NDN

Updated Weekly: A very fine border line between cartels, immigration debate

UPDATE:  Case in Point - Speaking of the drug war on the border, a piece in The Hill today by Bridget Johnson is a perfect example of how the lines between "immigrant" and "cartel" are becoming blurred, and how violence on the border will have an effect on the immigration debate:

"Any steps that you take to curtail Mexican drug violence will help illegal immigration," said Bryan Griffith, spokesman for the Center for Immigration Studies, noting that though stepped-up enforcement may help, the violence itself may spur more northward journeys. "Generally, people come to the U.S. to find jobs," Griffith said. "If you have violence, there's more of a motivation."

And somehow doing nothing will not exacerbate violence?  This is to be expected from CIS, as it ignores the underlying problem:  consumption in the United States.  We need to be sure to keep immigration policy very separate from persecution of organized crime.  Countries in the entire region must work together to 1) combat consumption, 2) share intelligence and extradite traffickers, and 3) continue aiding each other to develop stronger economic institutions to end this vicious cycle of poverty, violence, and drugs.


T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told The Hill that officers continue to be subject to a "dramatic increase" in assaults, with 1,097 documented incidents in the fiscal year between Oct. 1, 2007, and Sept. 30, 2008. "Obviously, we're extremely concerned about the continued escalation of violence, which has been increasing every year for at least the past six years," he said...... While the completed border infrastructure has had a "negligible effect on border violence," Bonner said, "there appears to be a correlation between the fortification of the border and assaults on our agents."

As explained by Angelica Salas in the article, "By sealing off the border in this way, what you end up doing is giving [the cartels] more power," Salas said. "Their money- making is actually increased."  Violence will not be curtailed until the issue of organized crime is addressed through intelligence and legal channels, and the broken immigration is fixed by passing comprehensive immigration reform.

Although even this Bonner guy admits:  "As long as you have such strong demand [for drugs] in the U.S...then you'd have cartels trying to find a way in."

Weekly Update on Immigration: Obama Pressed On Immigration; Local Police Add Immigration Beat?; What's Happening in Mexico?

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.

Monday Buzz: MoJo, Meltdown and Migrants, Moderates, Moynihan, and More

NDN had major appearances in a great group of publications this week. First off, Simon was featured in Roll Call in a story about Al From stepping down from the DLC. Here's an excerpt from the piece:

Another group trading on its centrist ties is the NDN, a group previously known as the New Democrat Network that was started and is still run by former DLC field director Simon Rosenberg.

His organization, now a think tank focusing on demography, technology and the media, was once a political action committee engaged in trying to elect moderate Democratic candidates.

NDN has since retooled, Rosenberg said, although not entirely.

"There is no question our origins come out of the New Democrat movement and NDN has been long affiliated with the New Democrats," Rosenberg said.

"But we’ve also charted our own course. We've really tried to make sure that we've tried to understand the changes in America and build ideas and strategies and arguments around what is a very dynamic and fast-changing time."

For NDN, a "fast-changing time" in 2003 meant engaging with the net roots, the activist wing of the Democratic Party that raises money and interacts primarily on the Internet — and became a thorn in the side of more established players such as From.

Rosenberg said a fissure within his party cropped up in recent years over how moderates should align themselves on the issues with Republicans, whose centrist ranks in recent elections have been gutted. Rosenberg said that once Republicans "became unreasonable, the whole construct of the third way started to weaken.

"There were elements of the New Democrat movement that became leaders in the opposition to [President George W.] Bush and there were others who were slow to recognize how much damage they were doing to the country," he continued. "That became a huge dividing line in the family."

Finding common ground with people "whose ideas are wrong and bad for the country," Rosenberg said, "is not a virtuous act."

Rosenberg wrote the forward to Jerome Armstrong and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas’ best-selling 2006 book "Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics."

As evidence of the rift that still exists between From and others perceived as the party's establishment — a divide originating with moderate Democrats' support for the Iraq War — Moulitsas dismissed the idea of compromise.

