it shouldn’t rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families.
He’s also going after the folks who are so worked up about Common Core:
He said those who oppose the standards support the “status quo,” oppose testing and are worried too much about children’s self-esteem.
“Let me tell you something. In Asia today, they don’t care about children’s self esteem. They care about math, whether they can read – in English – whether they understand why science is important, whether they have the grit and determination to be successful,” Bush said.
“You tell me which society is going to be the winner in this 21st Century: The one that worries about how they feel, or the one that worries about making sure the next generation has the capacity to eat everybody’s lunch?”
See what he did there? He defined the Common Core opponents as touchy-feely types worried about self-esteem — one of those qualities conservatives traditionally despise in liberals.
I like this approach. If he runs, he’ll be offering his party a clear choice between spinning off into the fringes (or at least into a demographic dead end), or remaining a party that can muster majorities across the nation. He seems to think there are enough real Republicans left for the party to choose the latter.
President Barack Obama is reflected in a glass table during a meeting in the Oval Office, Nov. 4, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
First, there was Syria. According to the French, the Israelis and the Saudis, we should add Iran to the list.
Now, President Obama is caving on something else:
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama said Tuesday he would accept a piecemeal approach to overhauling the immigration system, a move aimed at jump-starting a moribund process that reflects the realities of a divided Congress.
Mr. Obama has long favored the sweeping immigration bill that passed the Senate in June, but the House has made clear it wouldn’t consider that measure. In a wide-ranging interview before business executives at The Wall Street Journal CEO Council, the president said he is amenable to House Republicans’ taking up elements of the Senate bill, as long as the end result is the same.
“If they want to chop that thing up into five pieces, as long as all five pieces get done, I don’t care what it looks like,” Mr. Obama said. “What we don’t want to do is simply carve out one piece of it…but leave behind some of the tougher stuff that still needs to get done.”…
Yeah…. OK… so how do you make sure that, once you give your blessing to the passage of one piece, the same Congress (a body that has trouble even agreeing to avoid global economic chaos) is going to pass the other pieces?
Well, you don’t.
It’s probably not fair to pick on this Andres Oppenheimer guy, because he’s just doing what political writers across the country do. But I’m going to anyway. He leads a recent column thusly:
Judging from Republican House leaders’ latest objections to an immigration bill that would legalize up to 11 million undocumented immigrants, it looks like the Republican Party has not learned the lesson from its 2012 electoral defeat — and that it won’t win a presidential election anytime soon.
Just as I forecast in this column early last year that Republicans would get clobbered in the November elections because of their anti-immigration, Hispanic-allergic rhetoric, it’s safe to predict that — once again — Republicans will kill their chances for the 2016 elections by continuing to sound like the “anti-Hispanic” party…
Yeah, OK — if you’re talking about the presidential election, failing to get on board with comprehensive immigration reform could hurt in 2016. Maybe.
What I object to, because it speaks with the central flaw in political coverage in this country, is when he asserts that “the Republican Party has not learned the lesson from its 2012 electoral defeat.”
To which I have to say, “What defeat?” We’re talking about House Republicans. Current House Republicans. Not people who used to be in the House, but were defeated, and therefore aren’t there anymore. Every current member of the House Republican Caucus is someone won election or re-election in 2012. I’m going to go out on a limb here (not knowing the details of each and every House member’s electoral strategy) and say that lots of them ran as the kind of guy (or gal) who would be against a path to citizenship for illegals. And I’ll go further and say that as they look forward to running for re-election from their gerrymandered districts (with minorities, including Hispanic minorities, carefully drawn out of them), their biggest worry is having a primary opponent who would come across as more against a path to citizenship than they are.
Who gets elected president in 2016 is not their problem. Who gets elected to their congressional seats in 2014 is. The Framers designed it this way — the House is set up to be concerned with narrower time frames and narrower constituencies, which of course have become even narrower as lines have been drawn according to ethnic and ideological considerations.
Too much political coverage and commentary is written as though each political party is some amorphous mass which the entire country is either for or against at a given moment. But the world isn’t that way. Each candidate may get some help from his party, perhaps a lot of help, but each race — whether it’s a House election or for the presidency — is decided based upon factors specific to the candidates, what happens during the time in which they are running, the way the district is drawn (in the case of district elections), who can raise the most money, who gets his message across most forcefully, and a lot of silly things such as who has the most name recognition, or who says the stupidest thing that gets reported on.
