National Security

Election Results in Illinois 5th Congressional District Represent Another Win for Comprehensive Immigration Reform - Cook County commissioner, Mike Quigley will travel to Washington as early as Thursday to prepare to take over the 5th Congressional District seat formerly held by Rahm Emanuel.  He obtained a major victory yesterday, defeating Republican Rosanna Pulido and Green Party candidate Matt Reichel by taking 70 percent of the vote with 94 percent of precincts reporting.  Pulido is not only extremely anti-immigrant in an incredibly diverse district, she was the state director of the Illinois Minutemen Project.  By contrast, Mr. Quigley is a staunch supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, and has stated:

He'll stand up to the extremists in Congress who try to use immigrants as scapegoats and whose harsh policies would divide spouses, parents and children. Mike will fight for the rights of families to stay united here in America.

Voters clearly favor solution-oriented reformers over mass-deportation hardliners, and they send one more vote for comprehensive immigration reform to the House of Representatives. 

President Barack Obama, aboard Air Force One, speaks this week on the need for global cooperation and explains his overseas trip to the American people. He begins with the now-familiar, but still excellent refrain on global interconnectivity.

In this new century, we live in a world that has grown smaller and more interconnected than at any time in history. Threats to our nation’s security and economy can no longer be kept at bay by oceans or by borders drawn on maps. The terrorists who struck our country on 9/11 plotted in Hamburg, trained in Kandahar and Karachi, and threaten countries across the globe. Cars in Boston and Beijing are melting ice caps in the Arctic that disrupt weather patterns everywhere. The theft of nuclear material from the former Soviet Union could lead to the extermination of any city on earth. And reckless speculation by bankers in New York and London has fueled a global recession that is inflicting pain on workers and families around the world and across America.

The challenges of our time threaten the peace and prosperity of every single nation, and no one nation can meet them alone. That is why it is sometimes necessary for a President to travel abroad in order to protect and strengthen our nation here at home. That is what I have done this week.

Take a look at the whole address:

Also, Obama's town hall in Strasbourg yesterday, following a surprisingly successful G-20 summit, was pretty amazing, both in itself and its symbolism of a new era of American leadership. His tone and policy prescriptions are right on the mark. Read Simon's blog about it and the politics of bottom-up going global.

I caught some of his townhall from Strasbourg this morning - carried live on CNN and MSNBC but not Fox of course - and our President was simply amazing.  He was good as I've ever seen him, connecting with the audience, offering complex thoughtful answers to tough challenges.   And Barack seemed to be happy to be in front of people rather than as he said stuck in hotel rooms.  The crowd was wildly excited, applauding him in ways few politicians ever hear.  In many ways this event is how our President best demonstrates his power, and the power of the American ideal.  For any European watching and wondering whether it is a new day, they can only have concluded that is a new day indeed. 

It was an inspiring way to start the day, and I was, for the entire time I watched, as deeply proud of being an American as I have been in many many years.

And it feels like on this trip our young, new President has begun the transformation from President of the United States to the paramount leader of the world's peoples.   His ability to find common ground, to talk of our common aspirations, to make it clear that we are all in this together, is a message, delivered by this particular messenger, which the people of the world are very ready to hear.

If as Fareed Zakaria has argued, the defining geopolitical event of this era is the "rise of the rest," and as Brzezinski has argued rising standards of living throughout the world are creating a "global political awakening," what we may have seen today is the first global leader of this new rising era to emerge; one who can speak in universal themes; one who can through modern media speak directly to these aspiring people - more numerous and in more nations than any time in all of human history - of the world, transcending faction, race and nation, speaking of our universal common aspirations as people no matter where they live.  The ability for this particular man, at this particular moment in history, to lay out such a convincing case for the universal dignity and common aspiration of all men and women across the world is allowing to speak directly to this global political awakening, and emerge as the leader not of the nations of the world, but much more importantly, its people. 

The politics of the bottom-up go global. 

Immigration reform remains at the forefront of voters' minds. Yesterday, immigration reform came up during Meet the Press and Al Punto, Univision's Spanish-language Sunday morning show.  

I.  Al Punto - The program began with an interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, during which she made encouraging statements in regards to hemispheric relations and our bilateral relationship with Mexico.  However, when the subject of immigration came up, her message was mixed.

