While there has been a great deal of confusion around Trump’s immigration wiggle and concepts like "mass deportation" in the past few weeks, his strategy towards the 11m and others here without authorization is very clear: they all have to go, and he will ensure they do through an unprecedented expansion of the state’s power to round people up and deport them.
After Obama’s victory in 2008, the restrictionist movement pragmatically realized that its goal of outright forced removal of 11m (core to the 2005 House GOP "Sensenbrenner Bill") was no longer on the table. They moved on to “attrition through enforcement” that would count on making the threat of deportation so ubiquitous and terrifying that undocumented immigrants would "self-deport." This strategy was manifested in Arizona’s famous HB 1070 bill, other copy cats in states like GA and PA, and of course Mitt Romney’s own commitment to "self-deportation" in 2012.
It also explains the extraordinary demonization of President Obama for his 2011 Morton reforms that prioritized undocumented immigrants with criminal records for deportation. By prioritizing criminals for deportation, DHS was also acknowledging that the other 10m or so undocumented immigrants without criminal records were no longer a target of our deportation machinery. Without this imminent threat, there is no "self-deportation." While obviously a smart use of limited resources, the 2011 Morton reforms also dealt an ideological death blow to the restrictionist movement.
These reforms were violently opposed by restrictionist leaders like Rep. Steve King. In 2013, the House GOP passed the “King Amendment” which called from the rollback of the Morton reforms by name. When the bi-partisan Senate bill came to the House in the fall of 2013, the central reason Republicans refused to take it up was the claim that these new sensible enforcement priorities were "lawless," and that the President couldn’t be trusted. To be clear – the prioritization of criminals for deportation was the central reason the House used to walk away from the immigration reform debate in 2014. In fact, the only immigration bill passed by the House in 2014 in response to the Senate bill was another version of the King Amendment, putting Paul Ryan and his colleagues on record for blocking legalization and the re-establishment of the ubiquitous 24/7 threat of deportation.
In Trump’s published immigration plan and in his remarks last night the Republican nominee goes even further – he calls for the deputization of all other federal, state and local law enforcement in the round ‘em up efforts. This would create a super sized, truly ubiquitous, 24/7 deportation force, far greater than what DHS offers today. The reporting by some that he has backed off mass deportation is just plain wrong. He made clear in Arizona last night that all 11m undocumented immigrants in the country would have to leave and return to their country of origin with no guarantee of return. This would require them to quit their jobs, sell their homes/break their leases, rip up families and return to a country they no longer know. For those from countries like Mexico with huge backlogs, the application process to re-enter could easily take 20-30 years. This is anything but humane, soft or even pragmatic.
The big innovation in the Trump plan is that he now uses the threat of "criminal aliens" – the same ones the restrictionists have fought from prioritization in recent years – as the impetus to construct his massive deportation force. Once constructed it would of course catch non criminals in its net but most importantly it would establish the Orwellian immediate, imminent threat of deportation required to scare the rest of the 11m into "self-deporting." The reason Trump and his team suggests they are open to figuring out what to do with those who remain (with no hope of legalization or special visa) is that they do not expect there to be any one who remains with him and his policies in place.
Finally, those commenting and reporting on Trump and immigration should stop taking the daily bait he is tossing out. He has made his choice. The most hard core of the restrictionists – Sen. Sessions and Joe Arpaio – were on stage with him last night in Arizona. Sessions even accompanied him to Mexico, something the Mexican government never should have allowed. The speech he gave last night, and his already published immigration plan, are the most enthusiastic embrace of restrictionist politics by a major party leader in the last two generations of American politics. There is no pivot, no wiggle, no softening – just the nasty, over the top embrace of some of the darkest impulses in American political life today.
“For those here today illegally who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and only one route: to return home and apply for re-entry under the rules of the new legal immigration system that I have outlined above. Those who have left to seek entry under this new system will not be awarded surplus visas, but will have to enter under the immigration caps or limits that will be established.
We will break the cycle of amnesty and illegal immigration. There will be no amnesty.
Our message to the world will be this: you cannot obtain legal status, or become a citizen of the United States, by illegally entering our country.....
