NDN

Unpublished
n/a

Weekly Update on Immigration: The GOP Still Doesn't Get It

Let me begin by saying that I have a great deal of respect for Joe Scarborough as one of the few more sensible, moderate Republican voices out there nowadays.  However, Scarborough and Ed Gillespie's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday demonstrated that the Republican party is either unable or unwilling to step back and take an honest look at the main reason behind its current unpopularity.  Republicans are unwilling to accept that it is precisely their conservatism - their social conservatism - that has caused their demise.  There is no "big tent" any longer when it comes to the GOP.

MR. GREGORY:  But, Joe, it seems like the fundamental question is, what does the party want to be, right?......Ron Brown, seen in his column this week in the National Journal, talks about the party being more monochromatic, more conservative regionally and in terms of the voters.  And he talked to Tom Davis of Virginia who said this, "…Tom Davis of Virginia, who chaired the Republican--the National Republican Congressional Committee, calls Specter's defection a `devastating blow' that will send a `bad signal' of ideological intolerance to the moderate white-collar suburbanites the party must recapture if it is to threaten the Democrats' congressional and Electoral College majorities.  `The dilemma for Republicans is, are we--what are we going to become, a coalition or are we going to be a private club?'"
MR. JOE SCARBOROUGH:  ….So there's always a back and forth.  But the bigger question is, what does the Republican Party need to be? We keep hearing that it's too conservative.  You know, it depends on how you define conservative.
MR. GREGORY:  Right.
MR. SCARBOROUGH:  Over the past decade we've spent too much money, we've spread our armies across the globe, we've, we've changed rules on Wall Street that allows, you know, that allowed bankers to leverage 40-to-1.  That's not conservative, that's radical.  And we have to understand that and be truly conservative.

...............

MR. GREGORY:  [On the Economy] You say independents are with Republicans on this.  Obama advisers say just the opposite, that he's in the high 60s in terms of approval among independents, much more trust for Obama than for Republicans on the economy.  And, and this from the ABC/Washington Post poll:  Who do you trust to do a better job handling the economy?  It's Obama 61 percent, Republicans in Congress 24 percent.
................
MR. GREGORY:  "The Last Best Hope:  Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise." And then look at the headline from The New York Times this week: "GOP Debate:  A Broader Party or a Purer One?" Both of you address this question.  Should it be broader?  Should it be purer?
MR. SCARBOROUGH:  That's a false choice, though.  Ronald Reagan was about as conservative as you can be.  Ronald Reagan said, you know, the government that governs the least governs best.  Thirty years ago you had Margaret Thatcher, 30 years ago this month, coming into power.  Again, Thatcher, a hard-core conservative on economic issues, especially.  We need to be conservative, but like Reagan.

But it was not President Reagan's fiscal policies that earned him two elections and popularity - it was his character.  Mr. Scarborough and most Republicans fail to understand the moment in history that we are living.  Republican, Democrat, Independent voters - who might disagree on fiscal policy, tax policy, etc. - all supported President Obama because he changed the tone of the debateThey supported him because of what he stands for: empathy, conciliation, unity, progress.   As stated by Simon - the key to unlocking America's 21st century electorate is to understand and embrace how the concept of race is changing in America.  Fear-mongering, highly secterian, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-Hispanic rhetoric and actions - in the name of "conservatism" - is the reason for the GOP's minority status.  Case in point (also played during Meet the Press):

 

As demonstrated by the recent polling conducted by ABC/Washington Post and the New York Times, American voters reject these "conservative" values.  Passing comprehensive immigration reform is one way for Democrats to consolidate their majority status by demonstrating to voters that they are problem solvers, and it is also a way for Republicans to begin the long road back to mainstream America.