[Translation from Spanish voiceover]:
Jorge Ramos: Secretary Clinton, Immigration Reform - when will it come up in Congress?
HRC: Well it is certainly on President Obama's agenda, but because of the economic crisis there are many challenges we must address first...we feel that we have to wait.  Of course the U.S. economy recovery is very important to both the U.S. and Mexico, and we must address the economic challenges before we resolve strictly U.S. problems and shared issues like immigration.

Of course the President's primary focus should be the economic crisis.  But in truth, immigration reform should be a tool precisely to help get our economy back on track.  As the economy worsens, CIR would remove a trap door under the minimum wage. Fully 5 percent of the American workforce today is undocumented.  Bringing them under the protection of American law will allow them to be paid minimum wage, prevent exploitation by unscrupulous employers, allow them to unionize, and will relieve downward pressure on the wages of all Americans.  Moreover, putting the undocumented population on the road to citizenship will undoubtedly increase tax revenue and lift wages for all Americans in a time of economic crisis.  Revenue from fees and fines will be generated - as stated by the last Congressional Budget Office score that accompanied the CIR legislation that passed the Senate in 2006 - CIR would net "increased revenues by about $44 billion over the 2007-2016 period." 

When times were good, it was not the time for immigration reform; now that times are bad it is once again not time for immigration reform - so when is the "right" time?  We have seen this cyclical public debate about the "timing" of immigration reform occur in the 1960s, 1980s, and again in this decade. It is urgent for U.S. rule of law, it is urgent for the people who currently live in the shadows, it is urgent for the businesses that want to compete in a global economy, and it is urgent for both Democratic and Republican candidates in order to have a major legislative achievement this year, and to consolidate gains with the electorate - particularly Hispanic voters.  

II. Meet the Press - Immigration reform is an issue that is about right and wrong, and about achieving practical solutions versus status quo, but at this juncture, more than anything it is about past versus future.  A great deal of the resistance against immigration reform is actually rooted in a profound resistance against immigrants and against the changing face of America.  This new, 21st century demography of America is reflected in its electorate.  As he interviewed U.S. Sen. John McCain on Meet the Press (MTP) yesterday, David Gregory replayed a video from an earlier episode, during which Mike Murphy (Republican strategist) stated:

At the end of the day, here's the one statistic we all got to remember:  The country's changing.  Ronald Reagan won in 1980 with 51 percent of the vote.  We all worship Ronald Reagan. But if that election had been held with the current demographics of America today, Ronald Reagan would have gotten 47 percent of the vote.  The math is changing.  Anglo vote's 74 percent now, not 89.  And if we don't modernize conservatism, we're going to have a party of 25 percent of the vote going to Limbaugh rallies, enjoying every, every applause line, ripping the furniture up.  We're going to be in permanent minority status.

Gregory's questioning on immigration reform was linked precisely to the issue of how to modernize conservatism:

MR. GREGORY:  Given that, assuming you agree, how does conservatism modernize itself?  How does the party get back to power?

SEN. McCAIN:  The party of ideas, party of inclusiveness, outreach to other ethnic aspects of the American electorate; in my part of the country especially, Hispanic voters.  We have to recruit and elect Hispanics to office.  We have to welcome new ideas.  And there are-you know, a lot of people complain about divisions within the Republican Party.  That's good right now. Let's let a thousand flowers bloom.  Let's have different clashes of ideas, sharing the same principles and goals.....I have-I'm very optimistic about the future of the Republican Party if we do the right things.

MR. GREGORY:  Speaking about the Hispanic vote, would you like to work on immigration policy with this president?

SEN. McCAIN:  At any time I stand ready, but the president has to lead.  The, the administration has to lead with a proposal.

MR. GREGORY:  Do you think they have that proposal, want to do that?

SEN. McCAIN:  They have not come forward with one yet. They said that they are going to-I understand the president met with the Hispanic Caucus and he said he would have some forums and, and other things.

MR. GREGORY:  Right.

It's important to note that Sen. McCain stands ready to support the President's proposal on CIR, which means he would likely support the items outlined in the President's Immigration Agenda: interior and border enforcement, increasing the number of family visas, an improved system for future flow, and collaboration with immigrant-sending nations.  Without a doubt, Sen. McCain's support will be an integral part of any legislation if it is to pass in Congress. 

III. Press coverage in Mexico of HRC Visit - A piece in El Financiero, focuses solely on immigration: Tema Migratorio No Ha Sido Dejado de Lado: Clinton, "Immigration Issue Has Not Been Cast Aside: Clinton."