......In a Trump administration all immigration laws will be enforced, will be enforced. As with any law enforcement activity, we will set priorities. But unlike this administration, no one will be immune or exempt from enforcement. And ICE and Border Patrol officers will be allowed to do their jobs the way their jobs are supposed to be done.
Anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country. Otherwise we don’t have a country."
Donald Trump says that Democrats have failed American minorities, so let’s test his claim by the most basic economic criteria: What happened to the incomes of African Americans and Hispanics under Democratic and Republican administrations over the last 35 years? The data do not lie. The incomes of minority households — and in most cases the incomes of white households, too — grow faster under Democratic administrations than under GOP ones.
Under the last five presidents, African-American and Hispanic households made greater income gains under Bill Clinton than under Ronald Reagan, and more progress under Barack Obama than under George W. Bush despite the financial collapse and deep recession that began under W. Minority incomes also grew much faster under Obama and Clinton — and Reagan — than during George H.W. Bush’s single term.
These conclusions are not based simply on aggregate median income figures for each race and ethnicity. Instead, we use Census Bureau data to plot the real income paths of white and minority households headed by people ages 25 to 29 and ages 35 to 39, as they age through each administration. In this way, we capture the actual income experience of these households. Finally, we start our analysis of each president’s record in year two of his term, because the economic conditions in a president’s first year in office are largely set by the policies of his predecessor. Here are the results.
We can see, first, that income growth by young African American households, headed by people ages 25 to 29 averaged a remarkable 7.3% per year as they aged under Clinton, compared to 3.8% under Reagan. The incomes of comparable households also grew, on average, 2.9% per year under Obama (2010-2014), compared to growth of 1.8% per year under Bush 2, and income declines averaging 2.5% per year under Bush 1.
Somewhat older African-American households, headed by people ages 35 to 39 at the beginning of each administration, had income gains averaging 4.2% per year under Clinton, compared to 3.3% per year under Reagan. Comparable households saw incomes growth averaging .9% per year under Obama, compared to income declines of .7% per year under Bush 2 and of 2.6% per year under Bush 1.
The same general pattern holds for Hispanics. Young Hispanic households achieved income gains averaging 4.2% per year under Clinton, compared to 1.6% per year under Reagan. Under Obama, the incomes of comparable households grew an average of 1.3% per year under Obama, compared to .7% per year under Bush 1 and zero gains under Bush 2.
Further, the incomes of somewhat older Hispanic households rose at an average rate of 3.1% per year under Clinton, compared to 2.2% per year under Reagan. Comparable households registered income gains averaging 1.5% per year under Obama, compared to 0.3% under Bush 2 and income declines of 1.1% per year under Bush 1.
The pattern of income progress by white households is similar, but not quite the same. Households headed by young whites made more income progress under Clinton, with gains averaging 5.2% per year, than under Reagan when their gains averaged 4% per year. But the income growth of somewhat older white households under Clinton, averaging 2.9% per year, was matched by the gains of comparable households under Reagan.
Young white households also have fared better during Obama’s time in office, with income growth averaging 3.3% per year, than during the administrations of Bush 2 when their gains averaged 2.3% per year or his father, Bush 1 at 2.6% per year. And while the income progress of somewhat older white households under Obama, averaging 0.4% per year, is greater than the 0.1% per year gains by comparable households under Bush 2, Bush 1 outpaced both of them with gains by comparable households averaging 1.5% per year.
The stronger income progress under Democrats by minorities in particular reflects a number of forces and factors, but job creation is paramount. Job growth was much stronger under Clinton and Obama — and Reagan — than under either Bush administration; and minorities benefit most when the jobless rate falls sharply, especially when the economy nears full employment.
Given this record, it is unsurprising that only small percentages of African Americans and Hispanic Americans have favored recent GOP presidential candidates. Trump’s racially and ethnically charged rhetoric will likely drive his support from minorities to record low levels. But the difference in their support for Trump, as compared to Romney or McCain, will likely be pretty modest. In the final analysis, minority Americans usually vote their economic interest, much like most of the rest of the country; and the record of the last 35 years tells them that they will be better off under a Democratic administration than a Republican one.
