I agree (0.00 / 0)

I think this is absolutely the wrong position for a progressive Democrat to take. How we treat others, especially the least powerful members of our society really reflects on our values as liberals.
Besides, politically this a hard line strategy will backfire on the Democrats.

---

by: Metrix @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 20:33:56 PM UTC

But don't you see (0.00 / 0)

If we don't pander to the hard right Republican base, how will we ever win elections?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 20:58:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's the thing (0.00 / 0)

that is killing me about our current crop of Dems. They are afraid to stand up and do the right thing.  Where is the courage? That's what I'm looking for. We need real leadership now!

Besides, pandering just reinforces the image of Dems as weak. Ugh!

---

by: Metrix @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 21:04:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"sound public policy not hate" (4.00 / 1)

I think this is an important frame to consider, and something that at the least susbantively might separate Kissell and other Democratic "immigration hardliners" from the Tancredos of the world-- though at the same time it gives those people important cover to say this has nothing to do with race/ethnicity. "Illegal simply is illegal" and so forth, which is a valid debating point to make but has absolutely no bearing to actual public policy that's going to fix our immigration system.

I think one key thing is to actively work to challenge, to Kissell and the Rahm Emmanuels who would encourage them along in the name of politics, this notion. We're actually seeing the results of enforcement-only focus right now in the vacuum of Congress' inaction, thanks to the atrocious workplace raids and the efforts of some municipalities. And the reality is that you simply CAN'T do these sorts of heavy-handed things without going after a broader community of people, without thus enabling fear and hate-- and in the process spreading yourself so thin as to expose the unreality of a solution rooted in these types of measures. 

Its this reality, by the way, that the Hispanic community (and the CHC, for all its flaws) is responding to; in many ways the term "Hispanic community" might really be a construction that overlies a lot of differences, including on the details of immigration, but the sense of targetting comes from both poltiical rhetoric AND on-the-ground reality. Its why you see someone like Loretta Sanchez, who represents a district that is now solid for a Democrat of her moderate temperament but is only a decade removed from the disgusting "B-1" Bob Dornan, up in arms here. 

We need a conversation where the likes of Kissell and Tester have that reality brought to bear for them, and in a real way rooted in foreceful organizing rather than Congressional politics/caucus maneuverings that just seem to get us nowhere other than bruised egos all around.  Some people are probably just too much of lost causes, for reasons ranging from generational perspective to stubborn conviction, but otherwise I don't think we've even started to TRULY grapple with this as a progressive movement. We need to start doing so, and but soon.

---

by: sip1983 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 21:11:55 PM UTC

You make an (0.00 / 0)

excellent point. I don't know if politicians like Rahm, Kissell, & Shuler realize how damaging this position is to the people facing the fallout from this rhetoric.
Shuler & Rahm have taken a bunch of heat from the progressive blogs over the last few days for Shuler's co-sponsoring of the SAVE bill. Kissell announced his  support for this bill as well. It's an enforcement only, punitive bill, and it's not the answer. Democrats need to push for comprehensive reform, and they must do it in a way that fosters respect and dignity for all involved.

This tells me all I need to know:
Right wing/ anti-immigrant blogs are hailing the SAVE bill as a great victory. Double ugh!

---

by: Metrix @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 21:31:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rahmbo's reasoning (4.00 / 1)

I think that the reasoning from him is clear: he's all for comprehensive reform, but people in swing districts aren't, so until then people who want what's best are just going to have to swallow the bitter pill of things like SAVE being at least given credence. Its rough-and-tumble politics to him, which is why raising both strategic and human reasons to change course is important-- at the very least its terribly embarassing to come off as a cold-hearted calculator telling people to listen to what's good for them and so forth.

And that's why its important that discussion be coming constructively from outside, from constituents and from people and organizations dealing with campaigns like Kissell's. Heat from members of the CHC, however constructively intended in this case, at the end of the day is inside baseball and both stays there, and is subjected to all the ridiculousness therein (egos, terse statements etc.). Progressives need to by and large focus more on this and reach out to the groups working hardest and most constructively here (LULAC, local immigrants' rights coalitions, etc), and vice versa. That kind of unified and constructive challenge might not overcome this all, but it can make a hecukuva lot of headway, and clear the way for truly comprehensive progressives to win.

