Democrats' Uneasy Dance with Xenophobia

The prospect of Lou Dobbs short-lived presidential candidacy was the cherry on the cake of a campaign already deeply infused with hostility to immigrants and foreigners. It is easy (and appropriate) to demonize Republicans for demonizing immigrants, but Democrats share some responsibility, not only for not fighting back more vigorously on the issue, but also because they are uncomfortable talking about it, let alone leading on it.

The ease with which right-wing anti-immigrants, assorted racists and their close allies including Rudy Giuliani have been able to merge the issues of immigration, crime and terrorism happened in no small part because most leading Democrats stood by, uncomfortably silent, while Mexican workers were essentially accused of plotting to blow up American malls and/or of pillaging entire Iowa communities.

The recent commotion about undocumented immigrants and U.S. driver's licenses was typical. Hillary Clinton, always one to shy away from anything remotely controversial, truly has had half-a-dozen positions in as many weeks, a sure sign that she is caught between a rock and a hard place (in the meanwhile, of course, we have yet to hear from John Edwards on the issue besides his hammering away at Clinton's own indecisiveness).

As telling of Democrats' lack of grasp on immigration is Chris Dodd's silly statement during the Philadelphia debate that licenses are "a privilege." What the hell is that supposed to mean? That driving is more of a privilege than being allowed into the country to begin with? He then appeared to try to make up for it all during the Nevada debate by bringing up his Peace Corps days in the Dominican Republic (in Spanish no less), and it just ended up sounding like the sadly familiar patronizing tone so many Democrats take when discussing immigrants and foreign issues.

Immigration is the principal, though not only issue on which Democratic candidates have to perform a strange, convoluted dance that allows them to communicate in code to their often xenophobic native-born base. Since most Americans witness daily the hard work and humble life of many immigrants, it is hard for them to argue that they are taking away good-paying union jobs that they themselves would kill for (they'd actually happily kill not to do the jobs).

The same cannot be said for those other foreigners, further away and therefore invisible, who benefit from, gasp, outsourcing and free trade with the U.S. Isn't it ironic that after decades of exporting unnecessary, overpriced goods to countries often strong-armed into buying them, Americans are so resentful about Indian and Brazilian workers wanting to make a buck themselves?

At the other end of the labor spectrum, it is saying something that Microsoft and other normally omnipotent corporations have not been able to convince enough lawmakers of either party to allow more "qualified" foreign workers to be allowed into the U.S. (on H1 visas). Perhaps, in this case, Americans believe that they deserve those high-paying software development and engineering jobs, no matter how unqualified they are for them? Or are they just cutting their nose to spite their face: denying unfilled U.S. jobs to potential immigrants simply speeds up outsourcing as most companies looking for growth (as they all do) will move operations elsewhere.

Free trade, and to a lesser extent outsourcing, are complex issues and neither party has come close to figuring out a way forward. For instance, Democrats could pay a real price for Bill Clinton's trade agreements, bilateral or otherwise, that don't include strong provisions about the environment, work conditions and social benefits (in just a few fell swoops, he outsourced pollution, child labor and 100-hour work weeks; for some reason, this now makes Hillary chuckle). Republicans too are in a strange position, as the party of an unfettered free-market economy that hinders the free flow of labor and of extremely strategic goods such as peanuts.

Even the backlash against Chinese exports was tinged with no little hypocrisy, xenophobia and, perhaps, racism: yes the shoddy quality control on exported toys and medication is criminal (literally), but is it more so than the environmental and social havoc created by the U.S.'s own highly profitable international business activities over the past few decades?

Speaking of international business activities, since the tide of American public opinion on Iraq turned a couple of years ago, the emphasis has been nearly exclusively on the U.S. toll in lives lost and funds wasted. There is extraordinary little attention paid in the presidential campaign to the hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis, or the millions of displaced Iraqi families. Even Democrats are remarkably timid on the subject, as if they wanted to avoid any little bit of guilt, or as if Iraqi lives were exponentially less important, or both.

In a campaign year in which real, actual flesh-and-blood, hard-working people are routinely called "illegals," not just in the mouth of nutjobs such as Tom Tancredo or Dobbs, but in that of "moderates" like Giuliani and self-styled liberals (ha!) such as Chris Matthews, Democrats continue to lumber along, setting a wrong foot on either side of the thin line between an enlightened international view and loyalty to U.S. labor. More often than not, they land firmly on the side of the latter, probably rightly assuming there are more votes to be won there in the short-term.