Meet the Press ended with very fitting footage from an interview with Jack Kemp, who passed away this weekend:

 

(Videotape, February 9, 1997)
Representative JACK KEMP:  It's the single most important issue facing America at the turn of the century and the new millennium:  racial reconciliation, civility.  An America where you can have a dialogue over affirmative action, for instance, without being accused of being a, a racist on either way, or on either side of that issue.  These are important issues that have to be addressed, and I would like to see an America in which black and white actually listen to each other.  And it can't be solved with rhetoric, it has to be solved with sound, positive, progressive, inclusive policies.  And I want to see the Republican Party lead that debate, because we are the party of Lincoln.  And we must be an inclusionary party that says that by the year 2000, as I tried to say at Harlem one day during the campaign, I'd like to see an America where half of all black Americans are voting Democrat, but the other half are voting Republican.

 

Unpublished
n/a

Specter Party Switch Inevitable? History Holds the Answer

While Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter's announcement that he was switching from the Republicans to the Democrats may have gratified the latter and upset the former, no one should have been surprised by it. Historically, party switching is common, indeed inevitable, at times of party realignment.

Spurred by the rise of a new large dynamic generation and the emergence of a new communication technology, realignments occur about every four decades in U.S. politics.

The most recent one began with the election of Barack Obama last November. These large political makeovers normally enthrone a new dominant national party. Beneath the surface, realignments are characterized by major shifts in the voting coalitions that support the two parties. Demographic groups and regions move to and fro between the parties. These demographic shifts, and the attendant ideological solidification of the two parties, leave some politicians, like Senator Specter, who no longer represent their party's mainstream thinking, as outliers and essentially marooned.

Faced with the prospect of almost certain defeat by a reduced and much more conservative base in next year's Pennsylvania GOP Senate primary, the politically moderate Specter made the only rational choice he could and left the Republican Party.

The last previous realignment, which began with election of Richard Nixon in 1968, saw the movement of numerous Democrats, primarily Southerners, to the Republican Party. Starting with Strom Thurmond and continuing through Richard Shelby, these conservative Democrats, along with many of their constituents, saw the GOP as a more comfortable political home. But the movement between the parties wasn't only Southern, nor was it only in one direction. Conservative Colorado Democratic Senator, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, became a Republican and liberal Republicans like New York's John Lindsay and Don Riegle of Michigan went the other way.

If history is any guide, Arlen Specter's move from the Republican to the Democratic column will not be the last during the next several years. Other moderate Republicans, most likely from New England, the Northeast, and the upper Midwest, will almost certainly join him. At some point, it is also probable that a smaller number of conservative Democrats, who feel uncomfortable or politically threatened by President Obama's activist agenda, will find the GOP more compatible with their beliefs and fortunes. Just as the baseball offseason is a time for trading players, a political realignment leads to changes in the rosters of the two parties. Let the switching begin.

Reminder: UK Secretary of State for International Development Live Web Cast Today, 12 p.m. ET

Remember to watch today's live Web cast of UK Secretary of State for International Development, Douglas Alexander, as he gives a major address on the relationship between conflict, fragility and development. Click here for more information about the event. The Web cast will begin at 12:15 p.m. ET.

UK Secretary of State for International Development Douglas Alexander to Deliver Major Address to NDN

NDN is pleased to announce we will host a major address by Douglas Alexander, the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for International Development on Monday, April 27, in New York. The event will be Webcast live.

Alexander will deliver a major speech on the relationship between conflict, fragility and development. He will argue that we must learn from our experience in Afghanistan, and apply those lessons to our approach to development in other conflict-affected states. If development efforts are to be successful, the link between development, politics and security must be better understood, and building peaceful states must be at the heart of this work.

Douglas Alexander is one of Britain's youngest and most dynamic Cabinet ministers, and as Secretary of State, he is the head of the United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID). He played a prominent role at the recent G-20 Summit in London, announcing British aid to help businesses in developing countries survive the global recession. A recent speech by Alexander on Afghanistan can be read here.

You will be able to watch this event live via Webcast at http://ndnblog.org/livecast, and we hope you will be able to tune in and watch what promises to be an important and engaging address.  The Webcast will begin at 12:15 p.m. EDT.

Looking Back - NDN's "Preview to the Summit of the Americas" Event

In March, NDN proudly hosted the first "Preview to the Summit of the Americas," in Washington, D.C. At the event, moderated by Mr. Nelson Cunningham, we gained valuable insight from our distinguished panelists. 