It would be nice if those House Republicans did look at a bigger picture. It would actually be good for the country. But if they don’t, don’t say they failed to learn the lesson from their 2012 defeat, because they did just fine in 2012.
Yesterday, Bryan complained that I didn’t put the IRS official taking the Fifth on my Virtual Front Page. I explained that that had been big news the night before, not on Wednesday.
Which reminds me… There’s something else that sort of fell between the cracks — the Senate Judiciary Committee’s passage Tuesday night of the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill:
A Senate committee approved a sweeping immigration reform bill Tuesday that would provide a path to citizenship for up to 11 million illegal immigrants, setting the stage for the full Senate to consider the landmark legislation next month.
After five days of debate over dozens of amendments, the Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 5 in support of the bill, with three Republicans joining the committee’s 10 Democrats. The legislation emerged with its core provisions largely intact, including new visa programs for high-tech and low-skilled workers and new investments in strengthening border control…
Late as this is, I wanted to take note of it. Because it’s what Joe Biden would call a BFD. Or, in more polite language, “sweeping” and “landmark.”
Some notes about developments since Tuesday night:
By the way, I should probably share with you this release that I got from Lindsey Graham a few hours before the bill passed Judiciary:
WASHINGTON – Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed three amendments introduced by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina).
The Graham Amendments to the bipartisan Senate immigration bill would:
- · Require Extra Background Checks for Aliens from Dangerous Countries. The Graham Amendment requires additional background checks be performed on aliens petitioning for legalization that come from countries or regions the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State determine represent a threat to the national security of the United States.
- · Close a Potentially Dangerous Loophole in our Asylum and Refugee Program. Another Graham Amendment would terminate an individual’s asylum or refugee status in most cases where the person returns to his or her home country. The amendment would limit the ability of those seeking asylum in the United States to travel back to their home country without approval from the Secretary of Homeland Security or Attorney General.
- · Toughen Up on Visa Overstays. About 40 percent of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants did not illegally come across the border but simply overstayed their legal visas. A third Graham Amendment requires visa overstay information collected under a new integrated mandatory exit system be shared with federal law enforcement, intelligence, and national security agencies and that the Secretary of DHS use that information to locate and remove aliens unlawfully present.
####
Lindsey is working hard to simultaneously accomplish his two conflicting purposes:
Jim DeMint, former far-right kingmaker, isn’t getting a lot of respect in his new role at the Heritage Foundation — even among conservatives.
Earlier this week, he put out a report suggesting that immigration reform as envisioned by the Gang of Eight will cost the country $6.3 trillion. The report is, quite understandably, ridiculed and excoriated on the left. But conservatives, people DeMint would once have counted as allies, aren’t very positively impressed either.
Kimberley Strassel made a point of that in her column in the WSJ today:
The Heritage Foundation on Monday released a report designed to kill immigration reform. A few days later, nearly 30 leaders, hailing from the core of the conservative movement—think tanks, faith groups, political and advocacy organizations—signed a public letter backing the congressional process. Which got more notice?
The media glory in conflict, and so they devoted this week to the angry feud/war/battle in the GOP over immigration reform. The evidence? One research document from one think tank. The real news is the growing unity among conservative leaders and groups over the need to at least embrace the challenge of reform. This is no 2007.
At the height of that past fray over immigration—as restrictionists whipped up seething grass-roots anger against reform, drowning out proponents—Heritage released a similar report. It fueled a raging fire, and played a singular role in derailing reform…
Very interesting. I don’t know to what extent this truly reflects a growing “conservative” consensus for sensible immigration reform, but it’s promising. (It would also be good news for Lindsey Graham for next year, although the DeMint faction in SC remains large.)
My own favorite comment on this general subject came more from the center-right — from David Brooks — earlier in the week. For him, it was a pretty scathing piece. An excerpt:
The opponents of immigration reform have many small complaints, but they really have one core concern. It’s about control. America doesn’t control its borders. Past reform efforts have not established control. Current proposals wouldn’t establish effective control.
But the opponents rarely say what exactly it is they are trying to control. They talk about border security and various mechanisms to achieve that, but they rarely go into detail about what we should be so vigilant about restricting. I thought I would spell it out.
First, immigration opponents are effectively trying to restrict the flow of conservatives into this country. In survey after survey, immigrants are found to have more traditional ideas about family structure and community than comparable Americans. They have lower incarceration rates. They place higher emphasis on career success. They have stronger work ethics. Immigrants go into poor neighborhoods and infuse them with traditional values.