---

by: sip1983 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 22:06:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i should add.. (4.00 / 1)

...that even where you don't change minds, you at least clarify the debate a bit more. Take the debate over the DREAM Act-- while the likes of Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who has said some outrageous stuff and is ancredo's heir apparent, weren't silenced and still stoked fears to kill this thing, they were at times forced to admit reality. During one hearing, an honors student impacted by the bill testified rather movingly. King was forced to tell her that while she seems to be deserving and hard-working and personally blameless, and the intent wasn't to punish her and her ilk, letting her have access to citizenship and higher education would reward her parents' decision to bring her here illegally.

Still didn't change his mind or all his rhetoric, and the logical follow-up to get out there more is that this calculus intrinsically DOES rely on counter-productively punishing people just to make a point. But its something, and its laying all the true cards out on the table. Similarly, I'm sure that Rahmbo and Shuler and Kissell would have a tougher time being legitly forced to TRULY answer concerns on this, than just dealing with the anger of a couple dozen other Reps.

---

by: sip1983 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 22:15:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because Rahm isn't a leader (4.00 / 1)

Emanuel doesn't lead, he's cautious, even cowardly, and prefers to stay well within the box of conventional wisdom, even when it is actively counter-productive for his party.

So he won't change until there is evidence that it's dangerous not to support comprehensive reform and support for comprehensive reform isn't going to grow significantly until the likes of Rahm start making the case for it.

This obviously means that he needs to feel the risks of doing nothing are greater than the risks of actually standing up for reasonable public policy. Which requires the stressing of your point that the effects of a bill like this will be horribly ugly, but also something more concrete. Sadly, I can't solve the problem of what should be done.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 00:17:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

... and/or demonizing ...? (0.00 / 0)

Nothing in your quotes from Kissell or about him suggest he is advocating the demonization of illegals. Lawfully deporting people who've entered (and remain in) the US unlawfully is neither immoral or demonizing.

I think Kissell's approach is fair and responsible. If ICE were allowed to enforce employment laws, illegals would self-deport in larger numbers over time with fewer dollars needed to track, detain and deport them.

---

by: fafnir @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 21:48:38 PM UTC

A shame (4.00 / 1)

Kissell clearly showed last time that he understands perfectly how to use populism. It's a pity that he is using this knowledge to stake out a position that provides cover for the nativists.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 00:19:16 AM UTC

Neither attacked immigrants (0.00 / 0)

If you read what was written, neither Kissell nor his campaign manager attacked immigrants.  The term "illegal immigrant" is an oximoron and its continued use is insulting to legal immigrants because it conflates the words illegal and immigrant in the same way that conservatives use the term "liberal media".

Both immigrant and non-immigrant aliens can have legal status in the US with appropriate visas.  The fact that these visas are difficult to obtain is a large part of the problem.  Non-immigrant visa holders who overstay or who work when their visas do not permit them become "illegal" as do persons who enter the country unlawfully.

One dilemma is that these 12 million people are people, they are an important part of the economies of both the US and the foreign countries they come from and deporting them is impractical even as it is the only legal remedy.  I do think the Kissell camp should recognize this.

Use of the word "illegals" may be a little coarse for the timid but it is more charitable than "illegal aliens" and "illegal immigrants" which both can slight legal guests of the nation.  The lexicon is not abundant in delicate descriptors for this situation.

The designation of "undocumented workers" may be more charitable but it is hardly fair to the many thousands of "documented workers" who wait in legal limbo and often at great expense or to the legal immigrants and non-immigrants who have endured those challenges.  Like many the Kissell camp articulated a problem with illegal status but it most definitely did not attack immigrants as Stoller has claimed.

---

by: gregflynn @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:00:43 AM UTC

Matt...at what point were you going to disclose (0.00 / 0)

that it was a John Autry(Larry's primary opponent) supporter who sent you this email?

If you received it from someone else (it was a private email sent to a closed and relatively small group of supporters last year) I apologize.

Robin Hayes lied, Robin Hayes cried and  thousands of folks lost their jobs.

---

by: Betsy Muse @ Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:02:47 AM UTC