"The notion that splitting the difference makes an issue moderate is patently absurd," he said.

Simon was also quoted in an excellent Alternet article about the prospects for immigration reform in the midst of an economic crisis:

But those with whom I spoke are optimistic that a slightly different coalition will hold together. Simon Rosenberg, director of the New Democrat Network, a centrist group that's been in the thick of the immigration debate, told me, "if people want to resolve these issues, they can." He believes a modest guest-worker program is key to winning broad support, including the support of a number of Republicans.

"Getting 5 percent of the workforce out of the shadows, giving them the opportunity to unionize, getting them minimum wage protections -- this is such an important goal for progressives that they need to be willing to accept some compromise," he said.

The original 2007 bill included a guest-worker program that would have allowed as many as 400,000 migrant workers, but an amendment halved that number, capping the number at 200,000 per year for two years. The guest-worker program was a key part of the bargain hammered out between McCain and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., in 2006.

Rosenberg fears that a bill without a guest-worker program may not earn the support of key members of the GOP, including McCain, who rightly feels a sense of ownership over the legislation. "It's going to be hard without McCain, because no Republicans want to be seen running to his left on immigration," Rosenberg said.

Kos also posted on DailyKos today about this same topic, quoting Simon and linking to NDN's report Hispanics Rising II:

There's no doubt that the system is in serious need of reform, as NDN's Simon Rosenberg summed up a month ago:

"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."

Few would disagree with that assessment, the real contention is over the solutions. Nativists advocate a hardline against immigrants, but their loud and aggressive efforts have proven to be an electoral bust. On the other hand, Democrats have benefitted from an increasingly engaged, and increasingly Democratic Latino electorate. They're growing (PDF), they voted Democratic, and they expect action on this key issue. You see, for Latinos, immigration reform isn't an ideological issue, it's a family one. And you don't mess with family.

Next, Mother Jones had a write-up of our event last week with Joe Rospars, the Obama campaign's New Media Director and founder of Blue State Digital. From the piece:

On Tuesday, Rospars took part in a question-and-answer session about the impact of technology on politics hosted by the left-leaning think tank NDN. Rospars dinged the Republicans' much-criticized request for a proposal (PDF) to redesign its website, laughing that his company, Blue State Digital, certainly won't be competing for the business. (Lefty BSD probably wouldn't respond to the RFP anyway, of course, but Rospars brought it up out of the blue—he was obviously referring to the widespread mockery it had already received.) He criticized the GOP's email list, boasting that the Obama campaign's 13-million-strong list was developed in an "organic" way. "We didn't purchase lists and just add people to our email list," he said. "The point of having a big email list isn't just to say you have a big email list. The RNC says they have a however big email list, but the point is to actually have relationships with people so they open the message, they listen to what you're saying, and they're willing to do something," he said.

Finally, Michael had a piece in Grist about creating a sustainable system for infrastructure funding - it's very important stuff, so be sure to check it out! 

Thursday New Tools Feature: You Have 1.1 Billion New Friend Requests...

Nielsen this week released a study demonstrating just how popular and widespread social networking has become. From the Reuters story on the study:

Networking and blogging sites account for almost ten percent of time spent on the internet -- more than on email.

"While two-thirds of the global online population already accesses member community sites, their vigorous adoption and the migration of time show no signs of slowing," said John Burbank, the CEO of Nielsen Online.

One in every 11 minutes spent online globally is on networking sites. Between December 2007 and December 2008, the time spent on the sites climbed 63 percent to 45 billion minutes.

To put that growth in perspective, the growth in "member communities" online this year was "more than twice that of any of the other four largest sectors," and more than three times the growth rate of overall internet usage. To those that think of Facebook and similar sites as optional, largely peripheral entities, this study should come as a serious wake-up call. Social networking sites are changing the game the same way that email did when it was introduced. Facebook is no longer just an excuse for college students to avoid writing papers; in fact, social networking use has grown the most among 35-49 year olds (see chart).

