Barack Obama

It was a busy week for NDN in the media. First off, Simon was the lead quote in a big USA Today piece on the release of their new opinion polling, which found broad public support for spending to help people but very little for spending to rescue financial institutions. From the article:

"Look, the American people are pleased with the direction Barack Obama is taking, but there are still parts of the economic recovery plan that people are not sure about," says Simon Rosenberg of NDN, a Democratic-leaning think tank. "He has to make it very clear that his focus is on the struggle of everyday people, and not on those with means."

The poll also generated coverage in AHN and Presna Latina.

Simon's analysis of President Obama's speech was also featured in the Washington Times:

The speech was a critical moment in Mr. Obama's "evolution" from candidate to president, said Simon Rosenberg of liberal think tank NDN.

Mr. Rosenberg, who worked in the Clinton White House, said before the speech that the night was an opportunity for Mr. Obama to detail point by point how he will lead them during a time of crisis.

"The American people are willing to give him time, but he needs to make sure they walk away with a clear sense of what he wants to do for them and that they think that it's actually possible for him to pull it off," Mr. Rosenberg said.

My favorite of the many inane / insane comments about this article from the Washington Times site, by "Woody":

"Still a man in an empty suit."

(Think about it)

Rob was featured in the Associated Press, the Huffington Post, and the Wall Street Journal talking about Obama's budget proposal. From the Associated Press piece by Tom Raum:

Is it possible that the White House will be right and the economy will recover along the time line projected in Obama's budget?

"Yes, it's possible. Do I think it's probable? No I don't. But I don't think anybody's forecast is probable," said Rob Shapiro, head of the globalization program at NDN, a Democratic think tank, and chairman of Sonecon, an economic-consulting firm.

"No one has called this cycle correctly," Shapiro said. "Because it is so unlike any other downturn, economists are legitimately more uncertain about what its course will be."

And from the Huffington Post piece by Sam Stein:

The president's plan would raise the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 20 percent from the 15 percent levels imposed by the Bush administration. In a climate in which few people are actually making capital gains earnings, raising the rate, economists say, shouldn't dry up market activity much, if any. On the flip side, the Obama budget team projects that it could help decrease the deficit by more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2010, $5.4 billion in 2011, $12.2 billion in 2014 and $19.9 billion in 2019.

"This increase will not just have no severe effect on the economy but have almost no effect except higher revenues," said Robert Shapiro, the deputy commerce secretary under Bill Clinton and an occasional adviser to president's economic staff. "It is basically a freebie. So why not do it?"

Rob also discussed the stimulus on the Fox News Channel:

NDN fellow Morley Winograd was quoted in the Los Angeles Times on how the recession is affecting Millennials:

But 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."

Finally, Michael Moynihan was quoted about the stimulus in the Charlotte Observer.

One week after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, it is clear that his election and ascension to the presidency have moved America from one political era to another. Realignments like these occur about every four decades with the coming of age of a new, large, dynamic generation of young Americans whose political participation is enabled by a new communication technology. The most recent makeover stemmed from the emergence of the "civic" Millennial Generation (born between 1982 to 2003) and their use of social networks. Civic generations, like the Millennials and the GI Generation before it, are group-oriented, cooperative, and pragmatic. Their behavior stands in stark contrast to the individualistic and ideological Baby Boomers, who dominated American politics for the previous 40 years.

Makeovers or realignments change almost everything about U.S. politics -- election results, public policy, and presidential behavior. Apparently not everyone has noticed this change.

Perhaps the sharpest criticism of the Obama transition came from an unexpected quarter -- "progressive activists" and some of their congressional allies. These disappointed critics thought Obama’s cabinet and corps of advisors contained too many Clinton era pragmatists and too few minorities in high positions. Author and New York Times Magazine writer Matt Bai captured the obsolete nature of their complaint perfectly:

"That sound you hear is the last wheezing gasp of boomer-age politics, the cataloging of individuals according to their areas of oppression the endless process of tallying cultural differences rather than aggregating common objectives. It is a political philosophy that probably made sense 30 years ago but that seems sort of baffling at the dawn of the Obama era."