A little further down the road, though, Democrats should have tremendous fear about their uncertain handling of immigration, free trade, and foreign wars, as they cannot rely on Republicans' inane prejudice alone to motivate the growing number of first and second generation immigrant voters, or to generate goodwill with the U.S.'s international partners. Perhaps, in that sense at least, the Democrats' best hope is Barack Obama, who has so far managed these issues with the most grace and intelligence (surely due in no little part to his own multinational and multi-ethnic background), campaigning in a way that does not dismiss or patronize immigrants and foreigners, and pays due respect and priority to all U.S. workers. Such deft handling is imperative for Democrats. After all, first and second-generation immigrant voters may have been the single most important deciding factor in propelling the White House career of at least one GOP politician: one in two Latinos voted for George W. Bush in his successful 1998 Texas gubernatorial campaign, as well as in Florida in 2000, where a closer than expected vote and a corrupt Supreme Court allowed him to snatch a victory from Al Gore.

Comments

[undeclared]

Here's La Raza/ MECHa's outlook on the world. La Raza used to link its site with MECHa, I don't know if it still does not that it trying to act presepectible in Washington. But on line, its supporters have not changed their tune.


""MEChA's founding principles state: "In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny...

Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and no to the foreign Europeans...

"For La Raza to do. Fuera de la Raza nada." That closing two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. It says:"For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing."

These words don't come from a fringe radical element. These come straight from the official MEChA sites at Georgetown University, the University of Texas, UCLA, University of Michigan, University of Oregon, and many other colleges and universities around the country.

Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder of La Raza Unida Party, Director of "Movimiento Latino USA de Los Angeles", has proudly said:"We have an aging white America¦. They are dying¦. They are **** in their pants with fear! I love it!" He then demands:"We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him." "

Now who are the racists?

[undeclared]

If DIP (Democratic Illegals'Party, formerly known as the Democratic Party) keeps believing its own spin, it is headed for another rude awakening. Americans objections to illegals are not racist; they are based on the concept that eludes DIP, the rule of law.

They don"t like lawbreakers, people taking jobs illegally and away from Americans, people working under the table and depressing wages for dishonest business. They don"t like people using fraudulent documents, or stealing ID s and ruining good hard working Americans" credit, and don't like tax evaders, benefit abusers, and having to subsidize each illegal by $22,000 per year,giving dishonest business an unfair advantage over honest business.

Americans don"t like their family and friends sitting outside the USA waiting to come in legally, while the illegals lawbreakers live in the USA demanding rights and preferences over everyone else in the world.

The only racists in this debate are the anti rule of law, anti legal immigrant, pro illegal alien supporters.

1. La Raza finances MECHa and has the same motto and many of the same goals.
See next post for their lovely philosoply.
"For La Raza to do. Fuera de la Raza nada."
It says:"For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing."

2. Does open borders that mean with all countries,or onlywith Mexico? If only Mexico, why us ONE race getting preference? Doesn"t the Constitution state that no law shall discriminate based on race or ethnic origin?

All these amnesty proposals, given that they will benefit almost exclusively Hispanic Americans in a blatantly discriminatory manner over almost all other Americans, are all unconstitutional.

3.What about equal protection of the laws per our Constitution? Hispanic preferences over legal immigrants is not equal protection. Hispanic border access means there is not equal opportunity for all other races to come into the USA and get amnesty.

We need immigration reform but not dictatated by Calderon, La Raza and MECha. Reform by Americans for Americans per with our Constitution, principales of equality and fair play and the rule of law.

Don't expect that kind of reform from DIP.

[research]

Let me suggest a completely different approach to "illegal Aliens"

At the borders and If person is caught without license, or proof of citizenship, the official prints them a temporary license, right there. Photo Fingerprint reported name address phone. Right in the squad car.

Assuming their prints don't match a crime, then let them continue on their way.
Nobody need fear the INS or the police. You wont be kicked out of the country without due process, you wont be hauled away if you can't produce ID. The police will love it, I think, because they can then trace everybody in the country. I am not so keen on the finger print thing, But I already gave mine to CA just to get my license. So no worse then now.

Since the fingerprint can be looked up on the net, identity is proven. What they say or look like doesn't matter.

Employers will be required to get ID number assigned for that finger print before hiring. Thus taxes etc.. get paid.
posted 11/19/2007 at

[NABNYC]

There is no right for anyone to move into the U.S. It is a political policy of this country to allow a certain number of immigrants to move here every year. But the number, and the countries from which they can come, are strictly determined by our politicians and can change. And we can say no immigrants, and we should say that until we get this mess straightened out.