More and more people are using social networking sites to communicate, socialize, and organize online - the overall amount of time spent on Facebook increased a whopping 566% this year. This is a very interesting and powerful phenomenon, which will have wide-spread implications for the political sphere - for instance, back in November, right after the election, I wrote about what an incredibly effective GOTV tool Facebook was, in part due to of the sociological effects of "seeing" all of your friends vote.

Another phenomenon that promises to further shake things up is the confluence of mobile technology and social networking. The Nielsen study found that  

...the increasing popularity of social networks has resulted in increasing demand to access them on the move. Mobile is a natural fit for social networks, as consumers are used to connecting with friends via mobile calls and text. UK mobile web users have the greatest propensity to visit a social network through their handset with 23% of them (2 million people) doing so, compared to 19% in the US (10.6 million people). The numbers of people doing so are a big increase on last year - 249% in the UK and 156% in the US.

To learn more about how to use social networks effectively, check out our New Politics Institute paper, "Leverage Social Networks," which was written by Facebook's Chris Kelly. You can also watch him and others explain how to harness the power of social networks at our New Politics Institute event, Social Networking in Politics.

Finally, check out this video of Ning's Jason Rosenthal at our recent event, New Tools for a New Era:

Obama New Media Master Joe Rospars and Simon Rosenberg Discuss the State of the New Media, the Parties' Digital Divide, and More

On Tuesday, March 10, NDN hosted a special forum with Joe Rospars, the Obama campaign’s New Media Director and founding partner of Blue State Digital. Joe and NDN President Simon Rosenberg had an informative, thought-provoking discussion about the role that new media and technology played in Barack Obama's quest for the presidency. During the back-and-forth, which was viewed from all over the country and even internationally via our live Web cast, Joe made clear that the cutting-edge use of technology that resulted in the most bottom-up political campaign in history started with the Blackberrying candidate himself. A former community organizer, Obama is also very conversant with new media tools and technologies, and understands their power and how they can be combined with traditional field organizing to create a political juggernaut.

Simon also asked Joe about what new media strategies his team found most effective during the campaign, the digital divide between Democrats and Republicans, and what Rospars and his crew might have in store for us in the future. This is simply must-see viewing for anyone who wants to understand the changing political media landscape. Check out Simon and Joe's conversation, and the Question and Answer session that followed it, below:

Here's what Nick Baumann of Mother Jones had to say after hearing Joe and Simon speak about the GOP's efforts to catch up technologically and organizationally:

Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, has promised to take his party "beyond cutting edge." But Joe Rospars, the man behind the Obama campaign's incredibly successful new media outreach, said that the RNC's current internet strategy is "all smoke and mirrors marketing."

On Tuesday, Rospars took part in a question-and-answer session about the impact of technology on politics hosted by the left-leaning think tank NDN. Rospars dinged the Republicans' much-criticized request for a proposal (PDF) to redesign its website, laughing that his company, Blue State Digital, certainly won't be competing for the business. (Lefty BSD probably wouldn't respond to the RFP anyway, of course, but Rospars brought it up out of the blue—he was obviously referring to the widespread mockery it had already received.) He criticized the GOP's email list, boasting that the Obama campaign's 13-million-strong list was developed in an "organic" way. "We didn't purchase lists and just add people to our email list," he said. "The point of having a big email list isn't just to say you have a big email list. The RNC says they have a however big email list, but the point is to actually have relationships with people so they open the message, they listen to what you're saying, and they're willing to do something," he said.

Rospars suggested that it's a mistake to see the use of social networking technologies and new media as ends in themselves—in other words, using tools like twitter and facebook are ways of mobilizing a following, but they don't ensure you'll get one. Without adopting "the ethos of building an organization from the bottom-up," the GOP will have trouble catching up, Rospars said.

