DREAM Act Portal Forum

DREAM Act Portal Forum (http://dreamact.info/forum/index.php)
-   The News Room (http://dreamact.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   "Confidential" Study Suggested Tougher Words for Dems on Immigration (http://dreamact.info/forum/showthread.php?t=16247)

dtrt09 08-15-2010 05:38 PM

"Confidential" Study Suggested Tougher Words for Dems on Immigration
 
I've been doing some research to find any evidence to the legitimacy of the Dems' claim that they alone cannot change the laws on immigration and legalization programs when they have almost total control of the government. And looking back and what they promised they would do , I ran into this article published in February 2008, way before anyone knew wether Obama would become president. And it spells detail by detail the policies that the Democratic leadership (ie, the 'lawmakers') are following and proves my suspicions that the immigrant "advocacy" groups have been in on it from the beginning. Especially the useless RI4A and NCLR and especifically why they refused to pressure the White House in all of 2009 and most of this year to honor their words of acting swiftly to pass the DREAM act and draft an overall CIR bill. THIS IS A MUST READ. You will have a feeling of deja vu as you read the steps that they advised the Dems to follow, and how it has backfired by creating more opposition from the Repubs due to the Dems' cowardness.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...s_n_89077.html

Democrats may soon be taking a tougher public position on immigration, according to a confidential study put together by key think tanks close to the party leadership.

The study urges Democrats to adopt more rigid rhetoric when discussing immigration by encouraging office-holders to emphasize "requiring immigrants to become legal" rather than stressing border enforcement and the opening of a path to legalization for the undocumented already here.

Implicit in the report is the notion that Democrats can win wider public support for immigration reform by framing the issue in harsher-sound verbiage and, perhaps, policy.
This message places the focus where voters want it, on what's best for the United States, not what we can/should do for illegal immigrants.

itled "Winning The Immigration Debate," the study was put together by the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Center for American Progress. Its findings, which have been sent to Capitol Hill and have been part of briefing sessions in both the House and the Senate, are based off of polling conducted by Peter Hart Research Associates.

Taken as a whole, the report presents a new prism through which the Democrats should approach the immigration debate. "It is unacceptable to have 12 million people in our country who are outside the system," it reads. "We must require illegal immigrants to become legal, and reform the laws so this can happen."

Polling for the study revealed that a larger swath of the public was supportive of "requiring" undocumented immigrants already in the country to normalize their status than there was for only offering them legalization as an option. In addition, the report pushes Democrats to argue that immigrants should be required to pay taxes, learn English, and pass criminal background checks to remain in the country. Those who have a criminal record should be deported. All of these policies were included in last year's immigration reform compromise legislation, which ultimately failed.

"Our view is that this argument threads the needle in favor of comprehensive reform in the most effective way," Jen Palmieri, communications chief for the Center for American Progress, told the Huffington Post.

Added Cecilia Muņoz, senior vice president of policy at the National Council of La Raza and chair of the board at CCIR: "We are not asking people to be for legalization out of altruism. It is perfectly okay for them to be for legalization because that is what fixes the problem... Rather than educate [the public], you can convince them to do the right thing if you call it a requirement as opposed to an effort."

[b]And yet, for some, the new frame represents exactly the wrong direction that the Democrats should be taking, reinforcing the notion that immigrants were problematic and "the offenders[/B]."
"There has been no consensus around the Democratic rhetoric in regard to immigration," said one party official who had knowledge of the report. "But it has usually been framed around opportunity, and it was less framed around this punishment rhetoric. We are going to require these people to become legal or we are going to deport [them]? It doesn't challenge the immigrant scapegoating direction of the conversation. It plays right into it."
In support of their new message, the study notes that 88 percent of all voters as well as 84 percent of Hispanic voters had a favorable response to "requiring illegal immigrants to become legal, obey U.S. laws, pay taxes or face deportation." Those numbers changed to 66 percent and 87 percent, respectively, when it was merely "allowing" illegal immigrants to receive earned legal status.

"My sense is that the public is in a fairly tough mood about immigration though not as tough as Lou Dobbs is every night," said Guy Molyneux, who conducted research for the report.

On the campaign trail neither Democratic candidate has deployed the argument that immigrants should be "required" to obtain legal status. Both, in fact, have discussed immigration policy in a frame that the CCIR/CAP report discourages.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, her website reads, "believes comprehensive reform must have as essential ingredients a strengthening of our borders, greater cross-cooperation with our neighbors, strict but fair enforcement of our laws, federal assistance to our state and local governments, strict penalties for those who exploit undocumented workers, and a path to earned legal status for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar."

And in the Democratic debate at Saint Anselm College on June 3, 2007, Sen. Barack Obama argued, "We want to have a situation in which those who are already here, are playing by the rules, are willing to pay a fine and go through a rigorous process should have a pathway to legalization. Most Americans will support that if they have some sense that the border is also being secured."


Pretending that they are "forcing" illegal immigrants to acquire status is a f*****g lie. All of us are willing to earn status. This is what they White House should be asked, why are you pretending that you will force people to gain status, when you fully know that's what they are actively seeking? (Expletive deleted to protect the ears of the innocent).

gzmn_ntn 08-15-2010 08:52 PM

Re: "Confidential" Study Suggested Tougher Words for Dems on Immigration
 
Lol are they serious? they are playing by basically saying that they are forcing us to become legal, lol. Then wtf were all the protest, arrest, and starvation protest signaling? Let me guess don't force us to gain legal status, to pay taxes, and to follow the rules. Lol man this is some crazy thinking. Thanks for sharing dtrt09.

