McCain and Obama: Fuzzy On Immigration

It's difficult to pin down clear immigration policies from the candidates for president. The briar patch of immigration, politically useful in other times, has generally proven a no-fly zone for Senators Obama and McCain. It received only sparse mention at the conventions, a far cry from the last mid-term elections where it seemed priority number one. And it has factored less than prominently on the campaign trail -- except when talking to special-interest groups. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

The most immigration has reared its head lately has been in the Spanish-language TV ads the two Senators have hurled at each other -- each filled with falsehoods about the other candidate. McCain's ad asserts that Obama was responsible for derailing immigration reform, and that's blatantly false. Obama's ad not only wrongly associates his rival with Rush Limbaugh -- the two have stood far apart on immigration -- but even quoted Limbaugh deceptively out-of-context while doing so. The most accurate part of the ad may be its title, "Dos caras" -- "Two Faces."

There was a time when Sen. McCain could point to his legislative efforts on immigration and really outdistance himself from Sen. Obama. No longer. McCain spent years in the Senate addressing the web of immigration issues that affected his constituency in the border state of Arizona. And he co-sponsored (with Sen. Ted Kennedy) the major immigration bill that's come closest to passing in recent years, a kind of middle-of-the-road hodge-podge that attempted a combination of increased enforcement and a 'path to citizenship'.

The latter element put McCain at great odds with much of the GOP. Since his campaign for president began, however, and McCain has tried to bolster support from the right wing of his party, he seems to have changed his ideas on immigration. He now says that he would not even vote for the bill that he himself put before the Senate because, "The people want the borders secured first."

He said of his shift to the right on immigration in an AP article last November, "I got the message ... We will secure the borders first and then go on to other issues." Before last year, McCain proved himself a truly, yes, maverick voice on immigration, taking a more moderate if not slightly liberal stance. He's now retreated to the right. Usually. Speaking before the Irish-American Presidential Forum last week he suddenly sounded a bit like his pre-candidate self, lauding his immigrant predecessors and calling again for the 'path to citizenship', as he did in an interview with Univision, during which he also tried to avoid admitting he voted for a border wall.

So, how can we compare the two men? Though it may be futile at this point, we can look at their voting records. Both voted for the McCain/Kennedy bill, which contained the earned 'path to citizenship' that included learning English and paying fines. Both voted for constructing 700 miles of the much-maligned border fence. Both co-sponsored the DREAM Act to provide relief for certain undocumented students. Obama also sponsored the Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007, which would have eased the rising monetary costs of legal immigration, so as to speed up the backlog and not encourage people to skirt the system. That bill didn't go anywhere.

We can also look at their campaign websites. In general Sen. Obama's official platform is little different on a broad scale from the McCain/Kennedy bill, which Pres. Bush also supported. Secure borders through "additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry." Path to citizenship. And a vague reference to the bureaucratic 'backlog'.

Obama does add that the raids conducted under Bush's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have been ineffective and unjust, saying that the number of actual undocumented workers caught in the raids is so small as to render them little more than lip service to enforcement and that they "have placed all the burdens of a broken system onto immigrant families".

Earlier this summer Obama told the National Council of La Raza: "When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids, when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn't working, and we need to change it."

These things are happening on a larger scale than either candidate mentions -- and neither has really addressed the raids on immigrants' homes, which often happen without legal justification, or the detention and in some cases deportation of people not legally removable -- including some U.S. citizens. But Angela Kelley of The American Immigration Law Foundation believes that Obama, while probably not imposing a moratorium on raids, would implement safeguards; whereas, McCain would probably continue the current DHS practices.

McCain's website does have a decidedly pro-enforcement bent. The long quotation from him at the top of the "Border Security and Immigration" page tries to reassure his new base that he always shared their concerns about securing the border as the number-one priority but that he just had failed in making that clear for them before. It hasn't ever been clear with him. For instance, in a Republican primary debate on 01.05.06, he said, "We have to secure the borders first." Then on FOX on 04.02.07, when asked if border security had to happen before other reforms, he said, "Not before." For McCain, immigration has recently become purely a national security issue. (Both sourced here.)

His platform seems focused on increased militarization of the border with "physical and virtual barriers," more personnel, more funding and unmanned aircraft. But even some enforcement proponents don't see border measures, such as those both candidates support, as effective means to decrease the undocumented population. For instance, even Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has said that workplace enforcement and the removal of incentives to come here are more effective and cost-effective ways to combat undocumented immigration.

In fact, history has shown that even as more deterrents spring up on the border, the undocumented population continues to climb and migrants still die in the desert, forced into more-remote areas by the barricades, particularly in McCain's home state, which has generally been the most trafficked by border-crossers. Just look at how the 'shadow population' boomed through the '90s when border construction began. There are some who say the border security actually increases the undocumented population by disrupting the naturally cyclical flow of some migration. ("Backfire at the Border"(pdf) by Prof. Douglas Massey of Princeton is essential reading on this.)

