THE PLANK FEBRUARY 21, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The debate is getting off to a good start. Both candidates appear
sure and prepared. (Is it just me, or is Obama sitting up
ramrod-straight in hopes of appearing more presidential?) The
back-and-forth on immigration was particularly interesting. Both
candidates are acutely aware that this is a huge issue in Texas.
Hillary
walks through the basic Democratic platform when it comes to
immigration (border security, a caring-but-penalty-laden path to
citizenship). Obama concurs, then makes a point I had not yet heard
uttered in formal or informal debate: Reforming "the legal immigration
system" would be a priority of his as president. Not only does Obama
make a point to cool off the "ugly" rhetoric of the last two years
(really, jingoistic nativism does not a political platform make), but
this answer is the kind that really resonates with "the rest" of the
immigrant families in the United States (like mine, not from Mexico or
other parts of Latin America).
Frankly, some foreign-born
Americans resent that the open doors of Ellis Island allowed past
generations (mainly European) to seek opportunity in the United States,
but that today, that opportunity is only available to those with the
good fortune to have been born just south of the U.S. border.
Frequently, America's "front door" is a more perilous hurdle than
crossing the Sonoman desert. Even for good people with valuable skill
sets, applying for a visa just to enter the U.S.--let alone to study,
gain a job, or permanent residency--is a costly and futile task.
Tamping down the de facto State Department quota system, and the shame-inducing lotteries that go on at embassies worldwide would be a good start.
A
follow-up question questions the continuation of the border fence, in
spite of the buck-passing effect it has had between the San Diego
region and Arizona. Clinton takes a page from her 2000 "listening tour"
of New York State, saying she would "listen to the people who live
along the border." This common-sense answer nets her a big round of
applause, with good reason. Are we really dividing up backyards and public campuses with the inane fence?
It's great that the Democratic party, at least, has thoughtful, humane, yet pragmatic solutions to a big problem.
--Dayo Olopade
8 comments
Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Senator Clinton did NOT speak of a "path to citizenship." She spoke of a "path to legalization." The two are not the same. Legalization without citizenship is systemic oppression and exclusion. It is a policy that is politically safe, if you pay attention to the pollsters, but it is a policy that will not succeed in bringing the undocumented out of the shadows. It is a betrayal of the great traditions of the Democratic Party.
- wmoore
February 21, 2008 at 10:07pm
Can we lead with "we don't need the fence because of technology" rather than "let's not cut up baseball fields"? I haven't followed the immigration debate very closely, and if the former point is true, then it's a fine one, but before they got to it I was rolling my eyes: are we really putting little leaguers before the security of the country?
- CharlesFosterKane
February 21, 2008 at 11:08pm
She's lucky nobody brought up her comment about deporting people without legal process.
- psantillana
February 22, 2008 at 12:04am
"thoughtful, humane, yet pragmatic solutions" that don't even begin to address the source of the problem, ie the nation's busted economic relationship with Mexico?
Come again? How can you talk sense on this matter without even mentioning NAFTA's failings, or labor economics, or Mexico's armed conflict in the north and rural devastation everywhere?
- teplukhin2you
February 22, 2008 at 4:15am
Not a single Dem candidate this race spoke the progressive position AGAINST "green card amnesty" and the "humane" (i.e., let's make sure the black underclass is PERMANENT) consequences of it. The irony is that it may be the nation's first African-American president who delivers the death knell.
This was John Edwards' opportunity in particular -- had he taken a humane but strong stance against illegal immigration (ferociously prosecute employers but no criminalization/mass deportations, with an aid plan to help people transition back to Mexico and other countries) he might have won the nomination.
- Lymon1
February 22, 2008 at 7:19am
teplukhin2you: I recall both Clinton and Obama making a strong case for promoting job creation in Mexico last night. You may check the transcript, but that, too, was something I hadn't heard before in formal debate, and that none of the Repubs ever discuss. (Their radio silence also extends to education and health care reform, as well as the environment).
wmoore: Hillary does get fewer points from me for her stances on the immigration issue generally, but I think it's important to give the Democrats credit for leading where it is least comfortable politically.
- Dayo Olopade
February 22, 2008 at 10:06am
Thanks, Dayo, in advance if you have details. That would be step in the right direction. I'd still love to see a serious analysis, from anyone, as to how we can immediately staunch the job/income drain for rural mexcians by closing some NAFTA loopholes. Now that the King Corn Caucus is over....
- teplukhin2you
February 22, 2008 at 11:25am
Fixing the legal immigraiton system is imo at least as important as another quixotic charge against the windmills of illegal immigration. The joke is that there's a whole battery of advocates and activists out there who push the Democratic Party (but not only) for fair and rational treatment for illegal immigrants -- which is fine and good, 98% aren't criminals who need to be hunted down -- but hardly anyone who reminds people that we wouldn't, for example, have had the IT economy we've had over the last 20 years without highly educated and ambitiious LEGAL immigrants, especially from Asia.
It's as if the government is trying to cluelessly make up for the collapse of the part of the operation that deals with illegals by confronting legal immigrants with ever more arcane, bureaucratic, and paranoid barriers.
- ironyroad
February 22, 2008 at 11:26am