When immigrant areas go bad, it’s not because they have infected America with bad values. It’s because America has infected them with bad values already present. So the first thing conservative opponents of reform are trying to restrict is social conservatism….
It goes on in that vein. Good stuff.
It’s coincidences like this that make people think there’s some sort of conspiracy among news media. The story on thestate.com this morning, from the NYT news service, was headlined, “Rubio offers full-throated support for immigration bill.”
Meanwhile a story in The Washington Post said,
On Tuesday, the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” is set to unveil a proposal that would represent the most far-reaching overhaul of immigration laws since 1986. The process of developing the legislation, which features a path to citizenship for up to 11 million immigrants who are in the country illegally, was hammered out in two dozen meetings led by veterans of earlier immigration battles, including Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).
But in many ways, the senators’ negotiations, behind the scenes and in public, have hinged on a party of one. Rubio, the tea party favorite whose parents emigrated from Cuba, has been considered the most crucial player all along. Although he has seemed to waver at times, his full-throated endorsement of the bill Sunday, in a marathon round of seven television interviews, put at ease a group of colleagues who have been working hard to ensure he stays the course. I don’t know how full his throat was, but his calendar was certainly crowded on Sunday.
Sort of makes you think there was an emergency meeting of the Press Establishment yesterday, and “full-throated” would be the modifier of the week.
The chances are good that I, too, will be offering “full-throated” endorsement of the bill when it’s unveiled tomorrow. Partly because, as you know, if both Lindsey Graham and John McCain are for it, I have a tendency to agree. (When Joe Lieberman was in the Senate, and all three of them agreed on something, I was almost always with them — the big exception being health care policy.)
Beyond that, after months of work by this bipartisan group, the pragmatic truth is that politically speaking, whatever they have come up with is the best chance this country has to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. Whatever this one’s flaws may be, I can’t imagine where a better bill would come from. And the country is overdue to address this issue.
I have another rule of thumb — if both David Brooks and E.J. Dionne are for it, I usually am. And I heard them praising the effort on Friday, in a way that implied they’d had a look at the bill. In fact, I thought for a moment that I’d missed something in the news, since they were talking about it as though it were already out there.
But to return to where we started, the fact that Marco Rubio is so “full-throatedly” on board is a good sign that this will be something worth supporting. While McCain and Graham are taking a big political risk with this — Graham faces re-election next year, and as we know, there are elements in his party who despise him specifically for such things as this — for Rubio, the stakes are bigger. Everyone’s speaking of him as a presidential candidate for 2016 (on NPR this morning, they were talking about him being “the GOP’s Obama”).
Presidential ambitions would help explain why he would support something like this, as it helps move him and his party toward the center. It also presents a big risk, since he’s already alienated much of his base just by being one of the Gang of 8.
Which is why all the political talk shows wanted him yesterday.
Whatever happens with Rubio, though, here’s hoping that, after all this buildup, the Gang’s bill doesn’t disappoint.
But Doug and others who’ve been yearning for this day shouldn’t get overexcited. AP says we still have an “illegal immigration” problem.
It’s a matter of style.
Most news organizations in this country follow The Associated Press Stylebook quite religiously. Except for a few local exceptions here and there, so did every paper I ever worked at.
And AP style just changed. Those who follow the guide are no longer to call anyone an “illegal immigrant,” or refer to people as “illegals.”
Romenesko quotes from the statement today from AP explaining the change:
The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that “illegal” should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally…
The discussions on this topic have been wide-ranging and include many people from many walks of life. (Earlier, they led us to reject descriptions such as “undocumented,” despite ardent support from some quarters, because it is not precise. A person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.)…
… we had in other areas been ridding the Stylebook of labels. The new section on mental health issues argues for using credibly sourced diagnoses instead of labels. Saying someone was “diagnosed with schizophrenia” instead of schizophrenic, for example.
And that discussion about labeling people, instead of behavior, led us back to “illegal immigrant” again.
We concluded that to be consistent, we needed to change our guidance.
So we have….
Here’s the way the entry in the Stylebook reads now:
illegal immigration Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.
Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.
Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without attribution.
Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country illegally and from where. Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?
People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally. For people granted a temporary right to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, use temporary resident status, with details on the program lower in the story.