After border security, McCain touts "Comprehensive Immigration Initiatives for a Secure Nation", which centers on an electronic employee verification system and prosecuting employers who employed undocumented workers, followed by a plan to "Meet America's labor needs" with temporary-worker programs.

Overall, the tone of this platform leaves far behind the McCain who said things like:

"Hispanics is what we're talking about, a different culture, a different language, which has enriched my state where Spanish was spoken before English was. In Washington DC, go to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names engraved in black granite. You'll find a whole lot of Hispanic names. They must come into country legally, but they have enriched our culture and our nation as every generation of immigrants before them."

(GOP debate 06.03.07)

And "We need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well. And they need some protection under the law; they need some of our love and compassion." (GOP YouTube debate 11.28.07) (Both sourced here.)

Kelley, who worked with McCain on his immigration bill, says that "in his heart he does believe in helping the 12 million [undocumented people]" and doing so in a practical way; but, so did Pres. Bush. She says that McCain's political situation, however, now and perhaps in the future, too, makes it "toxic" for him to approach some of the elements necessary to achieve those goals.

Human rights and reform of the notoriously flawed system of legal immigration make McCain's page, but way down at the bottom and in much less detail than the other parts of the policy.

Sen. Obama has given us a clearer sense of his beliefs on immigration, if not his plans, through a downloadable PDF on his website -- decidedly welcome since his actual page on immigration is very sparse. But the "FactSheet" is also fairly meager. Obama did respond in some depth to a questionnaire sent him by a group called The Sanctuary, a "grassroots effort of pro-migrant, human-rights, and civil-rights bloggers and on-line activists". His responses, now spread throughout the Internet, are detailed and fairly consistent with his platform -- and near where McCain used to be. (McCain apparently refused the questionnaire.)

One interesting distinction between the two Senators is that Obama, acknowledging the foreign policy components of immigration, repeatedly mentions (at least on his site and in the questionnaire) the need to improve conditions in so-called sender countries, Mexico in particular, saying that will cut down on the desperation of people to come here. But he seems unclear on what it means to "fix the dysfunctional bureaucracy" of immigration -- though at least he believes it's a priority. Does he see that it's much more than just the 'backlog' but the entire culture and mechanism of the system?

Bassina Farbenblum, a civil rights lawyer at Seton Hall Law's Center for Social Justice, currently suing ICE on behalf of people -- including three lawful permanent residents and three U.S. citizens -- whose homes were raided, doesn't foresee much progress on immigration with either Obama or McCain. Neither does Mehlman, who comes in far apart from Farbenblum on immigration policy.

(He says arrests of legal residents and possible Constitutional violations are, essentially, acceptable collateral damage; Farbenblum echoes Obama that the raids are ineffective and adds that they're "set up in a way that peoples' rights are completely secondary to the enforcement...which has very dangerous implications for everyone.")

Says Mehlman, "The positions Obama and McCain have taken in the Senate are less of a priority with the American public...The idea of giving some sort of amnesty to the people who broke our laws is not only not a priority but, I think, if either one of these guys were to pursue that, it would be the shortest Presidential honeymoon on record."

Policy uncertainty is, of course, the order of the day during campaign time, particularly on such a dander-raising subject.

In terms of what might change with the next administration, says Farbenblum, "It's really hard to know at this stage."

"At 20,000 feet," Kelley says, "which is where a campaign is run, there's not a lot of difference" between Obama and McCain on immigration. It's the details, she says, that reveal the real distinctions. For instance, would either man pursue having local law enforcement become deputized immigration agents? She does think that both men have the will to try to "carry the ball over to the end-zone" -- something Pres. Bush was unable to do. That will come into play, she says, in whether the next president will be able to unite the freshman and sophomore Democrats on the Hill and mobilize them to act on immigration. The nature of those classes of legislators, she believes, may matter even more than that of the president.

As for the candidates, she thinks Obama has a more cohesive, "unified" plan, one that encompasses more than just enforcement. Even if he seems reticent to talk about it now. And no one (including Michelle Malkin) seems quite satisfied with John McCain and the question of his multiple faces.

Comments

[Hare]

Make the illegals already here legal and that's the end of that. From day 1 next year anyone trying to get in illegally send back to country of origin, charge their governments a hefty fine or just send to prison the culprit for breaking the laws. In my humble opinion.

[clr2]

Why should we reward people who came here ILLEGALLY? We should deport all ILLEGAL ALIENS now. Good luck with collecting from any country - that won't happen. We don't need to fill our prisons even more with ILLEGAL ALIENS. They need to be sent packing.

[jgoren12]

"And the republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without law and order our nation can not survive."

You know who said that? Adolf Hitler in 1932.

