[The first in a series on some of the broader American Studies issues and stakes in the 2012 presidential election. As always, and doubly so with controversial topics like these, your takes are very welcome!]
On the stakes of 2012 for a core American issue of immigration policy, law, and narratives.
I’ve written a good deal on the DREAM Act and concurrent contemporary issues and public figures in this space (more than most other current events/issues, I’d say), and I don’t want to repeat myself. I also hope to have a book coming out at some point in the not-too-distant future on parallel historical and national issues (watch this space!), and so I don’t want to steal my own thunder. So for today I’ll simply say this: I think there are few 21st-century issues more crucial than the question of how we treat undocumented immigrants, and more exactly those undocumented immigrants who exemplify the very best of what America has been and can be. The DREAM Act is designed to benefit precisely that latter category, and its failure to pass the Senate (including one of its Republican co-sponsors voting against it) last year represented the triumph of bigotry and xenophobia over logic, empathy, and American community.
President Obama hasn’t always gone with those more positive perspectives on this issue either, but this past week, he definitely did so: issuing an executive order version of the DREAM Act that, as I wrote in a Facebook post on it, seems to me to be one of the boldest and best things an American president has ever done. While it’s unsurprisingly difficult to pin Mitt Romney down on this issue, there’s no question that during the Republican primaries, and particularly in arguments with Texas Governor Rick Perry, Romney staked out a far more anti-immigrant position than either Perry or Obama, suggesting for example the ludicrous concept of “self-deportation” as a viable option for undocumented immigrants. Since Obama’s act was an executive order, it would be instantly reversible by a future such order—and there’s no reliable reason to think a President Romney would not take that step.
So that’s one pretty clear American Studies stake in this election, I’d say: whether we continue to pursue a more empathetic, logical, and genuinely American policy toward kids like these (and, hopefully, toward their older peers); or whether we give in to the kinds of bigotry and xenophobia that have driven so many of the Republican-controlled state legislatures in their anti-immigration efforts over the last couple of years. Some of the issues and stakes I’ll address in this week’s series are pretty complex, but I’ll be honest: when it comes to the DREAM Act, and to the attitudes to which support or opposition for it connect, I don’t know if a contrast gets more simple and stark than this.
Next issue tomorrow,
Ben
PS. What do you think?
6/18 Memory Day nominee: James Montgomery Flagg, the talented child prodigy and turn of the 20th century artist and illustrator whose most lasting legacy is his creation of an iconic, definitely patriotic, perhaps jingoistic and disturbing, and certainly striking and memorable American figure.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Paul J. O'Rourke
Johnny Fever
Doug Socks
OS Readers' Picks
Willett .
Jonathan Wolfman
Salon.com
Comments
Allow me to answer my own question: Obama isn’t looking for a bipartisan support of the Dream Act. He would much rather make it appear like Republicans are bigots than pass the Dream Act. Remember the general public opposes anything that remotely appears like amnesty and Unions vehemently oppose immigration.
Perhaps this is just wishful thinking but I think Democrats have just stepped into their own trap. The Republican House will pass something very similar to what Obama did via executive order. The impetus will then be on the Democrats in the Senate to pass the bill and Obama will have no choice but to sign it. At the end of the day, claims of Republican bigotry will fall even further from the tree. More importantly, claims of an out of control president, willing to bypass Congress, versus uphold the laws he is obligated to follow, will continue to ring true.
With all due respect, Obama had a filibuster-proof majority for something like 9 weeks (before Kennedy got sick), not two years. (Brown was elected in January 2010, 1 year after inauguration.)
And this change makes a significant, immediate difference in the lives of about 880,000 Americans (by the estimates I've seen, at least), which is far more than just appearances or rhetoric.
I'd love to think that I'm wrong about the Republicans and that they'd pass something like this, or frankly _anything_ that isn't exactly the opposite in tone and tenor. But where the hell is the slightest evidence that they would? Even the GOP Senator who co-sponsored the DREAM Act voted against it when push came to shove. That's the 2012 GOP on immigration, full stop.
Thanks,
Ben
I’ve participated in enough arguments with liberals so that I generally can predict exactly how you’ll respond to any challenge I may offer. But claiming the Democrats didn’t to have a filibuster proof majority long enough to enact the Dream Act is new territory for me. I suppose a statement like that might hold water in the liberal blogosphere but I can only hope independents see right through what I can only describe as BS.
Moving forward, Republicans don’t dispute your math. Where we disagree is in the President’s use of executive orders and administrative fiats to accomplish what he couldn’t accomplish legislatively. It’s a growing list and it’s a direct violation of the way the country was intended to be run.
Oh by the way, 880,000 / 20 million (rough estimate of undocumented immigrants) is a very small number. It would be nice if both parties got together and resolved the problem rather than scratch the surface of the problem. Don’t liberals have empathy for 31 year olds with no criminal history that also served in the military?
You are wrong about Republicans, and as previously stated, I see this issue as ultimately being a big win for Republicans. As the lone Republican in the room, I personally would provide green cards to all undocumented immigrants on the condition they pay a fine and have no criminal history. My math probably looks more like 17 million / 20 million; I guess I have a bigger heart than you liberals who are jumping up and down over such a small number achieved via a presidential order.