There’s a certain logic to this, but I think the AP is going about a step too far. I can see not describing humans as “illegals.” It’s lazy, and unless a person has been declared an outlaw in the full meaning of the term (is that even possible in today’s legal system), the person himself is not illegal.
But by doing away with “illegal immigrant,” AP is eliminating a perfectly clear and accurate way of describing one aspect of a person. I doubt the service would balk at “recent immigrant,” or any other accurate modifier used with the word “immigrant.” “Illegal immigrant” is a quick, accurate way to describe a characteristic of an individual that is important to the story (else it wouldn’t be mentioned at all). I see no reason to inconvenience thousands of writers and millions of readers by forcing them into less direct ways of communicating the same concept.
This came in my email this morning, and I pass it on, for those among my readers who aren’t quite convinced. I’m sure this will do the trick. Because, you know, the people who get most upset about illegal immigration really dig it when people talk foreign at them:
Por: Philip E. Wolgin y Marshall Fitz | 29 de enero de 2013
Esta semana ocho senadores presentaron principios para una reforma inmigratoria y el presidente dio un importante discurso en Nevada sobre sus esfuerzos para aprobar una reforma inmigratoria integral, aquí están las 10 razones por las que la reforma migratoria es una idea cuyo tiempo ha llegado.
El impulso para la reforma
1. Los líderes del Congreso de ambos partidos están de acuerdo en los principios de la reforma. A principios de semana el grupo bipartidista “Banda de los 8?-una coalición que incluye a los senadores Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Robert Menéndez (D-NJ), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ) y Marco Rubio (R-FL)-presentaron en el Senado principios para una reforma migratoria, lo que muestra un amplio consenso para una vía a la ciudadanía para los 11 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados que viven en Estados Unidos. En la Cámara, el representante John Carter (R-TX), ha estado al frente de las negociaciones bipartidistas secretas para producir una ley de inmigración, mientras que el representante Paul Ryan (R-WI) le dijo al anfitrión del programa “Meet the Press” David Gregory que estaba “cautelosamente optimista ” en las probabilidades de la reforma. Otras señales de que un acuerdo bipartidista para la reforma no están muy lejos:
- El Líder de la Mayoría del Senado Harry Reid (D-NV), designó la reforma inmigratoria como prioridad legislativa de la cámara, y apoyo fuertemente el marco bipartidista.
- Patrick Leahy (D-VT) presidente del comité Judicial del Senado indicó que esperaba que en los próximos seis meses el comité se dedicará a la promulgación de la reforma migratoria.
- En la Cámara de Representantes, John Boehner (R-OH) dijo que la reforma inmigratoria es una prioridad.
- Líder de la mayoría Eric Cantor (R-VA) también se pronunció a favor de aprobar una reforma inmigratoria.
2. El presidente Obama ha hecho la reforma inmigratoria una de sus principales prioridades en su segundo mandato. El presidente Obama puso a inmigración como una pieza central de su segundo discurso inaugural cuando le dijo a los Estados Unidos que, “Nuestro viaje no está completo hasta que encontremos una mejor manera de dar la bienvenida a inmigrantes esforzados llenos de esperanza que aún ven a Estados Unidos como una tierra de oportunidades.” El presidente se reunió con los líderes del Congreso en el Caucus Hispano del Congreso dos veces en las últimas dos semanas, y utilizo su discurso en Las Vegas para lanzar oficialmente su esfuerzopara aprobar la legislación.
3. Los estadounidenses apoyan la reforma. Encuestas muestran que los estadounidenses quieren que el Congreso proponga una solución razonable para nuestra nación con respecto con el sistema de inmigración, incluyendo un camino a la ciudadanía para los 11 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados. En particular, una nueva encuesta de Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies encontró que cerca de tres cuartos de todos los estadounidenses—una abrumadora mayoría— apoyan un camino a la ciudadanía.
La política de lareforma
4. Las elecciones del 6 de noviembre cambiaron todo el juego. El presidente Obama ganó la reelección con un impresionante 71 por ciento de los votantes latinos y 73 por ciento de los votantes estadounidenses asiáticos. Como la firma de encuestas Latino Decisions señaló, los votos latinos compensaron de gran manera el margen de la victoria del presidente, y el resultado final hasta puede indicar márgenes aún más amplios de apoyo. Estos votadores rechazaron la plataforma de inmigración y de la retórica dura del 2012 candidato presidencial republicano y ex gobernador de Massachusetts Mitt Romney, y muchos apoyaron las políticas del presidente Obama, entre ellos su oposición a medidas estatales anti-inmigrantes como la SB 1070 de Arizona y su programa de acción diferida, que permite a los jóvenes que aspiran ser estadounidenses a que soliciten un aplazamiento de la deportación por dos años y que puedan obtener un permiso de trabajo.