Bai compared those who criticized Obama to liberals of the early 1960s, such as Norman Mailer, who expected John F. Kennedy, as America's first Catholic president, to act like a political "outsider." But even though he is America's first African-American president, Barack Obama is no more an outsider than was JFK. Just like Kennedy, Obama's transition decisions were thoroughly consistent with the civic era we have now entered. And Obama’s behavior during the transition provides clear indicators of how the President will govern and the nation will respond in this civic Millennial era.

Here are just a few of the things to expect:

• Limited or no use of ideological labels. Unlike his predecessor who consistently described himself as a "compassionate conservative" or Democrats who spent much of the past four decades seeking a label for themselves that would replace the discredited "liberal," Barack Obama never labels himself ideologically or even uses terms such as conservative, moderate, or liberal. As the President said in his inaugural Address, "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics."

• Avoiding moral absolutes as the primary standard by which to structure and evaluate policy. In his farewell address to the nation, George W. Bush said, "America must maintain our moral clarity. I have often spoken to you about good and evil . . .. Good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise." In fairness, Bush was referring to global terrorism in his remarks, but the moralistic tone that characterizes idealist eras typified the approach of his Administration in almost all policy areas, especially social issues. President Obama signaled a far different and more pragmatic tone in his inaugural address "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works."

• Working across partisan and institutional lines to get things done in the common interest. Obama’s successful campaign put an end to Karl Rove’s "play to the base" strategy that Democrats also attempted at great cost in many of their recent presidential campaigns. Unlike candidates in the idealist era that just ended, Obama ran a truly national campaign and competed in formerly rock-ribbed Republican states. He was rewarded with victories in nine 2004 red states. The same approach continued during the transition with Obama actively courting die-hard Republican Senators like Oklahoma's Tom Coburn over the release of the second half of the TARP funds and the thought leadership of the conservative movement over dinner at George Will’s house the Thursday night before the inaugural. The end result was bipartisan support for Obama's first legislative initiative with six Republicans, some very conservative, voting with Obama, offsetting the eight Democrats, some very liberal, who voted against the President-elect. It was an outcome reminiscent of the bipartisan votes of the 1950s and something that will continue to occur in this civic era.

• The end of identity politics. Even as Obama appointed the most demographically diverse Cabinet and set of personal advisors of any American President, the Obama team avoided the identity politics trap into which Boomer President Clinton had often fallen. Any mention of ethnicity or lifestyle differences was made from the perspective of unity and what all Americans have in common. As Obama said in his inaugural address: "We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness . . . We are shaped by every language and culture drawn from every end of this Earth…we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself."

• A new emphasis on personal and societal responsibility, service, and sacrifice. The ideas that individuals have the responsibility to behave properly to serve their community and nation and to sacrifice for the common good are all key civic era values. President Obama emphasized these values at many points during the transition, personally demonstrating his commitment to making Martin Luther King, Jr., Day a National Day of Service when he and his wife, Michelle, participated in DC area community renovation activities on the day before his inauguration. He returned to these themes throughout his inaugural address: "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility--a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship."

Last November marked the electoral realignment of the United States from an idealist to a civic era. It changed voting patterns and party coalitions for at least the next four decades. But that was only the beginning of the change that has come to America. With the inauguration of Barack Obama as the first president of the new civic era, the rules that guide the behavior of our leaders and eventually all Americans have changed as completely and substantially as have our politics. The nation is fortunate to have as its new leader a President prepared to teach by example how to live by these new rules for a new era.

Below you'll find a summary of our articles related to immigration this week.   

Immigration Remains Top Priority For Hispanics, Evidence of Bipartisan Support for Reform on Al Punto yesterday.

Why DHS Fees are So Unjust - GAO Study Finds DHS Did Not Adhere to Federal Accounting Standards and Principles.

Simon Discusses How the Meaning of Race in America is Changing

NDN and Twelve-hundred other groups delivered a letter to the Obama Administration outlining priorities in order to fix the broken immigration system - The letter stresses the urgency with which the new Administration should approach immigration reform legislatively and administratively, noting that efforts to address the many ills facing our immigration system have become the victim of gridlock in Washington for too long.