Our keynote speaker, U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, has been a long-time friend of NDN's and inspired what has developed into the Latin America Policy Initiative at NDN, founded on a core principle: as stated by Sen. Menendez, "In the age of globalization, we are inextricably linked to the rest of the world – and to no people are we more closely connected than to our neighbors in Latin America." Below, an excerpt of Sen. Menendez's remarks at the "Preview to the Summit of the Americas":

[The Summit of the Americas] meeting isn’t just an opportunity to tackle our common challenges — it’s another chance to be reminded how connected we all are. Those of us who advocate strong cooperation across borders always have the challenge of explaining to a taxpayer in New Jersey why they might be asked to support a program in Nuevo Leon. The Summit is going to help the entire region remember why...Giving greater mutual focus to institution-building, cross-border development and democracy is a strategy meant to improve the quality of life of our citizens. But maybe above all, finding that focus represents an opportunity to build a new trust between us, to substitute unnecessary tension for a new bond of hope.

Click here for the entire address.

 

As we reflect on the Summit that just passed, we would like to recap the event and share the ideas presented by our rich panel.  Please access the video of each speaker:

U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel, Chairman of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow
Hon. Samuel Lewis Navarro,
First Vice President and Foreign Minister of Panama
Jane Thery,
Head of OAS – USA Relations, Secretariat for External Relations of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington, DC.
Dr. Paul Byam,
Deputy Chief of Mission of the Embassy of Trinidad and Tobago
Ambassador Jose Pinelo,
Ambassador of Bolivia to the Organization of the American States
Ambassador Carolina Barco,
Ambassador of Colombia to the United States of America
Ambassador Luis Gallegos,
Ambassador of Ecuador to the United States of America

Unpublished
n/a

Is Immigration Overhaul Vital To U.S. Recovery?

In a word - yes. On NPR's Morning Edition today, Simon elaborates on our Case for Passage of Immigration Reform This Year, highlighting the increasing urgency of passing reform as a tool to revive the U.S. economy.  NDN has long sustained that undocumented immigrants suffer under the current broken immigration system because they fall victim to bad-actor employers.  These individuals make up about 5% of the U.S. labor force - that means 5% of workers fall outside of the protection of U.S. wage and labor laws, in addition to not being able to receive benefits or organize with labor unions.  We can implement a number of economic plans, but there will remain a trap door under wages until we fix the broken immigration system: 

Simon Rosenberg, of the Democratic think-tank NDN, says legalizing immigrants would go a long way..."The people who are not playing on an even playing field are the undocumented, because they can be paid less than you. They can be given less benefits. They can be forced to work 60, 70 hours by unscrupulous employers," he says.

Legalization Means New Revenue

Rosenberg and others also point to a Congressional Budget Office study that found legalizing the estimated 6 or 7 million unauthorized workers and their families would add tens of billions to the U.S. Treasury. It would come through more taxes paid, plus the fees and fines likely in any legalization package.

David Kallick, of the Fiscal Policy Institute in New York, says when 5 percent of the workforce lacks legal status, the economy takes another kind of hit.

"It means they can start an entry level job, but they can't really make the step to improve their education, get to the next level," he says. "And so you're essentially holding a whole contingent of people back from contributing even more to the economy than they do."

Immigration Proxy Wars

Both sides do agree on this - absent any larger solution, immigration will keep coming up on almost anything lawmakers touch. It's already happened this year on debates over children's healthcare and the stimulus package, and Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg predicts more battles over the census, Mexican border security and especially healthcare.

"It's impossible to understand how we have universal health insurance in America without first fixing the broken immigration system," he says. "Because what the healthcare fight will become is a debate over whether universal healthcare covers illegal immigrants."

To find out more about what legalization of the undocumented would mean for the economy, check out the Immigration Policy Institute's latest report and fact check on the issue.  Opponents of reform, like Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, will argue that tax benefits will outweigh the cost of all the social services newly legalized workers would be eligible for.  This contention has been proven incorrect by the Congressional Budget Office, cited by Simon, which has stated a legalization program would provide a net benefit of dozens of billions of dollars. 