5. Datos demográficos están cambiando en los Estados Unidos. Las elecciones de noviembre también fueron claves para señalar una nueva realidad demográfica en los Estados Unidos: los votantes latinos y otras personas de color están aumentando como proporción de la población total, por lo que sus votos serán aún más importantes en las elecciones del futuro. Los votantes latinos constituyeron un 9,5 por ciento del electorado en 2008 y un 11 por ciento completo en 2012. Estos cambios demográficos, especialmente en estados claves como Nevada, Colorado, Florida y Virginia, significa que la forma en que cada partido se comunica sobre la inmigración será más importante en el futuro.
6. Un coro creciente de republicanos se han pronunciado a favor de la reforma. En los últimos días, los republicanos con más influencia, como el senador Marco Rubio(R-FL) y el ex Gobernador de la Florida Jeb Bush han escrito artículos de opinión sobre la necesidad de una reforma migratoria, mientras que en Fox News, Bill O’Reillyelogió el plan del senador Rubio. Estos se unen a un coro de republicanos-incluyendo presidente de la Cámara Boehner, el senador Rand Paul (R-FL), el diputado Raúl Labrador (R-ID), el gobernador Bobby Jindal (R-LA), y comentarista conservador Sean Hannity, que vio los resultados de las elecciones y “evolucionó” en el tema de la reforma inmigratoria poco después. Como senador Rubio dijo, “Es muy difícil presentar un argumento económico a personas que piensan que queremos deportar a su abuela”.
La política dereforma
7. Nuestra frontera se encuentra más segura que nunca y hemos completado las metas de referencia. Gran parte del debate en 2007-la última vez que la reforma integral de la inmigración estaba en el tapete del Congreso- giró en torno a asegurar la frontera México-Estados Unidos. Pero en los últimos seis años, los Estados Unidos han tenido grandes avances en la seguridad fronteriza, cumpliendo o superando todos los parámetros de seguridad escritos en la legislación de 2007: Nuestra frontera sur es ahora más segura que nunca, hay más personal en la frontera, y hay más recursos para seguir, detener y castigar aquellos que crucen la frontera sin permiso. De hecho, el saldo inmigratorio de México-el número de personas que entran menos el número de personas que salen, de uno de los principales países de origen de los inmigrantes indocumentados, ahora está en o por debajo de cero.
8. La falta de reforma está obstaculizando una serie de prioridades políticas. El hecho de que 11 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados que actualmente viven en las sombras se ha convertido en un obstáculo político y de políticas para hacer frente a otras cuestiones como el mejorar nuestro sistema nacional de salud, educar la fuerza laboral del futuro, e identificar quienes entre nosotros son trabajadores luchando por una vida mejor y quienes están aquí para hacernos daño. El crear una vía a la ciudadanía para estos individuos no sólo eliminará el hecho de que viven privados de muchos derechos y privilegios disponibles, sino que también haremos crecer nuestra economía, nivelaremos el campo de juego para todos los trabajadores y los empresarios, y haremos que nuestras comunidades sean más seguras.
9. La reforma migratoria es un imperativo económico. El aprobar un plan de reforma migratoria integral añadirá 1,5 mil millones de dólares al producto interno bruto a lo largo de 10 años y proveería un aumento entre $ 4,5 y $ 5.4 mil millones en ingresos fiscales durante los primeros tres años. En pocas palabras, al poner a todas las personas en condiciones equitativas para trabajar mejoraría los salarios de los nativos y los recién llegados por igual. Los salarios más altos significan mejores empleos y mayores gastos, ayudando a la economía entera.
10. Debemos proporcionar una ruta directa a la ciudadanía. Los ciudadanos naturalizados ganan salarios más altos que los residentes legales permanentes (poseedores de la tarjeta verde), así que el proporcionar una vía directa a la ciudadanía impulsa nuestra economía, agregando por lo menos $ 21 mil millones a $ 45 millones en 10 años.
La pregunta ya no es si inmigración es lo que se tiene que hacer económicamente, moralmente, o para el país en su conjunto, ni tampoco es una cuestión de que si los estadounidenses lo apoyan. La pregunta ahora es si el Congreso puede dejar de lado sus diferencias partidistas y actuar por la voluntad de la gente.