This post was originally published on Dr. Shapiro's blog.
“Monday Musings” is a new column looking at the 2016 elections published most Mondays. You can find previous editions here.
In recent days, some Trump supporters have indicated that the reported evolution in Trump’s thinking on immigration will focus on ways to ensure that unauthorized immigrations with criminal records become a more significant priority for deportation. Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, Trump confirmed that he is indeed attempting to land in some new place on immigration, though where exactly still remains to be seen.
For those reporting/commenting on this evolving issue in the days ahead it is important to keep a few things in mind:
Deporting Criminals First Has Been USG Policy Since 2011 – In the aftermath of the GOP’s blocking of immigration reform in 2010, the Administration took significant steps to prioritize its immigration enforcement efforts in two areas – border deterrence and those with criminal records in the US. The vast majority of those deported from the US in the years since have fallen into those two categories. If this indeed is the direction Trump is going in, he will be endorsing existing long standing Obama Administration immigration and border enforcement strategies. You can find out more about these changes in US policy in this long brief I did last summer.
This new and smarter policy direction has been successful – flow of undocumented immigrants into the country have plummeted; the number of undocumented immigrants in the country today is less than when President Obama took office; it allows limited federal, state and local law enforcement to focus on more serious criminals both undocumented and those legally here in the US; and those undocumented immigrants without criminal records have far less to fear from the US government and can keep working and contributing to the economy.
It is important to note that since the implementation of this new strategy in 2011, Hispanics in the US have made very dramatic economic gains.
Given the success of this new policy in recent years, it would be wise for candidate Trump to embrace it. But as Greg Sargent reports this morning, his apparent embrace of this approach is in direct conflict with the television ad he is currently running, and more than a year of statements he has made about “open borders” and our ineffective border and immigration enforcement system.
In his new piece, Sargent also reminds us that last night Trump only seemed to endorse Obama’s immigration enforcement priorities. No mention of what to do with the millions of unauthorized immigrants who remain.
House GOP on Record Opposing Deporting Criminals First – In 2013 and again in 2014, the House GOP, led by restrictionist Rep. Steve King, voted to prevent the Administration from using its power of “prosecutorial discretion” to prioritize the removal serious criminals and recent border crossers over those without criminal records. This means that if Trump heads in the direction already embraced by the Obama Administration, he will be breaking from the restrictionist wing of his own Party, and his allies in the Paul Ryan led House. Politically, this is no small matter.
So, yes, lot's still to be learned about Trump’s ugly damned if I do, damned if I don’t dance on immigration.
One of those felons to be deported first might be Mrs. Trump – Last night it was reported that Trumpworld has threatened to sue Politico for their reporting on Mrs. Trump problematic immigration story. Weeks after this story first broke, this threatened law suit appears to be the first official response by the Trump campaign to the growing body of evidence that Melania Trump violated immigration laws. It is not exactly the response many of us were led to believe would be coming from Trumpworld on this important matter.
To be clear – the reporting by Politico, the Washington Post, Univision, Bloomberg and others suggest that Mrs. Trump committed a series of grave immigration crimes that could easily rise to the level of a felony, and even trigger a process that could strip her of her citizenship. Just yesterday Vanity Fair reported that Mrs. Trump committed perjury in a 2013 court case where she repeated some of these same fabrications about her past.
I review the seriousness of what has been reported about Mrs. Trump in this recent post, and once again call upon Trumpworld to immediately release all of Mrs. Trump’s work visas she acquired prior to 2011 and her green card and green card application. The only way for us to know whether Melania Trump followed immigration law is by the release of these and other immigration documents.
Now that Donald Trump has promised to address the question of whether Melania Trump broke immigration laws when she emigrated to the United States in the mid-90s and in the process of gaining her citizenship (here, here, here and here), there are at least four questions that need to be answered directly by the Trump campaign in the coming days:
Work Visa(s) - What work visa(s) did Mrs. Trump have in the years before she received her green card in 2001? Can you produce it/them and their applications for the public to see?