Continuing the discussion over reform and its impact on the economy, an excellent editorial in today's New York Times reiterates the same fundamental principles that have constituted NDN's proposal for CIR:

Immigration Reform and Hard Times
The Obama administration said last week that it would begin a major push for immigration reform this year. The country's two big labor federations just announced that they are joining forces to support that effort, which includes a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. That's double good news.

The administration is saying that it will keep its promise to fix the broken system, even if it means pushing the hottest of hot buttons: legalization, the dreaded "amnesty" that sets the Republican right wing ablaze and makes many Democrats quiver.

We are also heartened that American labor is speaking with a united voice in hard times, rejecting the false claim that fixing the immigration system will somehow hurt American workers. Even in a bad economy - especially in a bad economy - getting undocumented immigrants on the right side of the law only makes sense.

Administration officials said President Obama planned to speak publicly about the issue next month and would convene working groups this summer, à la health care, to begin discussing future legislation. Immigrant advocates were ecstatic, though it is important to note that this was not a promise to move a bill, only to start the debate. Even that is not going to be easy. Reform was thwarted in the last two Congresses by obstructionist Republicans committed to the delusion that expelling 12 million people amounts to a realistic policy.

The country has suffered mightily in the meantime. American workers and businesses continue to be undercut by the underground economy. The economic potential of some of the country's most industrious workers is thwarted. Working off the books - and living in constant fear of apprehension - they earn less, spend less, pay less in taxes and have little ability to report abuses or to improve their skills or job prospects.

The ingredients of reform are clear: legalization for the 12 million, to yield bumper crops of new citizens, to make it easier to weed out criminals and to end the fear and hopelessness of life in the shadows; sensible enforcement at the border that focuses resources on fighting crime, drugs and violence; a strengthened employment system that punishes businesses that exploit illegal labor; and a future flow of workers that is attuned to the economy's needs and fully protects workers' rights.

The last point has been a sticky one with some unions. The agreement between the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and Change to Win - a rival federation that includes service employees, the Teamsters and carpenters - will center on a new approach to future immigration, a compromise in which an independent national commission calibrates the size of temporary-worker programs each year, based on conditions in labor markets. It may not be a perfect plan, but after years of vitriol, it's encouraging to hear calmer voices outlining smart reform.

We expect to hear more from Mr. Obama soon.

The editorial goes on to highlight that, "It will take courage to defend the wisdom and necessity of fixing the immigration system. It will take even more courage to engage in the serious fight to do so."  This is true, and we are all ready to join in the conversation - not to fight, but to pass immigration reform because, "It is what the country needs and what American voters elected Mr. Obama to do." 

 

Monday Buzz: Pragmatic Pessimism, Polarizing 'Pubs, Public-Private Partnerships?, More

Despite the President's more optimistic tone of late, many people remain gravely worried about the state of the U.S. and global economies. Rob was quoted in an exellent Huffington Post piece by Sam Stein criticizing Treasury Secretary Geithner's bank plan. From the article:

...But for many economists, the invitation for risk inherent in Geithner's plan is simply too great. Indeed a second critique being forcefully raised by economists is that the system Treasury is putting in place can easily be gamed.

In his Monday column, Sachs outlined this very prospect: Citibank, theoretically, has a toxic asset on its books with a face value of $1 million but no probability of payout. The bank sets up a Public-Private Investment Fund (PPIF) to bid the full $1 million for that worthless asset. That PPIF borrows $850,000 from the FDIC, gets an additional $75,000 from Treasury, and puts up $75,000 of is own money to make up the bid. In the end, Citi gets a profit of $925,000 (the $1 million it receives of the bid minus the $75k its related entity had to put up).

Such a scenario is indicative of the flaws in the Geithner plan, argued former senior Clinton commerce official Rob Shapiro. There is, in fact, a guarantee.