The only question to be asked on the issue of immigration is this: can our country reasonably accommodate more immigrants without forcing down wages, overburdening local communities, or putting American citizens out of work because their jobs are taken by the immigrants.

There is no other valid question. How will this affect the citizens. If we can accommodate 3 people, no more should be allowed in. If we can accommnodate 3,000, then that should be the number.

It is not xenophobic to say that all decisions about immigration or anything else should be made only in light of what is in the best interests of the citizens of this country. As soon as anyone in the U.S. starts arguing that we should allow open borders, or unlimited immigration, because that is in the best interests of some other country, then I wonder which team they are on. Someone has to stand up for the American citizens and working people.

Name-calling is not helpful. It distorts the real issue. The real issue is that we have a government that refuses to enforce the laws, we have open borders, we have millions of poor illiterate people moving into the U.S. every year, we have local communities who now have a majority of new students unable to speak or understand English. These are problems. There is no benefit to American working people. None.

Anyone who is motivated by a concern to help the people of Mexico should start projects inside Mexico. Build businesses, schools, hospitals, whatever. But do not suggest bringing millions more people in to the U.S. to continue overburdening our local communities.

[jdm58]

Interesting that Obama is singled out in this post as the best candidate to solve the "illegal" issue. Last week in Las Vegas, Bill Richardson stood out from the pack as a leader on immigration. As a Governor of a border state, he has first hand knowlege of what the real problems are, and the experience dealing with them. He didn't mince around with drivers licences being "privlege". Republicans are not loud on immigration reform, because it's history is another huge blot on their beloved Ronnie Reagan's record. Also, the vast majority of small business owners tend to hire undocumented workers as a means to save money, and also tend to vote Republican. Making THEM liable for hiring these workers is the only way to slow down the process. Most people don't check the immigrant status of their gardeners, manicurists, pool cleaners. I have spoken to countless mothers who find nothing wrong with hiring an "au pair", usually an immigrant here on a tourist visa or student visa who stays beyond the expiration date, to clean house and care for their child.
Richardson went even further to also hold accountable the governments of the countries these folks are escaping. Immigration is ALSO a Human Rights Issue, whether we Dems want to acknowlege it or not. The noise being made about offering healthcare and education to "illegals" is absurd. They receive nothing more than anyone born here, and in the case of healthcare, that is pitifully little.

[bethinCary]

Yep, after watching the debates the other night, the reality of what I'd just seen began to unravel. (I could also include another debate before this one as well).
Wolf comes out-saying he has all the easy-going intentions of letting the candidates answer the questions and get thier turn to speak. Yet what I heard afterwards-was candidates trying to get painted into a corner-"YES OR NO.....ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!" by Wolf.
"Pearls or diamonds"? in a planted question? What the hell? Do they really think I'm this stupid?
Immigration? YES OR NO! ANSWER ME NOW!
IRAQ WITHDRAWAL PLANS---- YES OR NO!
DIPLOMACY WITH IRAN? YES OR NO?>>>Answer!
I think the candidates all did a great job of making the msm look as moronic as they sounded here. People know the world is more complex and don't want simple yes/no answers. That kind of simplicity black/white is representative of the GOP. In this world of msm 5-min soundbites-they know they are not getting the full account of a story. After 7 yrs of extremists viewpoints-people know the middle is where the hope is. It's refreshing to see candidates who are actually thinking about things in a more complex way than black/white.It's why the msm is losing the battle to the internet also.

[ihavenobias]

I agree that there is a lot of racism, xenophobia and general fear mongering on the right with regard to undocumented workers.

With that said, I HATE when someone says "they'll do the jobs Americans won't do". It's the most dishonest statement you could make on the issue.

We have Americans willing to unclog our toilets, mop our floors and flip burgers in hole-in-the-wall fast food joints, and you're telling me they're too good to pick fruit, do construction or clean up a hotel room?

The statement should be "undocumented workers are willing to do the jobs Americans won't and *shouldn't* do *without* decent wages, benefits and safe working conditions".

The bottom line is that the double whammy of insourcing and outsourcing creates de facto maximum wage laws (actual maximum wage laws were common in England in the 1700's, something the founding fathers were strongly opposed to), i.e. it drives down wages (and benefits and job security) at both ends of the pay spectrum.

If we pay people well AND have an actual shortage of jobs, why don't we simply allow more hard working people in legally?

And we need stop attacking the supply and attack the demand on this issue. Building a wall and talk of deportation is ridiculous and unnecessary.