Green Card - Can you explain how Mrs. Trump received her green card in 2001? Was it based on an employer or family sponsor? If employment related, who was the sponsor? Was it through marriage as was reported on August 5th? Did Mrs. Trump get her green card by other means? Can you produce she green card petitions and applications?
Purpose of Early Travel to US - Can Mrs. Trump provide the date and purpose of each of her visits to the United States prior to moving here in 1996? Did she work, even for free, during any of these visits? We know she was here in 1995, and an associate from those days, Paolo Zampolli, has said on the record that she was living here before receiving a work visa in 1996. As you are aware, the United States government has a record of every trip she made in and out of the US prior to her receiving a green card. So it would help all of us understand her complete emigration story by providing this information as it is already known by immigration authorities in the US.
Lying to Immigration Authorities - Did Mrs.Trump represent that she had a college degree in her applications for work visas and green card? As you know, having a college degree could have been determinant in her receiving a visa or green card. Now that we know she has embellished her biography and only finished a semester or two of college, this seems relevant. Lying on immigration applications is a serious crime in the United States, and the public has a right to know if our future First Lady committed immigration fraud in the process of obtaining her citizenship.
Of course, the easiest way to put all this to bed is for Melania Trump to release her entire immigration file, or for her to authorize the United States government to do so on her behalf. Given that we are talking about serious crimes and immigration violations here - serial fraud, felonies and possible loss of citizenship for Mrs. Trump - the Trump campaign needs to be as transparent as possible in the days ahead. Just releasing any work visa she had in the 1990s and her green card application and card itself would have largely put this story to bed by now. The failure to release these documents already suggests the Trump campaign is struggling to reconcile what actually happened with a public story that has already proven to be fabricated.
Donald Trump has put the maximum punishment for those who violate American immigration laws at the center of his campaign. Given this, there is an urgency for the Trump campaign to resolve the very real issues raised by Melania Trump's statements about her immigration path into the US; and for Mr. Trump to demonstrate to the tens of millions of immigrants he has denigrated that the rule of law applies not just to them but to him and his own family too.
Additionally, if the Trump campaign doesn't make a serious effort to explain the discrepancies reported by Politico, Bloomberg, the Washington Post and Univision, leading lawmakers should call upon the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to begin a formal investigation into Melania Trump and her problematic arrival story. Her potential crimes are far more serious than what the typical undocumented immigrant has committed, and warrant the full attention of US law enforcement now.
“Monday Musings” is a new column looking at the 2016 elections published most Mondays. You can find previous editions here.
2016 Overview – As expected, we find early evidence today of a Clinton bounce. CBS has Clinton going from 43/44 to 47/41, CNN from 45/48 to 52/43, Morning Consult from 40/44 to 43/40 and PPP and Ipsos/Reuters each have Clinton with a 5 point lead. The averages are showing gains for Clinton of 2-3 points already, and Obama’s approval rating in Gallup over the past 10 days has gone from 49/48 to 54/42, the best of his entire second term. It is early but Clinton and the Democrats are clearly getting a meaningful bounce.
It is significant that in some of these new polls have Trump hovering in low 40s, signaling that he still having trouble bringing his party together. If he is not in the mid 40s by mid August his campaign will officially be in trouble. Additionally, based on the Real Clear Politics state averages, Clinton should be firmly ahead in every single battleground state including Arizona and North Carolina by week’s end.
But could the economy slow over the next few months, and change the current dynamic that seems to be favoring Clinton? While Friday’s GDP report appeared to signal trouble ahead, as this analysis from the NYTimes’s Neil Irwin explains things are better than many reported on Friday. And for consumers (voters), things were particularly good:
“The wages and salary component of compensation is now up 2.5 percent over the last year; that same reading was only 2 percent in the second quarter. It’s just one number, but it points to this conclusion: Worker pay is not just rising; it’s also starting to rise at a faster pace. And it’s coming in the form of cash compensation, not being eaten up by health insurance and other employer-provided benefits.”
Given this report, it is far more likely for economic sentiment to be an asset for Clinton in these final 100 days of the election than Trump.