IV. Exodus in Rhode Island After 287(g) Agreement -  A news piece on Univision highlights the case of Rhode Island, were Governor Don Carcieri passed anti-immigrant ordinances and entered into a 287(g) agreement one year ago.  The effects are visible today, with much of the immigrant community reported to have moved south - but not south of the border.  As we've stated before, local enforcement does not serve to help deport individuals (while that is often the intention).  In this case, this "attrition" caused a loss in business to the locality, while immigrants moved to a different - more welcoming - state within the U.S. It is reported that many of the Hispanic immigrants in Rhode Island moved to North Carolina.  This is yet another example of how local and state immigration ordinances won't cut it - we need CIR in order to resolve the issues caused by the broken immigration system. 

V. Shifting the Focus of Enforcement - As Sam mentioned, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has delayed proposed immigration raids, asking that the raids be given closer scrutiny before being carried out.  This could signal a very much needed shift in policy, away from workplace raids as immigration enforcement.  

As highlighted by KOS, Roll Call, and The Hill, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus will meet tomorrow with President Barack Obama.  Immigration reform is expected to be one of - if not the - issues of top priority discussed.

In anticipation of the meeting tomorrow at the White House with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, NDN is re-releasing its basic backgrounder on the recent history of the immigration reform debate.  You can find it and download it here.

Simon Rosenberg and Andres Ramirez, VP of Hispanic Programs at NDN, are available for comment on the background and future of the immigration debate.  Simon is also available to discuss the issue on television news programs tomorrow.  Contact Dan Boscov-Ellen: 202-384-1226.

Simon stated, quoted by Kos:

Our broken immigration system is a national disgrace, yet another terrible vexing governing challenge left over from the disastrous Bush era. Legitimate workers have a hard time getting legal visas. Employers knowingly hire and exploit undocumented workers. Our immigrant justice system is a moral outrage. And of course, the scapegoating of the undocumented migrant has become the staple for right-wing politicians and media, giving them something to rail against as the rest of their agenda has collapsed all around them. It is long past time to fix this broken system and replace it with a 21st century immigration system consistent with traditional American values and the needs of our modern ideas-based economy.

For links to other reference materials including a great deal of recent polling on immigration, click here.

I. Obama Pressed on Immigration -  The latest news from this morning, the CHC is ramping up activity, and Simon explains how immigration reform can be used as a tool to improve the economy.

II. Happening in Our Own Backyard - A friend of mine from Nashville shared with me that the Lt. Governor of Tennessee had not taken any action for or against the "English Only" provision that was voted on in TN shortly after January 20th.  The Lt. Gov. was in D.C. for the inauguration, and as he was driving home, having just heard the President's moving speech on the dream that is America, on moving forward, on how "We are One,"  that "I am my brother's keeper," and that we are not the "native" or "foreign," "black" or "white" states of America, but rather the United States of America, he began hearing anti-immigrant talk radio as he crossed the state of Virginia.  And it hit him - how could he come from hearing his President's inspired words, then go home and ignore what was happening in his own backyard?  And he got home to rally against the "English-only" provision, which failed.  This lesson applies to all of us.

Two years ago, in Prince William County, Virginia - a mere 30 minutes away from the home of our President, Congress, and federal Judicial Branch - the County Council decided it was a good idea to turn citizens and local police into immigration officers.  Now Montgomery and Frederick County in Maryland are following suit.  Following the GAO report on 287(g) that we discussed last week, NPR had a great interview with the Frederick County sheriff, Charles Jenkins - who is encouraging this policy - and our friend Frank Sharry, of America's Voice.  How can we say that we support our country, our President, and his values if we don't fight against these laws?

Sheriff Jenkins argues this initiative is in response to an "increase in crime involving people in the country illegally," but as indicated during the interview, of the 337 arrests of undocumented immigrants in Frederick County, only 12 of those individuals had actual criminal records, and only 9 participated in gang-related activity.  These individuals should be arrested and prosecuted for their offenses as part of the normal county policing efforts, but there is no reason to pinpoint "immigrants" specifically.  Data demonstrate that native-born individuals are 5 times as likely as foreign-born to have a criminal record.  This effort is not a strategy to go after actual criminals, it is an effort to turn community police into deportation agents, which has unintended consequences.  We recommend Sheriff Jenkins take a good look at the counties that have already had experience with the 287(g) program, and learn from it. 