¿Comprenden, compadres?
Upstaged Monday by the Gang of Eight, President Obama today rolled out his own plans for comprehensive immigration reform today. Here is a fact sheet put out by the White House, and here are his complete remarks. The president went more in for some high-flown rhetoric in his speech, delivered in Las Vegas. An excerpt:
Immigration’s always been an issue that inflames passions. That’s not surprising. You know, there are few things that are more important to us as a society than who gets to come here and call our country home, who gets the privilege of becoming a citizen of the Untied States of America. That’s a big deal. When we talk about that in the abstract, it’s easy sometimes for the discussion to take on a feeling of us versus them. And when that happens, a lot of folks forget that most of us used to be them. (Cheers, applause.) We forget that.
And it’s really important for us to remember our history. You know, unless you’re one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else. (Cheers, applause.) Somebody brought you.
You know, Ken Salazar — he’s of, you know, Mexican-American descent, but he — he points out that his family’s been living where — where he lives for 400 years.
(Cheers.) So he didn’t — he didn’t immigrate anywhere. (Laughter.)
The Irish, who left behind a land of famine; the Germans, who fled persecution; the Scandinavians, who arrived eager to pioneer out west; the Polish; the Russians; the Italians; the Chinese; the Japanese; the West Indians; the huddled masses who came through Ellis Island on one coast and Angel Island on the other — (cheers, applause) — you know, all those folks, before they were us, they were them. (Laughter.)
And when each new wave of immigrants arrived, they faced resistance from those who were already here. They faced hardship. They faced racism. They faced ridicule. But over time, as they went about their daily lives, as they earned a living, as they raised a family, as they built a community, as their kids went to school here, they did their part to build the nation. They were the Einsteins and the Carnegies, but they were also the millions of women and men whose names history may not remember but whose actions helped make us who we are, who built this country hand by hand, brick by brick. (Cheers, applause.)
But he did talk about the practical business of getting something passed, and favorably mentioned the Gang of Eight’s proposals, while saying if they don’t fly, he’ll be pushing his own plan:
Now, the good news is that for the first time in many years Republicans and Democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together. (Cheers, applause.) Members of both parties in both chambers are actively working on a solution. Yesterday a bipartisan group of senators announced their principles for comprehensive immigration reform, which are very much in line with the principles I’ve proposed and campaigned on for the last few years. So at this moment it looks like there’s a genuine desire to get this done soon. And that’s very encouraging.
But this time action must follow. We can’t allow — (applause) — immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate. We’ve been debating this a very long time. So it’s not as if we don’t know technically what needs to get done.
As a consequence, to help move this process along, today I’m laying out my ideas for immigration reform. And my hope is that this provides some key markers to members of Congress as they craft a bill, because the ideas that I’m proposing have traditionally been supported by both Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Republicans like President George W. Bush. You don’t get that matchup very often. (Laughter.) So — so we know where the consensus should be.
Now of course, there will be rigorous debate about many of the details. And every stakeholder should engage in real give and take in the process. But it’s important for us to recognize that the foundation for bipartisan action is already in place. And if Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away.
So after six years, this issue is officially back on the nation’s front burner. Here’s hoping something sensible actually gets done this time.
“As far back as I can remember,” said Henry Hill in the opening to “Goodfellas,” “I always wanted to be a gangster.”
The same might be said of John McCain and our own Lindsey Graham. And I honor them for it.
The gangs they tend to join are all about uniting to get around the partisan dysfunction of Congress. This time, despite having been so badly burned by the issue six years ago, they are once again ganging up to try to pass a version of comprehensive immigration reform.
This time, there are some new gangsters, such as that kid out of Florida, Marco Rubio. And Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Robert Menendez, Michael Bennet and Jeff Flake. The Washington Post is calling this “a bipartisan push that would have been unimaginable just months ago on one of the country’s most emotionally divisive issues.”
Here’s the memo they’ve put together. This is the introduction:
We recognize that our immigration system is broken. And while border security has improved significantly over the last two Administrations, we still don’t have a functioning immigration system.This has created a situation where up to 11 million undocumented immigrants are living in the shadows. Our legislation acknowledges these realities by finally committing the resources needed to secure the border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program for individuals who are currently here. We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.
The document has a tendency to redundancy — “tough but fair” is mentioned three times on the first page (OK, technically, the third time it was “a tough, fair and practical roadmap”) — but readable. I just think it could have used a tough, but fair, editor.