We have immigration laws that make little sense in our reality, an immigration system that is inefficient and often unjust and enforcement practices that often seem reminiscent of the secret police force of an oppressive regime. Laws are meant to serve justice, not the other way around.

As for your insistence we summarily deport every illegal alien, first, there are many reasons why people end up without documentation, some of which most reasonable people would agree should not be grounds for removal; second, if you're that concerned about spending money on the undocumented, consider how much it would cost to round up and deport every one -- if it were even possible.

[IMGaron]

Very informed, and informative - fair, even-handed, and well-researched. Thank you for bringing our attention to a topic that, though it is of vital importance, has been thus far taking a back-seat to other domestic policy issues in this election. On an unrelated note, I'd be interested to hear your take on the current financial armageddon. Look forward to reading more from you.

[clr2]

All ILLEGAL ALIENS no matter where they come from should be deported. We need to enforce our immigration laws. We spend BILLIONS to educate and provide health care for ILLEGALS. We need to use this money on our own citizens.

[MyNameIsMickey]

Thank you for your insightful, detailed description of the two candidates position(s) on immigration. This is an issue that has become taboo for either candidate to talk about and it is fascinating to see what (and when) has been said by our presidential wannabes about this enduring situation.

I expect after this election the immigration and its problems will once again take prominence. It will be interesting to see your continued intelligent monitoring of the new presidents' policy as they are created and implemented.

Thank you for your serious, in-depth reporting.

[Softnsweet]

I see you are talking about immigrants and that is fine. What about the candidates positions on African Americans? This is a subject that should be talked about. We are overlooked because of the immigration problems. If they are here illegally then seen the home.

[jgoren12]

You are absolutely right that we should examine the candidates' positions on African-American issues, particularly since one of the two candidates " and I'll let you guess which one " voted against the establishment of the national holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., twenty-five years ago. Speaking of Dr. King, when you say "illegal" immigrants should be sent home, I think " as always " we would do well to remember some of his own words:

"Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress." So, the laws that call some immigrants "illegal" are not necessarily just laws and must be changed rather than continually exercised.

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal." The present legality or illegality of an action speaks not to its justness. Anyone conscious of the racial history of this country knows that (" and many people know that on a far deeper, more personal and more painful level, of course, than I).

"We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now." That speaks for itself (and very aptly in this case).

[jgoren12]

(Part II.)

And it also points us to what I've always seen as a great failing in the march towards progress and equality: The continuing competition for the crown of Most-Suffering People. It's a sickness from which many of us suffer and one that we must cure if we really wish for equality for any of us.

I am sorry that you feel that immigration problems are the cause of inattention to problems affecting African-Americans. I think our history shows that they are not, that inattention to the needs of African Americans is a favorite American pastime, regardless of what's going on with immigration. In fact, if anything, a greater commitment to justice and tolerance for one group should only help the cause of another, if they can stop fighting over who has it worse; whereas joining in on xenophobia and intolerance of other nationalities surely does not create an environment in which racial inequalities can be seriously addressed. (And, on a practical level, if we just sent home all those who are undocumented, as you suggest, that would cost millions if not billions of dollars " if it were even possible. I think I can safely guess that money wouldn't come out of the war chest.)

Unity should be our goal. We have no choice. As Dr. King said, "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be."

[jsgardner]

What a thorough article Jeremy, please continue to bring up this issue as I feel as if it has been lost in the shuffle among recent crises. Immigration is an important issue and especially so in our country, founded on the backs of immigrants.

[nopartyforme]

great article Jeremy. The truth is that boht candidates are just trying to avoid this issue as much as possible. As a Mexican Immigrant I can tell you that this is an issue that will take years to be resolved. As long as people can use the excuse of Terrorism to scare people from Mexicans, there will be no amnesty for innocent human beings. Hope to see more of Mr Goren on HuffPost.

[voltaireinexile]

What you describe, what has happened the past few months is huge: the raids on people's homes, families being torn apart?!... Even if both candidates stay away from the issue, your article gave me some real insight. This issue directly relates to the most fundamental human rights, to what defines this country. Thanks for bringing our attention to it.

[jgoren12]

"This issue directly relates to the most fundamental human rights, to what defines this country."

Beautifully said. In the last seven years, we, as a nation, have certainly had to revisit what kind of country we want this to be. I for one, do not want to give up the dream of the land of the free and the home of the brave. Having government enforcement squads who, in some cases, connive themselves without legal justification into peoples' homes, who drag parents away in front of their children - parents who in many cases are not in violation of any law or statute - and place them in inhumane detention facilities with, in many cases, fewer due process protections than we give violent criminals - there are much better ways to regulate immigration. Instead, we have given into hysteria and xenophobia, lashing out for the best-available scape goats. None of this sounds like the USA we tout ourselves to be.