A Very Good Week for Democrats – Last week’s DNCC was my 8th Convention, and I think it was the best I’ve attended. The speeches and talks by private citizens were powerful, the production itself just excellent and the tone upbeat and can-do. It was an extraordinary contrast to the angry mess the Republicans stumbled through a week before.
What we saw last week was a mature, successful governing party, one with a deep set of talented, experienced and well-regarded leaders comfortable on the national stage. It was a reminder of just how successful the Democrats have been at the Presidential level – both the Clinton and Obama Presidencies left America better than they found it, and Democrats have won more votes in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. If Hillary Clinton wins this fall, it will be arguably the best stretch for a political party in all of our history.
This confident, mature, successful Democratic Party took a generation to build. When I got into American politics in the last 80s and early 90s, things were reversed – the GOP was ascendant, confident, well led, popular with young people and it was the Democrats who had run out of political and ideological gas. Led by the New Democrats of that time, the Democratic Party began a long period of modernization and reform that has helped produce the governing and political success we’ve had over the past generation.
Critical to that success today is the demographic opening NDN and a handful of other organizations helped identify a decade ago. If they can harness this emergent coalition in this and coming elections, the Democrats have discovered a young, growing and diverse coalition that could sustain them for many elections to come and will eventually also generate majorities in both Congresses. Remarkably, Democrats may be in the middle or even early stages of a very long run (see our 2007 magazine essay laying all this out, The 50 Year Strategy) and not at its end.
Many commentators and journalists writing about American politics grew up in era when the Democratic Party, after generations in power, was coming apart, and the GOP and conservatism were ascendant.
We are now in a very different era of American politics. Today, the once proud party of Reagan that is coming apart, and that era of conservatism is coming to an end. It is the Democrats, and an evolving 21st century liberalism, that are ascendant now. And I think many who analyze politics for a living have been slow to adapt to how fundamentally things have changed over the past generation, and far too often use and speak of stereotypes and political and ideological constructs that history swept away long ago.
-Democrats have won more votes in 5 of the last 6 elections, one of the most successful runs for the Presidential wing of an American political party in our history. If Democrats win this next election, this period will arguably the single greatest period of electoral dominance of an American political party in all of US history.
-Since the end of the Cold War, when the whole world changed, Democrats have governed successfully, twice producing Administrations that have brought us growth, rising wages, lower annual deficits and soaring stock markets. The GOP have twice brought us recessions, job loss and higher annual deficits. The Bush recession was among the deepest and most destructive in all of American history, and almost caused a global financial collapse. One can also argue that the Iraq War was as damaging to American interests as the Great Recession. In recent years the Rs have been far more a wrecking ball than a constructive force in American life.
What this has left us with us is a Democratic Party that has evolved/renewed itself from one in decline to one that is now a mature, successful governing party with a remarkable set of experienced and popular leaders. The Republican Party doesn’t have a single major party figure with net positive ratings, and can’t really claim any recent governing successes. The contrast is stark.
I believe that political analysts with a few more years on them have been slow to recognize how much politics and the two parties have changed since the halcyon Reagan days. The “meta” story of these two Conventions has been the contrast of an ascendant, modern, reformed and successful Democratic Party and a Republican Party and conservative movement clearly coming to the end of what was once a very good run. It is indeed a new era of US politics, one very different from the strong Reagan/weak Carter Mondale frame that did so much to shape a generation of analysts and commentators.
Joe Trippi and I published this op-ed, "End the Anti-Democratic Superdelegate System," in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Friday, July 22, 2016. Both of us are also supporting the campaign to end Superdelegates.
Next week, our party will meet in the City of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection to nominate our candidate for president of the United States. We hope that Democrats will emerge unified in support of Hillary Clinton, in opposition to Donald Trump, and formidable enough to win the presidency and make gains in other offices across the country.
We have supported Clinton throughout this primary, but we believe that Sen. Bernie Sanders and his supporters have made the party stronger and have pointed toward legitimate concerns about the voice that rank-and-file Americans have in our governance structures and political processes.
In Philadelphia, we will be presented with an opportunity to act on some of those concerns and further unify our party. In doing so, we can bring the party's structure more in line with its ideals - and even with its name:
It is time to end the antidemocratic superdelegate system.