Meanwhile, Rospars is doing his best to make sure the GOP doesn't catch up. He says that of the 100 best ideas he and his team came up with during the campaign, they only used about 15. He's won't be talking about those in public. He doesn't want to "give anybody any ideas."

Too bad for Michael Steele.

Weekly Update on Immigration: Posturing on E-verify and Immigration Policies That Bring Shame and Danger to Our Communities

I. Immigrants Bear the Brunt of Political Posturing Yet Again - It is no coincidence that this morning USA Today published an article citing "experts" alleging that undocumented immigrants would obtain jobs from the money provided under the economic stimulus.  It just so happens that the U.S. Senate is considering an omnibus bill today that could extend the electronic verification system known as "E- verify" through September of 2009, or longer (depending on passage of certain amendments).  The absence of data indicates that these "experts" are simply jumping in on the politicking to vent their anti-immigrant views and to try to persuade public opinion to favor renewal of the current e-verify, which has been determined to be ineffective and impractical.  The article cites that "pro-immigrant and business groups" call e-verify dangerous and ineffective, but fails to note that e-verify is also determined as such by legitimate research institutions, government agencies (GAO and Inspector General reports, etc.), Congress, and others.   These "experts" provide no methodology to support their contention that of all the jobs created under the stimulus, 300,000 construction jobs would go to "illegal immigrants."  

Funds go to the construction industry because it's among the hardest hit, not because it employs immigrants.  The numbers used by CIS are from 2005, long before - as reported just a few days ago, also by USA Today - the unemployment rate in the construction industry hit 21.4%, causing layoffs among largely Hispanic workers, thus contributing to the now 10.9% unemployment rate among Latinos.  Leaders of labor groups have openly stated that the construction industry is in a "near depression."  According to the White House estimate of the impact of the stimulus, 18.4% of overall job creation would occur in the construction industry, translating to about 678,000 jobs.  CIS believes that half of these jobs would go to undocumented immigrants, but provides no basis for this. Yes, most construction workers are minorities, but CIS leaps to a very fragile connection between minorities and legal status, given that most Hispanics/Latinos in this country are in fact not "illegals."

Moreover, CIS has no credibility.  As we have discussed before, CIS is a recognized hate group.  Second, it has lost credibility because it's always wrong.  It was wrong about everything from the GOP no longer needing Latino voters to its allegations of the "surge" of immigrants that would "flood" into the U.S. after the 2008 Presidential election. Not only are their assumptions flawed, they even contradict each other.  In July 2008, CIS alleged that a "homeward-bound" exodus of immigrants leaving the U.S. was happening, and a few months later, in October, it argued there would be a "surge" of immigrants that would "flood" the U.S. after the elections.  Neither has occurred.  Clearly, their "research" is full of discretionary "data" and assumptions come up as needed, when needed.

Lastly, CIS has said it itself: it is against both legal and illegal immigration.  Data actually suggests that immigrants (both legal and illegal) contribute to state economies, as indicated by IPC research in several states.

This is yet another example of why Congress and the Administration can't be centrists on the issue of immigration.  As long as Comprehensive Immigration Reform is not enacted,  domestic policy and items like the omnibus will continue to get caught in the crossfire and held up over immigration proxy wars and political posturing.  This demonization of our community has to stop.

II. Immigration Policies That Bring Global Shame on the U.S. and Put Us At Risk - Another ember kindling the hatred against Hispanics is a little-known program called "287(g)," named after the section of immigration law that contains it. The 1996 immigration law ("IIRIRA")brought 287(g) into being, authorizing the federal government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to train local officers to perform functions of an immigration officer.  This week GAO presented testimony before Congress once again pointing out concerns about the inefficiency and dangers in this program, in addition to the fact that it is an unfunded mandate.  GAO concluded that the program lacks key internal controls: guidance on how and when to use the program authority is non-existent or inconsistent, there are no guidelines on how ICE officials are to supervise officers in participating agencies, and there are no performance measures to track and evaluate progress toward meeting the program objectives - probably because GAO also found that program objectives have not
been documented in any materials.  These findings are serious, and the investigation also concluded that 287(g) participation has led to documented violations and racial profiling.  Racial profiling, stopping motorists because they "look illegal" can't be accepted in the America that elected Barack Obama as president - a president that speaks about how we are all one, how we are all our brother's keeper.  