Amid all sorts of stuff about tightening border security, giving our border patrol the latest technology and making sure people who are supposed to leave by a certain date actually do leave, there is the path to citizenship part:
While these security measures are being put into place, we will simultaneously require those who came or remained in the United States without our permission to register with the
government. This will include passing a background check and settling their debt to society
by paying a fine and back taxes, in order to earn probationary legal status, which will allow
them to live and work legally in the United States. Individuals with a serious criminal
background or others who pose a threat to our national security will be ineligible for legal
status and subject to deportation. Illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes
face immediate deportation…Once the enforcement measures have been completed, individuals with probationary legal
status will be required to go to the back of the line of prospective immigrants, pass an
additional background check, pay taxes, learn English and civics, demonstrate a history of
work in the United States, and current employment, among other requirements, in order to
earn the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residency. Those individuals who
successfully complete these requirements can eventually earn a green card.Individuals who are present without lawful status – not including people within the two
categories identified below – will only receive a green card after every individual who is
already waiting in line for a green card, at the time this legislation is enacted, has received
their green card. Our purpose is to ensure that no one who has violated America’s
immigration laws will receive preferential treatment as they relate to those individuals who
have complied with the law….
There’s a lot more. I invite y’all to go read it, and react.
Vice President Thomas R. Marshall famously said, “What this country needs is a really good five-cent cigar.” Which is debatable.
Less questionable is what Tom Friedman asserted in his latest column, in which he argued that what this country could really use is an actual conservative party. I agree. (In fact, it’s sort of what I’m getting at when I talk about my Grownup Party.)
Nowadays, what was once a home for conservatives has been almost completely commandeering by radicals, he says, and he’s right. Conservatives, true Tories, don’t despise and tear at the basic fabric of civil society. On the contrary, they defend and maintain institutions (of which government is but one). They don’t attend rallies waving snake flags. That’s what revolutionaries do, which is where these latter-day folks got their flag, and the name of their movement. That’s fine if you want to be a revolutionary; it takes all kinds to make up a world. Just don’t call yourself a conservative. And don’t label actual conservatives as “in-name-only.”
Friedman suggests that a real conservative presence in our politics could help us deal meaningfully with the four great issues of the day, which he deems to be “the nexus of debt, taxes and entitlements…[;] how to generate growth and upgrade the skills of every American in an age when the merger of globalization and the information technology revolution means every good job requires more education; how to meet our energy and climate challenges; and how to create an immigration policy that will treat those who are here illegally humanely, while opening America to the world’s most talented immigrants, whom we need to remain the world’s most innovative economy.
He notes that there are real conservatives out there, with useful ideas to contribute with regard to these issues. Such as our own Bob Inglis, so recently ridden out of his party on a rail:
Imagine if the G.O.P. position on energy and climate was set by Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina Republican congressman (who was defeated by the Tea Party in 2010). He now runs George Mason University’s Energy and Enterprise Initiative, which is based on the notion that climate change is real, and that the best way to deal with it and our broader energy challenge is with conservative “market-based solutions” that say to the fossil fuel and wind, solar and nuclear industries: “Be accountable for all of your costs,” including the carbon and pollution you put in the air, and then we’ll “let the markets work” and see who wins.
I told Bob last time I saw him that a new party, a way of running effectively for office outside of the present ideological madness, is exactly what this country needs, so that we can elect more people like him. He listened politely enough, but I fear he’s had his fill of electoral politics for awhile.
Anyway, Friedman definitely is onto something here.
As I run out of here to go to Rotary, I toss this up for discussion:
Court rejects parts of Arizona immigration law
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected much of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but upheld other provisions, giving a partial victory to the Obama administration.
The court ruled that Arizona cannot make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to carry identification that says whether they are in the United States legally; cannot make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for a job; and cannot arrest someone based solely on the suspicion that the person is in this country illegally.
However, the court let stand the part of the law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain, if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully in the United States. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges. The court said it was “improper” for the federal government to block the provision before state courts have a chance to interpret it and without determining whether it conflicts with federal immigration law in practice….
The court also said the biggie — a ruling on Obamacare — is coming up Thursday…
I don’t have anything in particular to say about it. I think it’s one of those cartoons that just works all around, whatever your political position. As long as you have a sense of humor and ability to appreciate the way real life mocks us all.
