After the death of the DREAM Act last week, Monday's Democratic debate gave immigrants and their defenders even more to mourn. Sen. Chris Dodd, who has tried to court immigrant votes with his Spanish fluency, floated a new campaign tactic. Dodd declared that drivers' licenses are "a privilege, not a right," referring to New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal to offer a different type of licenses to undocumented immigrants. Sen. Hillary Clinton flip-flopped around the issue. "They are driving on our roads," said Clinton, only to dispute Dodd's claim that she supported the policy.
The real threat looming on the electoral horizon is that more and more Democrats are joining Republicans in capitulating to the public antipathy against immigrants.
Among these disconcerting developments were statements about immigration made last week by Illinois Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the powerful chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and an architect of the Democratic congressional victories of 2006. Immigration "has emerged as the third rail of American politics, and anyone who doesn't realize that isn't with the American people," Emanuel was quoted as saying. He also added, "This issue captures all the American people's anger and frustration not only with immigration, but with the economy. This is a big problem."
As one of the top Democrats central to plotting strategy and raising money towards their 2008 campaigns, Emanuel is nothing less than dangerous. Such statements mean that candidates and incumbents need to stay away from immigration issues. Dodd's anti-immigrant debut and Clinton's vacillation seamlessly follow the script written by the Democratic moneymen and strategists like Emmanuel. And the debate was just the latest performance.
Consider the theatrics given us by the crop of recently elected "pragmatists" like Montana Sen. Jon Tester and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill. Both ran to the hard right of even the most basic immigration reforms earlier this year. And when the DREAM Act came up for a vote last Tuesday, they joined the Republicans in denying the "dream" to immigrant students.
To know where this comes from one needs to look back to 1994 -- the beginning of contemporary anti-immigrant politics in the form of California's Proposition 187, which sought to deny health and education benefits to the children of the undocumented. Most students of immigration politics trace the origins of the Republican anti-migrant kulturkampf (culture war) to then-California Gov. Pete Wilson and the Republican Party. But along with Wilson and his dour republicans, Pres. Bill Clinton also played a major role.
As the search for a new approach to immigration politics begins, it is important to remember that the exponential increase in immigrant deaths in the desert began not with the patrols of aging Minutemen but with Clinton, who launched "Operation Gatekeeper" in 1994. Two years later, Clinton also signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) in the wake of the Oklahoma bombing, which criminalized immigrants, and subsumed immigration law under criminal law, in a process some legal scholars call "crimmigration."
That the Democrats are, once again, starting to march against migrants is less a signal to the Republican movement than a sign of something else. Rather than continue DREAM Acting with Democrats, the immigrant rights movement may see the need to get back to what first brought immigrants -- and many in this country - hope: power-building and direct action like last year's marches.
The very possibility of the DREAM Act and of "immigration reform" itself was not born in the rotting bosoms of the two parties. It was born of dreaming and acting on the part of those with nothing to lose. Elections and politicians alone will not solve either the immigration crisis or the even greater general social crisis that approaches. Politicos need to be inspired by or scared of immigrant power from below.
Until immigrant power makes itself better known through intelligent strategy and intrepid action, the Democrats will continue the rightward tilt seen in the recent debate and the DREAM Act will remain dead.
Time to DREAM -- and Act.
Follow Roberto Lovato on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robvato
and that no one mentions people who came legally and then suffered the backlash of anti-immigration INS rulings post-9/11... my husband immigrated from africa in '97, applied for assylum after witnessing inhuman raids against his tribe by warring tribes, and was told to leave the usa in late september of '01... despite our marriage. but that's personal and i digress.
furthermore, there's just so little consideration of this fact: migration is an ever occurring phenomena of the human species (as well as ever opposed by americans). if not, 5 of the 6 continents currently habitated, would not be thus (and so few of us would have the privilege of american excess). we were better to find pro-active solutions than to engage in racist and fear based political banter that is encouraged by the same people who would like you to vote pro-life so that they can kill people in iraq, and sell you cheap toys saturated in lead paint.
