It's deja vu for progressives this week as the Obama administration's latest concession to Republicans on a major issue has gone, once again, unreciprocated.
President Obama discussed immigration reform during his meeting Tuesday with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill; soon after, the White House disclosed its intention to deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to ramp up security on the US-Mexico border.
The $500 million endeavor closely resembles President Bush's similar move in 2006, which amounted to little more than a temporary boost for his "tough-on-immigration" credentials. It's designed, by all indications, as a split-the-difference political compromise to court GOP support for comprehensive immigration reform.
But, unsurprisingly, it isn't working. Just like it didn't work when the president agreed to give up the public option in search of Republican votes for health care reform, or when he championed offshore drilling to win their blessings for energy legislation. The administration has again made a policy concession that has failed to sway its opponents and succeeded in irritating its allies.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whose suggestion Obama's move was based on, stopped short of lauding his 2008 rival, backhandedly saying he "appreciate[s]" the decision while rebuking it as "simply not enough" to address Arizona's border issues. Not a single Republican has agreed to work with Democrats on an immigration overhaul, and this decision hasn't changed that.
Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro-immigration group America's Voice -- a reform ally -- charged that Obama has taken "one step forward and two steps back." "Americans are hungry for real leadership on immigration, but this move by the President serves only to reward those who are standing in the way of real reform," Sharry told me in an email.
Republicans have deemed it politically beneficial to block the Democrats' initiatives, so that's what they'll do. It doesn't matter that, as The Hill reported, Obama told them he'd be "willing to meet them halfway or 75 percent of the way on some of the big issues." Continuing to feed them carrots, despite repeatedly getting stonewalled in return, amplifies the perception that he's negotiating out of weakness and diminishes his capital among the progressive base.
Why, then, does the administration keep following this same approach and expecting a different result? Some would argue it has no other option; that it needs Republican votes to achieve meaningful reform. True, but bending over backwards to accommodate them isn't the only option. Nor is it effective, as attempt after attempt has proven.
The other option would be for the president to vigorously fight back, like FDR did: battling his opponents, reshaping the message on progressive terms, thriving on the support of his base, and challenging the premises of his adversaries. Infusing the debate with the right arguments can pressure Republicans and conservative Democrats to approach the issue more evenhandedly, as well as provide them political cover to vote their conscience.
In the case of immigration, it's about protecting working-class wages (which are depressed by the presence of tens of millions of undocumented immigrants), preserving a deteriorating system that has marked the upward surge of America since its inception. It's about maintaining avenues to continue boosting productivity and prosperity at home. But because it's conservatives who frame the debate, it's become primarily about shady illegals who seek to exploit America for their personal gain. The administration's decision to send troops to the border unwittingly fuels that narrative without addressing the larger issues.
President Obama has the loudest megaphone in the world, and can make major strides in redefining this issue -- and other important ones, like energy -- if he wishes to. As he proved in 2008, he has a remarkable ability to spread his message across the nation and mobilize and incite people to action. Getting elected was the easy part; now's when he needs that clout most. He seems to genuinely believe in fixing the immigration system and despite national support for the Arizona law, Americans also strongly favor comprehensive reform.
But it's clear that Republicans view this as a zero-sum game and won't be persuaded over cocktails. So, as long as the president refuses to challenge conservative orthodoxy, he'll be forced to continue operating within its confines, and his legislative ambitions for the remainder of his presidency will remain prey to whatever talking points Republicans come up with next.
Given all this, the White House's current modus operandi is the least shrewd course of action moving forward.
Follow Sahil Kapur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Sahil_Kapur
as for sealing the border, the fence between guantanamo and cuba works, the fence between isreal and gaza works, and the fence in between us and mexico works. now of course the left says they will just go around the fence, which they will do UNTIL THEY FINISH THE FENCE!
i have chickens on the farm and the only way to keep the COYOTES out is to build a fence. because......it works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFoQrk7tAKU&has_verified=1
Just like Obama's entire administration, nothing but smoke and mirrors.
So why then did Obama do it through a press Conference AFTER meeting with republicans and not saying a word about it in the meeting? Hmmm??
Anyone wanna guess?
It goes like this:
.....if you remove the first letter and the last two letters from Ramirez.....what do you have?
Doesn't matter to me - I carry my driver's license, credit cards, vehicle insurance and Medicare card with me in my wallet. But I am going to wait and see if the same ones who are screaming about the "show me your papers" so-called na zi program will scream about this!
As far as the border mess - there are many coming across the border illegally that are not hispanic. Who knows if some are terrorists? When you think about how easy it is for people to infiltrate our country, isn't it worth having secure borders? Aren't you glad you have property lines for your homes? Aren't you happy that you can build a fence around your property? Or would you rather have your home and property wide open to any who want to use it for their own purposes?
Who has probably never set foot along the Rio in Big Bend, dodged bullets tearing over the border from Nogales and Nuevo Laredo and Juarez and Matamoros,and is not a witness to the chaos that has erupted all along our southern border. He is thus a hack who writes from the comfortable confines of ivy-laced eastern brownstones while having as much of a clue of the terrible complexity and carnage along our border as he does with ice samples from one of Saturns moons. The same could be said for all of these species of East coaster nabobs,who engage mouth before mind.
1/3 of the Stimulus package - meaningless tax cuts
Expansion of troops in Afghanistan
Leaving out the public option - not pushing for it in healthcare bill
Flirting with off-shore drilling until BP disaster
Not requiring " too big to fail" breakupl as a guiding principle with financial legislation
Now troops on the border?
Obama is showing how craven and empty his political methodology is:
He will not solve ONE problem before he leaves office at the rate that he is going.
The man lacks any cojones , he seems to exist solely to to placate Repug racism , which is impossible. If he didn't want to lead, why did he run?
It simply strains credulity to hear somebody make dumb statements like that. Shows a lack of intellect. By the way, the US constructed the ALCAN highway during WWII in a few months and that was about the same length as our border to the south. THAT was a LOT harder than a fence and in a LOT worse terrain. So yes a fence will do just fine, but of course, you have to patrol it too. What it does is make it harder to cross, and gives the BP a chance to nail the illegals more effectively.
THAT is why folks do not want it because it WILL work very well.
You have to love Ed... he exists to make the Huffbaggers seem more normal.
I hope Obama DOES follow FDRs lead. He BANNED ALL immigration during the Depression! We admit over ONE MILLION immigrants/yr now. It is NOT progressive to promote illegal immigration or to advocate more or legalization of them. The Chamber of Commerce and NAM are BIG supporters of CIR. Why would any progressive be on the SAME side as these reactionaries? They fully understand the effect that the illegals have on wages which is why they want MORE or at least the status quo. Since when is it progressive to drive down the wages in construction, meat packing, and other jobs which Americans are being driven out of?
Always have been. It is the foriegn nationals that feel thier priorities are so important that our laws don't matter to them that we mind.
It is not xenophobic to want to control the number of foriegn citizens who visit or move to our country.
As far as who will take care of our aging population? Our children can take our place, and in this country we plan for things like retirement. Immigrants will alway come and some will let thier visas expire, some will go home, some will be Americans.
But 70% of us feel that people should come here the right way or stay home. There are systems in this nation just like there are in thier countries. There is nothing wrong or racist with American's demanding they be followed.