In Prince William County, Chief of Police Deane warned the County Council of these unintended consequences:

1. Community policing efforts in minority communities will end.  Best practices in policing indicate that effective policing is based on trust.  This trust is undermined when communities - particularly minority communities - feel they, or their friends and family, are in danger of being deported or persecuted.   

2. Sharp rise in unsolved crimes and underreporting of crimes in the minority population.  As stated by Frank - there is a reason 95% of police departments choose not to participate in this program, it undermines their policing efforts.  If police are seen as "la migra" or immigration enforcement, as opposed to protectors and partners in the community, this is the expected result.

3. Crime rates among youth will rise.  These programs lead to feelings of persecution and marginalization, which translates to frustration.

4. Rise of vigilantism.  These programs cause greater "citizen activism" and embolden those with anti-immigrant feelings to feel more comfortable acting out on those feelings.

5. A more radical population.  These programs cause a greater rift between immigrants, minority communities, and those who are very anti-immigrant.  Chief Deane noted that eventually both sides become increasingly polarized and harder to deal with.

6. Perceptions of racism will increase.  The reputation and perception of life in that County changes, as we saw with the exodus of many Hispanics from Prince William.

7. Higher taxes, skyrocketing expenses.

Sheriff Jenkins believes that he is, "not spending an enormous amount of resources on this program. I am simply performing this duty as an extension of law enforcement duties."  But participation in 287(g) necessarily requires additional processes and resources, which will be felt in the county, as happened in Prince William.  In a time of economic crisis, Prince William County had to cut back on their 287(g) initiative because of the unforeseen amount of resources that went into it.  Sheriff Jenkins might want to take a look at this presentation by Chief Deane before the Prince William County Board over one year after the implementation of the 287(g) program:

III. Immigration and Latin America - President Obama wants to develop a renewed and more engaged relationship with Mexico and our other neighbors in Latin America, but given some of last week's events, one understands why it becomes difficult for these countries to trust the U.S. government - and Democrats in particular.  Last week during the vote in the Senate approving the Omnibus spending bill, the U.S. government sent mixed economic messages and backed out on a major commitment under NAFTA.  The bill that passed on Tuesday would end funding for the cross-border trucking program that was signed into law in 1993 as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement.  Regardless of the success or flaws in this program, the bottom line is that the United States agreed to this pact, signed it into law, and is now going back on its obligations (it's reported that access to U.S. roads granted to Mexican trucks in NAFTA would be terminated).  Critics cite safety concerns, but a spokesman for the Mexican Embassy argues:

"During the cross-border trucking demonstration program's 18 months of operation, 26 carriers from Mexico -- with 103 trucks -- and 10 from the U.S. -- with 61 trucks -- crossed the border over 45,000 times without a significant incident," said spokesman, Ricardo Alday.

Mr. Alday adds, "Mexico would expect that at a time of global recession and economic distress, the U.S. would play by the rules, fulfill its international treaty obligations and ensure that bilateral trade is a level playing field, rather than erect trade barriers that undermine much-needed incentives to foster growth," predicting the action would increase consumer costs.  We can expect Secretary of State Clinton will have to address this issue while she's in Mexico next week.

This issue ties into immigration because Congress must come to the realization that we are indeed connected to the rest of the world, and to the Latin America region in particular.  As long as members of Congress like Sen. Byron Dorgan and others continue to use serious policy issues to do politicking, and as long as they scapegoat our neighbors for domestic problems, it will be impossible to have a political atmosphere that is rational and balanced enough to deal with major domestic problems, like the economic crisis and the broken immigration system.  This takes me to the next issue:

IV. Mexico is No Failed State- Much was said last week about reports and academic studies calling Mexico a "failed state."  First, let's return to our basic University level Theory of State and government classes:  a "failed state" is a term used by commentators to describe a state perceived as losing basic conditions of a sovereign government.  Per Noam Chomsky, these conditions include:

1. Loss of physical control of its territory - Last I checked, not a single mayor or Governor in Mexico has ceded control to organized crime.
2. Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions. - Again, President Calderon, the Judicial branch and Congress are still carrying on with daily business.  
3. Inability to provide reasonable public services. - If anything, service providers in Mexico have improved, with new education and other service providers.
4. An inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.  Considering the U.S. Secretary of State is visiting her counterpart in Mexico next week, and given Mexico's active participation in everything from the UN, to the OAS, to the upcoming Summit of the Americas, this is evidently not the case.