This IS leading to the Balkanization of the United States of America - PLEASE I implore everyone on here, if you haven't already, read a copy of "The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society" - By Arthur M. Schlesinger, a TRUE liberal who lived when that title was still a proud thing to be called.
The general feeling is that we need to control our borders. That American jobs are at risk. And that avoiding the use of the word "Illegal" seems dishonest to most folks here.
And as an aside: We have a President who has broken the law on many important constitutional issues. We have laws regarding immigration. Those are being broken as well. If this continues, we will come to the point where law ceases to have a meaning. That is called Fascism...
The number of terrorist involved in 9/11 who came through Mexico is...? Bueller? ZERO. They came though Canada. Why? Because it would have been impossible to have gotten any benefits from the Mexican government as an immigrant. Is anyone else choking on the irony here?!
I'm not saying it won't happen or isn't happening right now but let's not forget, Mexico isn't the only place immigrants are coming into the US from. And if you think European countries aren't STILL involved in illegal immigration...well, you go ahead and click on all those messages in your BULK MAIL...they're safe, trust me.
You misrepresent the issue by not using the word "illegal" in front of the word immigrant. It is with the illegal immigrants that most people have a problem. You are dishonest.
As many have noted in their comments, the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico is, in large part, a problem of the Mexican government and the rich upper-class that runs it.
Our government is part of the problem as it does nothing to economically pressure the Mexican government to improve living conditions for its citizens.
So here is something we can all do. Boycott all products from Mexico. If our government won't impose economic sanctions, we can, by not buying any products made or assembled in Mexico. Additionally, don't patronize businesses that hire lots of illegals or that require lots of Mexican-made products in what they sell (hint, hint, restaurants). And when you boycott, let the manager know why you are doing it. Tell the manager that since your government won't impose economic sanctions on Mexico, you are as an individual. If enough people do it, the Mexican government will hear. Diminishing dollars always bothers the cabal that constitutes the MExican government.
Here's another idea. How about flooding the Meican government's website with emails telling them to make their country hospitable for their countrymen? At the very least it will be lots of fun to take this action.
If illegals don't get licenses, they will still drive, just without car insurance. So, if they're in a wreck that they cause, it will be up to the victim to have uninsured motorist coverage if they want to have their car fixed. Carried one step further, in Dodds proposal, if the illegal caused the accident and was injured, he/she could still go to the hospital and have their wounds treated with the same health coverage as the person they hit, at the same price. The victim would have no recourse to have their expenses in the accident covered by the person who caused it. I am confused. How is this good for America?
The author of the article uses "immigrant", and "undocumented immigrant" to describe his advocacy. I think that the great majority of US citizens are mostly concerned with illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants have rights akin to citizen's rights. Illegal immigrants are criminals. They have the same rights as any other criminal.
If the Dems listen to these whack job liberals, they are going to sink and sink fast. It will destroy their party for another 40 years.
This issue is really black and white. Americans love immigrants that come here LEGALLY and we have little sympathy for ILLEGAL immigrants that break our laws and drain our society.
I am glad to hear that even the bloggers on the left are AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
And do you people understand the real reason the corporatist politicians (In Both Parties) want to hand out drivers licenses to illegalas? I can assure you it isn't out concern for there safety on the road. The big business elite can't replace American truck drivers if the illegals dont have licenses no can they?
Lastly I want to point out on more cold hard fact, and that is a majority of these illegals are not assimilating into mainstream American culture, and neither are many of there offspring who join and create street gangs and add to our bloated prison population. Civic responsibility doesn't mean much to someone who isn't a citizen and/or can't even speak English. It is greatly disturbing to watch year after year, decade after decade our great and generous country become increasingly Balkanized. The common culture and traditions that have held this country together for over 200 years are in decay.