Go after the employers who hire undocumented workers (demand) and the supply will take care of itself. Just like it did prior to the Reagan administration when there were less than 2 million "illegal immigrants" in the US compared to over 12 million (at least) today.

www.theyoungturks.com

[BlackJAC]

Given enough time and OxyContin consumption, the right can merge anything with terrorism. You're talking about a political wing that panders to people living in unincorporated rural Flyover boondocks who have very likely never been across a state line, and consequently will believe whatever balderdash a talk radio pundit spews. Bear in mind they condemn James Brady's views on firearms even though the guy took a bullet for their hero Reagan and the Veterans' Administration for providing Hillarycare to the very troops they claim to support.

It's best not to interrupt your enemy when he's slitting his own throat. Let the gops continue to look like psychopaths who shouldn't be allowed in the same room unsupervised with a loaded question by raving insanely about how Taco Bell is an al-Qaeda recruiting depot, for it makes us look much more competent by comparison.

[VicPerry]

A great post Mr. Jenkins. Predictably most of the people commenting here (major exception: cynara: great comment) are ignoring your major points in favor of "what don't you understand about the word ILLEGAL" blather

-- it's blather because it's only poor people they care to hold to the law, and truthfully, perhaps it's the only people they can. --

They ignore your major points because they always have. It's cool if we export misery and death; we can always focus on the terrorist threat from across the Mexican border (politically it's the best kind of threat, one impossible to quantify). Then we average citizens can feel like victims instead of tyrants (because it just totally isn't fair if we can't feel like victims).

American xenophobia is always nasty; on a planet America viciously attempts to dominate, it's obscene.

[jvarga]

So, Mr. Jenkins, in your line of work (executive at an auction house) is there much downward pressure on the pay because of the presence of a large potential work force?

Imagine if you worked in an industry where that was the case? Particularly if a large segment of that potential work force would be paid under the table, thus saving the employer all sorts of money.

[connorin]

You make a false assertion at the beginning of the article...Republicans are NOT anti-immigrant, they are anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant. We are against someone who breaks the law. If someone wants to come into the country legally, more power to them! America IS the land of the free and the home of the brave, but even legal immigrant are upset with illegal ones. The legal immigrants worked hard and went thru whatever channels they were asked to go thru so that they could come here and pursue their dreams. The illegals make it that much harder on them.

[scooperss]

I'm getting sick and tired of being called a racist/xenophobe because I don't believe we should have open borders and we should enforce immigration laws.

So, let's turn this around a little. Corporations and the rich want illegals here so they can use them. YOU must want to use them so that makes YOU lower than the lowest scum.

[sparkandy]

Like the Bible, statistics can be picked through to prove whatever point it is one is trying to make. This post totally ignores the fact that the problem is with ILLEGAL immigration. It's not racisim or xenophobia that makes the American people rabid on the subject. It's the illegal part. The Dems need to address the illegal part. Illegal, as in against the law. Two of my best friends are LEGAL immigrants from Lebanon. Another friend and my brother in law are LEGAL immigrants from Mexico. The man who owns the nail salon I go to when I can afford it is a LEGAL immigrant from Viet Nam. The man who owns my favorite restaurant is from Iran. Like most people, I'm glad they're here because they add wonderful things to our culture. I also admire them because they worked hard to get here and they deserve to be here. They did not sneak across the border. They speak to each other in their native languages, but they conduct business in English. They do not expect a free ride because they came from war torn or corrupt countries. They are the type of immigrants this country welcomes.
When the Democrats face up to the fact that most Americans aren't so stupid that we don't know the difference in LEGAL and ILLEGAL, they'll cut the Republicans off at the knees.

[MARTYB]

The problem is illegal aliens are not staying in the so-called jobs that Americans don't want. Here, in California, it is hard to find ANYONE who is not Latino on a construction site, doing work that was non-college bound for both white/black and in a lot of cases paid for college during summer breaks. Oh yeah, they have drove down the prevailing wage too. Want a job in the food service industry at a decent wage? Not gonna happen as illegal aliens have taken those jobs and will work for less than a native born, and that they won't make waves goes without saying. Garbage hauling? If you are not a Latino you cannot even get in, which btw pays pretty decent wages, which used to be done by native Americans who were not going to college even if it was a JC. So the BIG LIE about Americans not wanting to do the work is just that, the truth of the matter is we will do them if we are paid a decent wage and have what used to be "normal" safety conditions for whatever the job was/is.

[bradford]

Ok here's the problem with illegal immigration;
IT'S ILLEGAL!Now what part of that don''t you folks understand? Nations that don''t respect the rule of law will disintegrate.Nations that won''t defend their borders have no right to exsist.I am not a racist or a xenophobe.I support legal immigration.Why is this so difficult for people to understand?