"The Feds guarantee the 5/6 leverage used to buy the assets," he said, "so if the assets tank and the buyer defaults on the loan (no $ to pay it back, since the assets really were worthless), the feds (taxpayers) make it up to the lender."

Rob also had his own essay, "Time to Face the Facts: The Economy Probably Won't Get Better For Quite a While," published in the Huffington Post last week.

Next, NDN fellows Morley Winograd and Mike Hais had a post on MyDD, which then made its way into the "Best of the Blogs" section of Real Clear Politics. Here's a quote from their piece:

...The polarization between Democrats and Republicans in the Pew survey has much less to do with President Obama's personal and political style, as they are suggesting, than it does with the inability of his own Republican Party to adapt to this new era. From the earliest Pew survey conducted in 1989, the first year of George H.W. Bush's administration, through 2005, there was near parity in the distribution of party identifiers within the electorate; no more than three or four percentage points ever separated the Democrats from the Republicans. By contrast, since 2006 the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats has risen significantly while the number saying they are Republican has fallen. In the most recent Pew study, conducted early this month, the Democrats held a clear 52% to 35% lead over the Republicans in party ID, a 13-percentage point shift toward the Democratic Party since 2004. And, only 21-percent of American voters are "pure" Republicans, a group that consists only of those willing to call themselves Republicans and does not include independents that say they lean toward the GOP. This is the smallest number of "pure" partisans for either party in any survey ever conducted by Pew.

Our good friend and NDN Fellow Joe Garcia was quoted in The Hill about Obama's plan to lift some restrictions on Cuba. From the Hill piece:

...If the younger Cuban-American voters are looking for a different approach to U.S. policy toward Cuba, as the Obama administration and Democrats think, lifting some of the travel restrictions could help Obama grow his popularity with this community.

Joe Garcia, a fellow at the NDN think tank, said Obama made it clear he would lift these restrictions and change U.S. policy with Cuba during the presidential campaign. Restricting travel and remittances by Cuban-Americans makes little sense in terms of policy or politics, said Garcia, a Democrat who last fall unsuccessfully challenged Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), one of Congress’s staunchest supporters of the embargo.

Simon was quoted in a New York Times Syndicate piece by Marcela Sanchez about perceptions of President Obama in Latin America:

...Recent polls show Obama is more highly regarded in Latin America than in the United States. With an event such as the town hall meeting in Strasbourg, France, or the roundtable discussion with students in Istanbul, Turkey, Obama could chip away at the less than casual anti-American sentiment that festers in the region.

"We haven't had a global leader with Obama's appeal in a very long time," said Simon Rosenberg, president of the center-left Washington think tank NDN, who added that the president's power to reach out is aided not only by today's communications but also by his desire to speak straight and openly to people everywhere. "The politics of the bottom up we saw in the election is going global," Rosenberg said.

Finally, Simon was featured extensively in an ABC News story about immigration and how it actually affects the job security of U.S. citizens:

Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of NDN, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive think-tank and advocacy group that is pushing for change in immigration law, also agreed. He said that letting illegal immigrants move down the path to legal work and citizenship will help all workers.

"If anything, it will help low-end workers across the country because it would remove the trapdoor under the minimum wage," he said. Right now, these workers are "driving down wages for you. They are creating unfair competition."

Rosenberg said immigration reform is not going to cause an influx of new immigrants into the country.

"You against an illegal worker, you lose that fight every time," he said. "The worst possible thing for American workers is to have a vast pool of undocumented immigrants in the United States."

There are some business owners who say immigration changes would only increase the cost of doing business and drive up prices for all.

Rosenberg says to them: "I think the idea that we are accepting illegal exploitation of workers to prop up businesses, there's a question as to whether those businesses should be in business in the first place.

Ultimately, Rosenberg believes that change in immigration law reform would be good for the country, economically and socially.

"It will take the air out of the balloon of some of the most virulent racism that we've seen in America in generations," he said. "There is publicly sanctioned racism against Hispanic-Americans in this country today in a way that is very unhealthy and morally unacceptable in the age of a bi-racial president."

Syndicate content