Thanks for the follow up. You're wrong about a good bit here, and I'll highlight just a few, in ascending order of importance:
1) You're way off when it comes to the estimated # of undocumented immigrants: around 11.5 million, by the most recent released estimates like this 0ne: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/24/us-usa-immigration-idUSBRE82N09I20120324. Doesn't change the substance of our arguments per se (it does look like 1.4 million is the estimated # affected by Obama's act, which is not a bad percentage of 11.5, although as I'll say below I entirely agree that it's just a start), but it does demonstrate that you're pretty off on even the most basic facts at the core of these arguments.
2) You're still wrong about how long Obama had 60 votes in the Senate. I was slightly wrong too; the actual # is 14 weeks, not 9. But 14 is a lot closer to 9 than it is to 2 years. And 1 of those 60 votes was Joe Lieberman, who is about as much a Democrat as you. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/about-filibuster-proof-majority
3) You're wrong about me, and what I want. Obviously you had and have no way to know what immigration policy I would advocate, other than, y'know, asking, or reading more of my writing. As it turns out, I entirely agree that all undocumented immigrants without criminal records (or with ones only related to their lack of documentation) should be given a green card, a path to citizenship, and more. I write a lot more about the history of illegal immigration in my just-finished third book, the info for which I'll send you when it comes out as you're clearly all about getting all the facts.
4) Finally, and most importantly, I still believe you're entirely wrong about the current GOP. This is of course an opinion, and you're entitled to your own--but you can't expect me to be convinced simply by saying that I'm wrong. Where's your evidence that the current GOP has any interest in anything like the DREAM Act, much less more full measures? Marco Rubio might indeed have some individual interest, but one Senator does not a party make, and every single other piece of available evidence points in the opposite direction.
Thanks,
Ben
#2 – Once again the discussion is fed inaccurate numbers by you. Oh by the way, you have yet to respond to my comment about Ron Kirk. I know, its an inconvenient truth as it relates to your theory.
#3 –Both of our personal opinions don’t really matter as it relates to the discussion at hand. As it relates to President’s making executive orders which override the will of the legislative branch, you think that’s OK and I think it sets a scary precedent (Chavez comes to mind). Oh and by the way, while you’re busy calling Republicans bigots, here I am, a Republican which shares many of your views on how immigration policy should be structured. Does that make you a bigot?
#4 – If the House doesn’t pass a bill similar to the Dream Act you will be right. If they do, I will be right. In the meantime, the Constitution takes another beating courtesy of Obummer.
Same with "2 years" when it comes to the filibuster-proof Senate. You just plain made that up. Franken wasn't appointed until July of 2009, but Kennedy was sick by that time and not present; Kirk was appointed in September. And Brown elected in January 2010. So again, even in the best case of your argument, 2 years was simply a made up # (from Franken to Brown, if Kennedy had been present, would be about half a year; from Kirk, about a quarter); and the actual # of weeks with that total of 60 Senators (counting Lieberman) was 14.
Finally, you're also making up the fact that this is a scary precedent. To cite but one of many examples: Truman desegregated the armed forces by Executive Order in 1948. Oh no, the Constitution! How has it survived these 64 years since?! It can't be that presidents have long used Executive Orders for such purposes, can it?
Ben
On the amount of time the Senate has been filibuster-proof:
“Obama had a filibuster-proof majority for something like 9 weeks”
“the actual # is 14 weeks, not 9”
On whether or not Republicans are bigots:
“I did not and would not call all Republicans bigots”
“bigotry and xenophobia have driven many of the laws (by the GOP)”
On the amount of undocumented immigrants that will be affected:
“And this change makes a significant, immediate difference in the lives of about 880,000 Americans”
“it does look like 1.4 million is the estimated # affected by Obama's act”
On Republican plans for something similar to the Dream act:
“But where the hell is the slightest evidence that they (Republicans) would (pass something similar to the Dream Act)?”
“Marco Rubio might indeed have some individual interest”
Oh and by the way, I did some research on the 11.5 million-figure. Turns out it’s based on the US Census and it’s a known fact that immigrants avoid responding to Census questionnaires and work very hard to conceal their identity. I know, another potentially inconvenient truth to wipe under the rug.
Because Romney had to go extreme right on immigration to get past the GOP base, there's little hope of resurrecting the W Bush numbers of Hispanic support. Romney should (and probably has) written off any hope of capturing significant numbers there.
If the Repubs passed a Dream Act, it would be early-on during a Romney administration, not now. If now, it would be at the risk of alienating the nativists and xenophobes that dominate the activist GOP base. While it's fairly easy to excite the base, given the GOP's extensive propaganda system, it could trim the enthusiasm factor. In a close race, that would hurt.
Simply put, weighing the 2 directions, the risk of alienating the base is far more likely than seeing any gains among Hispanics. The primary is in the past, but not so far that that demographic would forget Romney's extremist pandering.
Playing to the GOP base is a no-brainer, in both definitions of the term.
And, on that note....
I see you have done as well as anyone in trying to nail the Johnny Jello to the wall. I'll leave you to your own conclusions, other than noting his last comment is about pretending the statements he lists are contradictory. I don't think it will take much more before you arrive at the same conclusion as everyone else.