More than a "program," I see 287(g) as a symptom of a larger disease; it is an expression of the disease of hate and demonization of Hispanics that has spread across the country. It is telling that 287(g) came into being in 1996, but the first 287(g) agreement didn't come into being until 2002 - that means that for six years we had undocumented migration, but no one felt it necessary to send police after immigrants.  But all that changed after 9/11.  The desire to seek out and scapegoat immigrants for all our ills took hold as the far right, anti-immigrant talk show hosts and narrative flared.  From 2002-2008, we saw the number of 287(g) agreements balloon to 67, in 29 states. 

Although the GAO did not track the amount of resources a state diverts away from fighting actual crime when it decides to shift its energy to acting as immigration police, there are plenty of other reports documenting the increase in the number of criminal investigations that languish unsolved as police decide to instead stake out U.S. residents or citizens of color to make sure they're "legal."  This lack of attention to criminals and particularly to organized crime could not come at a worse time.  We are definitely facing a war against drug traffickers at the border.  And this war is not only the responsibility of the Mexican government, the U.S. must decide to fully engage its resources - DHS, FBI, DOJ - to find and pursue the drug buyers and suppliers in the U.S. - the ones providing Mexican cartels with business.  Therefore, the unintended consequences of 287(g) go far beyond the serious offense of racial profiling, we are putting our communities at risk by irrationally and unjustly changing the priorities of our first responders.  The priority should be to keep our communities safe and pursue criminals. Immigrants do not threaten our lives and our safety, criminals and drug traffickers do. With limited resources, let's keep our eye on the ball.   

For more information, check out an IPC fact sheet on 287(g) partnerships, and a report by Justice Strategies.

III. More on the Economics of Immigration - Scientists fear that the broken immigration system and the troublesome visa system will drive foreign students to other countries.  Business Week reports that some data shows skilled immigrants are actually leaving the U.S. as debate over programs like the H-1B visa intensifies. And a very interesting article in Nashville, TN reminds us of an important lesson: Tennessee has actually used immigration to bolster its economy since the era of Reconstruction.

IV. We Can't Stress the Importance of the 2010 Census enough - The GAO presented assessments of Census methodology at House and Senate hearings last week, and warns that at this moment, the bureau is behind schedule.  Moreover, the accuracy of the 2010 Census remains threatened by computer problems and untested methods the Census Bureau plans to use for conducting the count, according to testimony by Robert Goldenkoff, director of strategic issues for the GAO. And we can't forget that the Congressional Black Caucus has been calling for a very involved President in the development of the Census.  If they work together, the CHC and CBC can carry a great deal of influence on this process to the benefit of minority communities.  

V. The Race for Rahm's Seat - Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley won the Democratic special primary election to contend for Rahm Emmanuel's seat on April 7.  On immigration, Quigley noted, "I sponsored a measure with Cook County Commissioner Roberto Maldonado to create an immigrant protection ordinance in our Cook County system."  This is another race in which we have a pro-CIR Democratic candidate against an anti-immigrant Republican candidate.  In this case, the Republican is Rosanna Pulido, director of the Illinois Minuteman Project (I know, go figure).  We'll keep a close eye on this one. 

VI. And in case you missed it - the "Top 10 Immigration Issues From 2008."

Unpublished
n/a

Monday Buzz: GOP's Grief, Millennials' Mettle, More

NDN hit the airwaves (or cable or satellite signals, in this case) in force this week. Rob went on Fox News to talk about the budget, and laid an economic smackdown on John Kasich, former GOP Congressman and Chairman of the House Budget Committee. Check it out:

In addition to his appearance on Fox, Rob had a great article published in the Huffington Post this week. 