Hispanics and Immigration Reform Must be a Part of the Economic Agenda - A recent study on minorities and the economic crisis shows: 1) Hispanics are currently suffering a percent of unemployment much higher than that of their white counterparts, 9.2% in January, up from 8.9% unemployment in December 2008.  2) Even during a period of employment gains enjoyed by Hispanics from 2001-2007, poverty increased among Hispanics over the same period, which only highlights the low wages at which Hispanics tend to work. 3) Personal and family income has steadily declined for Hispanics.  4) Large disparities in health insurance coverage also persist.  In 2007, 32.1% of Hispanics lacked health insurance coverage, compared to 10.4% of whites.  5) Additionally, Hispanic home ownership rate was only 49.7% for Hispanics in 2007, compared to 75.2% for whites. 

NDN Participates in Pre-inaugural Day Events - Simon and Andres addressed approximately 100 Latino organizers, community leaders, and individuals interested in increasing the civic participation of Latinos from approximately 20 different states.  Subsequently, Simon spoke at the "Latino State of the Union" conference, where he highlighted the importance of immigration reform as an essential part of any plan for economic recovery, "As long as the trap door of undocumented immigration remains, with 5% of the American workforce outside of the protection of U.S. law and U.S. minimum wage, we will not be able to achieve economic recovery." 

NDN Praises U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller for offering amendment to help legal immigrant children. 

A Race to the Bottom, A Broken Immigration System Has a Social and Economic Cost, too - According to a report just released by the Migration Policy institute, although the U.S. economy's nosedive has probably contributed to a drop in the number of undocumented immigrants coming into the United States, those already here will be less inclined to return home due to the manifestation of the economic crisis in the U.S. and abroad.

Victory for Nashville - It's always good to hear good news on the immigration front - Props to all those Nashville, TN voters and organizers who voted down an "English-only" amendment. 

Yesterday, Al Punto, the Sunday morning political show on Univision - the network with the largest Hispanic viewership in the U.S. - featured the issue of immigration once again, as it does each week in one way or another.  Immigration features prominently on the Spanish-language newscast each evening, and during Al Punto's interviews every Sunday because it is an issue that remains a top concern for Latinos, and to Americans in general.  

Yesterday's show highlighted the bipartisan support that can be drawn on the issue of immigration.  The first segment consisted of an interview with U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez and U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to discuss their opinion of President Barack Obama's agenda coming into office.  Rep. Sanchez quickly named immigration reform as one of the top three issues she believes President Obama should move on first (along with the economy and the war in Iraq).  She mentioned that she has already spoken with White House staff to discuss how to move on immigration this year, and reiterated her belief that immigration reform is imperative in order to help the economy and secure our borders.  For her part, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen was more skeptical about reform passing this year, although she recognized that President Obama is in a great position to launch reform because "the American people are on his side" - polling data has consistently shown that the American people want a solution to the broken immigration system - and that the popularity enjoyed by President Obama would certainly help efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform.  It's noteworthy that Rep. Ros-Lehtinen stated that while she might not agree on many issues with President Obama, she is on his side when it comes to immigration reform and would work with Rep. Sanchez and others in order to pass comprehensive immigration reform. 

The show's third segment consisted of an interview with U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Harry Reid.  Jorge Ramos began the interview by asking, "Barack Obama promised the Latino community that he would move comprehensive immigration reform within his first year, is there the political will to do this in the first year?"  The questions denote the sense of urgency for reform felt among Latinos.  Reid pointed out that in addition to addressing interior and exterior enforcement, future flow, path to citizenship, etc., any bill for comprehensive (CIR) would also include the Dream Act.  This is great news, but Jorge Ramos pressed on, "As you know, this is very important for the Hispanic community; when will CIR pass?"  Sen. Reid answered, "I hope that we can get it done in September, and I feel confident that we can get this done.  I've spoken with John McCain," and "Sen. McCain has reiterated his commitment to providing Republican support," for the legislation.  It's interesting that Sen. Reid noted, "Now we're 59 Democrats, and we need 60 votes," alluding to the new political landscape in the Senate, a landscape that requires less Republican votes for the bill than was required when legislation for immigration reform was presented in 2007.  Now if we can only make sure all Democrats share the President's view and the Democratic platform for immigration reform.....Ramos ended the interview by thanking Sen. Reid and reiterating, "And we'll be checking in with you on the progress of immigration reform." 