P.S. I learn a new word lol. Altruism: Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others.

dtrt09 08-15-2010 10:50 PM

Re: "Confidential" Study Suggested Tougher Words for Dems on Immigration
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by POP (Post 169990)
How is this bad??? I just read about a study that shows a way to frame a case in order to legalize people. It's like reverse psychology or something. I wish they had pulled this a little bit harder so people would say "they better legalize these illegals so they can pay their due. Hah! and they think they can just run away from responsibility? Let them suffer in paying taxes, and learning english...etc". Instead of "DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS!!"

It is bad because it backfired. People who can reason, know that we do pay taxes, a fair amount of people speak the language, etc, etc. The Republicans know this too, especially the ones who supported CIR in 2007. The Dems should have pushed ahead with this and made it an economic impact issue at the start of 2009 and the government would have millions in revenue by way of fees now. It is bad because now the Repubs and the right-wing media, actually most media, play into their game of equating "illegal" immigration with criminality, and we can only hope that some day we can achieve legal status after we are throughly "punished". Punishment is the onus of CIR now. In short, it didn't work and will not work because we aren't criminals.

NK74 08-16-2010 03:30 PM

Re: "Confidential" Study Suggested Tougher Words for Dems on Immigration
 
Why do you have to do research and not look at the basic math and simple polisci?

In order for CIR to pass it needs a majority in the house and 60 votes in the senate.

The Democratic party and its representation in congress is a coalition of bicoastal liberals and flyover states moderates, poor working class and highly educated upper income voters, more female than men, mostly minorities, white less so.

Politically we re in the middle of a recession which amplifies economic insecurities and demands for protectionism, along with nationalistic, illiberal sentiments. Since the last big debate in 2007, we ve learnt that despite the fact that majority public opinion is (softly and without much salience) in favor of some immigration reform, the nativist elements are strongly and passionately opposed to any reform while being organized to apply maximum pressure to legislators. And as we know from political science, organized passionate minorites most of the time matter more than indifferent majorities.

Given these parameters, why the fuck do you need to google back to 2008 to know that even though the Dems have a majority in the house and 59 in the senate, in this climate and with Republicans determined to block any democratic initiative - a fact on itself which doesn't give 60 votes in the Senate for CIR- there are moderate democrats in congress, i.e. blue dogs in the house and moderates senators from flyover states like Tester, McCaskill, Rockefeller, Webb, Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln among many others, who are disinclined to support reform?

To put it succinctly: The fact of the matter is that the majority of Democrats can and will support immigration reform. But in order for immigration reform to pass, we need all Democrats and some Republicans.
Given these parameters, there's no Democratic president at this juncture, male or female, black or white, earthling or alien who can do much to pass reform.


And yet, the best bet for CIR advocates is to get more and more Dems in Congress until a more opportune time comes along. If OTOH, the constant bitching against Obama leads to Republicans taking over congress, then the cause of reform would be set even further back down the line that it is now.

Btw, you know what a great cause would be right now? Supporting the repeal of the filibuster in the Senate. If that happens early next year, then the chances for reform are significantly higher, even with reduced Dem. majorities (as long as they remain that way).

PS. For a taste of what happened last time Republicans controlled the house search for immigration 2006 to see what monstrosity they passed. Not to mention that the landscape in 2007 was much more favorable with Bush being in favor, having the majority of the opposition with him and needing only part of his party to vote with him.

dtrt09 08-16-2010 04:09 PM

Re: "Confidential" Study Suggested Tougher Words for Dems on Immigration
 
"Why do you have to do research and not look at the basic math and simple polisci?"

I don't have to; I am free to research whatever I feel like.

Given these parameters, why the fuck do you need to google back to 2008 to know that even though the Dems have a majority in the house and 59 in the senate, in this climate and with Republicans determined to block any democratic initiative

I hate hypocrites - and the Dems go out and claim that the Republicans are forcing their hand and making them come up with these policies when it is very clear they had planned them all along. The article is reporting policy recommendations that were given to both houses of Congress. And wich we are now seeing in action.

To put it succinctly: The fact of the matter is that the majority of Democrats can and will support immigration reform. But in order for immigration reform to pass, we need all democrats and some Republicans.

They aren't pursuing it (reform) the way it should be. And we don't have all Democrats' suppport; in fact, CIR would have passed in 2007 if ALL democrats had supported it. Now they are heading towards passing a bill that is very similar to the one proposed in 2007 and taking credit for the same legislation. They were outraged at E-verify and Real ID requirements, but Schumer will make sure that a national id card is enacted; portable E-verify. I don't need to search for "immigration 2006". I was here and glued to C-SPAN; I saw the debates and proposals live, so that now in the year 2010 I don't need to "Google" it. Are you not discouraged by the excuses? When I dislike others' writings; I don't read them. You should try it.

the best bet for CIR advocates is to get more and more Dems in Congress until a more opportune time comes along

The opportune time was Jan -April of 2009. That's the Obama word that got him the votes of immigrant communites. And what if we don't get more Dems in the near future? Let me guess, DREAM act should be put on hold for another 10 years, right? Because poor Dems, what can they do when they are being bullied by the other side...Can any of you imagine the President telling the American public, "We will withdraw our troops from Afghanistan when we can get more Democrats in Congress. I can't tell you when, but it will be at the opportune moment".
"Opportune moment" is code for re-election time.

Do you work for RI4A?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.