Simon also went on MSNBC's News Today with Norah O'Donnell to discuss the Republican Party's lack of credible leadership:

Finally, NDN Fellow Morley Winograd was featured in an article in the Houston Chronicle and the Dallas Morning News. From the article, by Gregory Rodriguez:

...Morley Winograd, coauthor of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics, has no such concerns. "This is not an embittered and cynical generation," he said. "Although they did tend to be protected as children, they were also taught to compete and to perform. This will only make them more determined."

It's a Brand New Era. Deal With It (Round II).

This week's NBC-Wall Street Journal poll demonstrating both the personal appeal to the American people of President Barack Obama and of his policy approach also has very good news for the Democratic Party. That survey and others suggest that the Democratic Party has strength that is deeper, antedates, and will likely extend beyond the Obama presidency. The NBC survey indicates that about half of the public (49%) has a favorable opinion of the Democrats, while only about half that number is positive about the Republicans (26%). The most recent Daily Kos tracking survey paints an even rosier picture for the Democrats. In that poll, while 58 percent are positive about the Democratic Party, only 32 percent feel that way about the Republicans, numbers that have improved for the Democrats and declined for the Republicans since the first of the year.

Positive feelings toward the Democratic Party and negative impressions of the GOP are deeper than these overall attitudes suggest. For example, the Republicans are given the primary blame for the partisan rancor that has characterized Washington politics in recent years. A majority (56%) attribute "all" or a "major part" of the blame for that to the Bush Administration and 41 percent blame congressional Republicans. By contrast, only a quarter (24%) say partisanship is the fault of congressional Democrats and a scant 11 percent attributes it to President Obama. As a result, a clear majority (56%) believes that GOP opposition to Obama Administration policies comes from an effort to gain political advantage rather than principle (30%). All of this goes a long way toward explaining why, by a greater than 2:1 margin on the biggest issue of the day, Americans believe that the Democrats rather than the Republicans will do a better job of ending the recession (48% vs. 20%).

To an extent, attitudes like these may change with the emergence and departure of specific issues and politicians. But, surveys indicate that the American public has formed what is likely to be a long-term attachment to the Democratic Party. The Pew Research Center's tracking of party identification gave the GOP a narrow national lead over the Democrats in party ID in 1995, the year after the Republicans captured control of both houses of Congress for the first time in about four decades (46% vs. 43%). The Democratic Party's comeback began in earnest in 2006 as it recaptured Congress and moved to a nine-percentage point party identification advantage over the Republicans (47% vs. 38%). Currently, the Democrats have a 53% to 37% edge.

What is behind the clear emergence of the Democratic Party as America's majority political party is the coming-of-age of a new generation of young Americans, the Millennial Generation (born 1982-2003). Like their GI Generation ("Greatest Generation") great grandparents before them, the Millennials are a "civic" generation, committed to liberal interventionism in the economy, activist multilateralism in foreign affairs, tolerant non-meddling on social issues, and to the Democratic Party.

Millennials identify as Democrats by a greater than 2:1 margin and are the first American generation in at least four to contain a greater number of self-perceived liberals rather than conservatives. Survey data collected by both Pew and media research and consultation firm, Frank N. Magid Associates, indicates that these identifications predated the 2008 presidential campaign or even the emergence of Barack Obama as a well-known national political figure. But Millennials did flex their political muscles in a big way in 2008, voting overwhelmingly for both Barack Obama over John McCain (68% vs. 32%) and Democratic over GOP congressional candidates (63% vs. 34%). Millennials accounted for 80 percent of Obama's national popular vote lead, turning a narrow victory into a mandate.