Let's stop demonizing a country that is in fact our second largest trading partner, with whom we share much more than a border and economic ties.  We share ideology, common goals, strategic benefits, the fact is we share a people and many aspects of culture and customs.

If Mexico were a failed state, we'd have to apply the same title to the U.S., given the events of 2007 that revealed unexpected shocks - primarily the implosion of the U.S. subprime market, which burst housing bubbles worldwide, slowed trade, and sent currencies into tailspins.

V. Congressional Hearing on Border Crime - It is important that all our advocates for immigration reform refute these claims as quickly as they refute attacks on our immigrant population because as long as Mexico and Mexicans continue to be seen as harmful to the U.S., immigration will continue to be equated to "Mexicans," "security," "terrorism," and other "hazards," as was evidenced during last Thursday's hearing of the House Subcommittee on Border issues.  At Thursday's hearing, Chairwoman Sanchez asked Mr. Alonzo Pena, the Homeland Security Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, whether all of Mexico was truly as dangerous as reports make it seem.  Mr. Pena responded that his family had just vacationed in Mexico, and that while the border region and specific areas are dangerous, tourist areas and the country in general remains safe:

"While there is violence in Mexico, it is not, and I repeat not, an indication of the government of Mexico's inability to maintain control," he said. "Rather it is an indication of President Calderon's success in confronting transnational criminal organizations in Mexico."

I left the hearing very concerned that "immigrants" continue to be bundled into "border threats" and "other hazards."   Organized crime is organized crime, many times carried out by U.S. citizens on both sides of the border.  Organized crime is one thing, immigrants are an entirely different phenomenon.  The Administration and specifically the Department of Homeland Security must separate "immigrants" and "immigration" from "gangs" and organized crime.  The ICE gang unit should certainly seek out and persecute gang members, but the ICE gang unit should not constitute all of ICE's work, nor can it serve as the foundation of ICE's ideology and priorities.

We saw progress in that both ICE and ATF agents finally recognized the harm U.S. arms are causing as they're being shipped into Mexico.  But not once was drug prevention mentioned throughout the entire hearing as part of the strategy to combat organized crime.  It took Congressman Al Green to remind the panelists that this is not a border problem, or a U.S.-Mexico problem, but a "transnational problem," and a "growth problem," due to the increase in drug use in the U.S. When none of the panelists were able to provide the number of ICE/ATF employees dedicated to "following the money trail" of organized crime, Mr. Green reiterated: the Government of Mexico has asked for our help on two fronts: control the guns, and control the money, and U.S. authorities have so far been unable to do either.

Congresswoman Kirkpatrick accurately noted, as long as we don't address the issue of drug consumption, there will be "no appreciable change" in this situation, we'll just continue with "spurts of arrests."   Instead of fanning fears of destabilization in Mexico, people like Sen.Cornyn of Texas should instead focus on what Texas can do and what they can do to stop the elements that are feeding this violence: guns and drug consumption.

VI. In Case you Missed It - A fantastic New York Times interactive map that shows immigration trends and data, and the Los Angeles Time graphic showing a decrease in arrests of undocumented immigrants along the border (while border violence is on the rise, so let's stop blaming the immigrants).  

VII. UPDATE: A very fine border line between cartels, immigration debate.

Gallup just released these findings based on polling data obtained in Mexico during the Summer of 2008 that provides some insight into public perception of the drug trade problem.  I am a bit concerned about the size of the poll, which interviewed 1,000 individuals (out of a population of over 109 million), and the Gallup site does not clarify whether they interviewed people in every state, by region, or whether it concentrated all interviews in one specific region (border, Gulf, Pacific, etc), which can play a pivotal role in the results obtained.  It comes as no surprise that as violence has escalated,  the confidence of the general populace has diminished.  Among other findings: 

• Nearly 6 in 10 Mexican residents (59%) said gangs are present, up from 51% in 2007.
• More than 4 in 10 (43%) said drug trafficking or sales take place in their neighborhoods, up from 38% in 2007.
• Forty-four percent of Mexicans expressed confidence in their local police, which is down from 50% in 2007 and roughly similar to the 42% measured in 2006 before Calderon's crackdown.