Our party's platform and coalition of supporters are built on the concept that representation should be fair, equitable, and just. Democrats advocate social and economic justice, and we fight for inclusion and equal opportunity. However, the superdelegate system explicitly contradicts these values.
In fact, that violation is literally spelled out in the party's charter:
Around The Web Article 2, Section 4 starts by laying out broad, noble principles of fair representation and gender equity that are meant to govern the delegate selection process - and then crashes into a "notwithstanding" clause that explicitly allows for these principles to be undermined in order to create room for the superdelegates to exist.
This exceptional clause is needed because the superdelegates - a mix of Democratic elected officials and party insiders who are given the same power as delegates ex officio - don't look very much like the voter base of the party that bestows upon them so much authority: The superdelegates skew far older, far more male, and whiter than the party's rank-and-file supporters or recent pledged-delegate cohorts.
And there's no rule that prevents the superdelegates from voting against - or even overturning - the will of the party's voters.
Even so, the superdelegates have essentially as much weight as do the pledged delegates from the District of Columbia, four territories, and 24 states combined.
It's for these reasons and others that more than a dozen state Democratic parties and various prominent elected officials - and even superdelegates themselves, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) - have called for reform in recent months. It's why a 2009 commission impaneled by the Democratic National Committee, and cochaired by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) and Rep. Jim Clyburn (D., S.C.), proposed significant reforms to the superdelegate system, which were supported by then-DNC Chairman Tim Kaine.
Yet those changes were never implemented.
Sanders and his supporters often decried what they perceived as a "rigged" political system. To be clear, Clinton won this year's election fair and square by getting the substantial majority of the support of the party's electorate: The superdelegates did not tip the balance - the voters did.
But structures like the superdelegates create the appearance - and the factual possibility - that in future years, our party's nominees for the land's highest offices could be decided by insiders and not by the voting public. Democrats should not have a system that is ever capable of being rigged or could even be perceived to be so.
Our new party platform's preamble - which passed unanimously in Orlando last week - reads, "Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls." That's absolutely right.
The party should put these precepts into practice by agreeing that Sanders supporters and others (like us) who support ending superdelegates are right.
We should cooperate to fix this system once and for all - and doing so will serve to unify our party and empower voters to choose future presidential nominees without worrying that their will might ever be overturned.
Friends – at this year’s Democratic Convention take a break from the parties and the schmoozing and come feed your brain for a bit! Join NDN on Tuesday, July 26th for a few hours of talks about the future of America and American politics with some of the smartest and most innovative people we know. These “TED” like talks will last 10-12 minutes or so, with time afterwards for questions.
Our event will take place from 10:30 am to 2:30 pm on July 26th in Room 204 C, 200 Level Concourse at the Pennsylvania Convention Center. The doors open for our Looking Ahead forum at 10:15 am Please enter at the Market Street/Marriott entrance. A limited number of lunches will be served from noon to 1:00 pm. Sign up today – we expect this exciting event to sell out quickly. Look forward to seeing you in Philadelphia!
1040am - Rep. Ben Ray Luján, Chair, DCCC, "Taking Back the Majority"
11am - Scott Goodstein, CEO, Revolution Messaging, "From Barack to Bernie: Changing the Digital Playbook"
1240pm - Jose Antonio Vargas, Founder, Define American - "The Future of Immigration and How We Define American"
1pm - Joelle Gamble, National Director, Roosevelt Network - "When Millennials Rule the World"
120pm - Ricardo Rosselló, "Puerto Rico: The Unfinished Business of American Democracy"
NDN President Simon Rosenberg will host and moderate the forum. He will be joined by Karen Kornbluh, former Ambassador to the OECD and Policy Director to then Senator Obama, as a co-host. The final schedule will be released on Friday, July 22nd - so be sure to check back then!
The NDN team is looking for a few volunteers or young staff to work at our two events at the Convention on Tuesday July 26th. If you know folks who are interested they should contact Chris Murphy at NDN at firstname.lastname@example.org by COB Wednesday, July 20th. The gigs will be 2-3 hours long and be mostly check in at our public and private events. Please feel free to send this on to people who might be interested.