There is nothing to suggest that the firm attachment of the Millennial Generation to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party is in any way diminishing. The Kos survey indicates that an astounding and virtually unanimous 86 percent of Millennials now hold favorable opinions of President Obama. While Obama may personalize the political beliefs and Democratic identifications of the Millennial Generation, he is also likely to help extend them as surely as FDR aided in extending those of the GI Generation in the 1930s and 1940s. More than two-thirds of Millennials (68%) have favorable impressions of the Democratic Party and a majority is positive about congressional Democrats (53%). Meanwhile, Millennials have almost nothing good to say about the GOP: just 19 percent like the Republican Party and virtually none (9%) are positive about congressional Republicans. Voting behavior research since the 1950s indicates that once attitudes and identifications like these are formed, they tend to be set for life and rarely change. Clearly the road ahead for the Republican Party is hard and rocky.

But, as the GOP brand continues to erode, the Republicans are treating the country to a spat between its titular head, Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele, and the man some consider the party's de facto leader, radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh. After Steele criticized him for being an "entertainer" with an "incendiary" and "ugly" show, Limbaugh distanced himself from the Republican National Committee, if not from the Republican Party, saying to Steele that, "You are not the head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the Republican National Committee."

On the day after the 1994 GOP midterm election sweep, this writer could not resist the masochistic urge of turning his car radio dial to Limbaugh's show and hearing Limbaugh's audience of "dittoheads" extol him for his leadership of the Republican victory. On that day, Limbaugh was more than happy to accept the plaudits of his listeners and proud to wear the mantle of Republican leadership. He did not separate himself from any part of the GOP. The fact that he has done so now provides clear evidence that American politics has, indeed, entered a new era.

Thursday New Tools Feature: Increasingly Capable Cable

The New York Times reports this week that the cable TV provider Cablevision is introducing a new technology that allows for targeted marketing customized for individual households:

Beginning with 500,000 homes in Brooklyn, the Bronx and some New Jersey areas, Cablevision will use its targeting technology to route ads to specific households based on data about income, ethnicity, gender or whether the homeowner has children or pets.

The technology requires no hardware or installation in a subscriber’s home, so viewers may not realize they are seeing ads different from a neighbor’s. But during the same show, a 50-something male may see an ad for, say, high-end speakers from Best Buy, while his neighbors with children may see one for a Best Buy video game.

While at the moment this only applies for 500,000 Cablevision subscribers in the tri-state area, it seems likely that it will quickly spread. Cablevision intends to expand the service to all of its 3.1 million customers assuming the trial goes well. And initial results suggest that it will:

Cablevision tested the technology by promoting its own services with targeted and untargeted ads. In the eight-month test, the targeted ads brought in new subscriptions at a significantly higher rate than untargeted ads.

Companies, aware that their advertising dollars are threatened by the rise of DVRs, the hyper-saturation of today's media environment, and the drop in impulsive buys due to the recession, are looking for creative and effective ways to market their products more precisely. Those in the political sphere would be wise to take notice as well.

Targeted television marketing is not just limited to cable, either; streaming internet-based TV services, like the upcoming ZillionTV set-top box, allow for similar levels of precision targeting:

The pitch to advertisers is precise targeting: To get high ad prices to pay for all this, ZillionTV will watch your viewing habits, merge them with data about you it buys elsewhere, and use all that information to aim ads at certain groups of viewers. Users will also be asked to select categories of products they would like to see ads about. The ad-supported content will have half the number of commercials as broadcast television, which is still more than online services, like Hulu, have now. And you can’t skip past the commercials.

NDN and the New Politics Institute have long written about the benefits of cable and targeted marketing. Staying on top of television's evolution, as it becomes increasingly personalized and intertwined with Web video, will be critical for any candidate or organization that wants to advertise effectively in a 21st century media environment. 

To learn more about how to target your TV advertising, see our papers "Buy Cable Smart" and "An Introduction to Microtargeting in Politics," and watch this excellent and incredibly enlightening video of Amy Gershkoff of Changing Targets Media from our recent NDN/NPI event, "New Tools for a New Era."

Syndicate content