I thought Tom Friedman did a very good job this morning at capturing the moment.  An excerpt from his column, Radical In The White House: 

George W. Bush completely squandered his post-9/11 moment to summon the country to a dramatic new rebuilding at home. This has left us in some very deep holes. These holes - and the broad awareness that we are at the bottom of them - is what makes this a radical moment, calling for radical departures from business as usual, led by Washington.

That is why this voter is hoping Obama will swing for the fences. But he also has to remember to run the bases. George Bush swung for some fences, but he often failed at the most basic element of leadership - competent management and follow-through.

President Obama will have to decide just how many fences he can swing for at one time: grand bargains on entitlement and immigration reform? A national health care system? A new clean-energy infrastructure? The nationalization and repair of our banking system? Will it be all or one? Some now and some later? It is too soon to say.

But I do know this: while a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, so too is a great politician, with a natural gift for oratory, a rare knack for bringing people together, and a nation, particularly its youth, ready to be summoned and to serve.

So, in sum, while it is impossible to exaggerate what a radical departure it is from our past that we have inaugurated a black man as president, it is equally impossible to exaggerate how much our future depends on a radical departure from our present. As Obama himself declared from the Capitol steps: "Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed."

We need to get back to work on our country and our planet in wholly new ways. The hour is late, the project couldn't be harder, the stakes couldn't be higher, the payoff couldn't be greater.

If you have other columns, post or essays you've found you think we should post and promote on the our blog here please send them to Sam DuPont at sdupont@ndn.org.  More soon....

Ulan Bator, Mongolia -- I'd rather be spending this week in Washington, celebrating with friends and my country the politically and spiritually invigorating elevation of Barack Obama to our presidency. These feelings lie very close to the heart of patriotism, and they are an exquisite pleasure to feel again without reserve.

Instead, I find myself in one of the coldest places on earth, Mongolia's capital city of Ulan Bator, giving advice on the process of economic and social modernization. On the way, I stopped off in Beijing, where the extravagant new bones of that ancient city, from the Olympic Village to the new Ritz Carlton on Financial Street (no joke), have the signature taint of the very recent time when money was no object, prosperity seemed unending, and architectural glitz was the national emblem of conspicuous consumption. Here in Mongolia, a country perched atop huge mineral deposits, people are adjusting with difficulty to the end of ballooning commodity prices and an accompanying overconfidence that led to tax and regulatory changes for extracting as much as imaginable from the foreign mining companies developing the resources. Now that those prices have sunk, those changes could force the companies to pull up stakes from Mongolia and head for Africa's mineral deposits. So the global crisis leaves Mongolia wrestling with how to give up its most recent hopes for itself and settle for a slower route to modernization that will cost a lot more.

On this wondrous day of the inauguration of a serious, intelligent and deep-valued person -- all things relatively new for us and for the world to be looking to us again -- the question is how rude our own awakening will be. Like the Mongolians with their mineral deposits, President Obama has enormous resources. And much as the Mongolians could squander their assets by holding fast to a narrow-minded view that doesn't take into account new conditions, we could squander our own historic moment of extraordinary unity of purpose and faith in our new leader's capacities.

To avoid this trap, we all have to recognize not only the real nature of our deep and dangerous economic and geopolitical problems, but also the pitfalls in our own system that could divert our new leadership from the tasks history will ultimately remember them for.

President Obama's signature governing act in his first year will almost certainly be the paths he charts for the $350 billion bailout fund and the trillion dollar stimulus. The pitfall for both is politics-as-usual, while the path to meaningful, productive change will rest on transparency, accountability, and innovation. The change we need here is an end to giving the most well-connected financial institutions and interest groups whatever they ask for. The change we need for both the bailout and the stimulus are openness about who gets what and under what conditions; accountability that requires those who receive bounties from the taxpayers to actually use them for those taxpayers' benefit, by extending more credit and advancing a 21st century economy and society; and innovations that can address the underlying forces driving our problems, especially the rising foreclosure rates for the financial crisis and the stagnation of incomes that laid part of the foundation for the current Great Recession.

The other pitfall for our new president and the rest of us to begin to think about is the hangover that will hit us from the extraordinary steps we're being forced to take now. Several years of deficits topping $1 trillion, on top of what looks to be a doubling of our monetary base over just six to eight months, could ultimately produce the greatest underground, domestic inflationary pressures in more than a half-century. Moreover, they are likely to come to the surface a few years from now, just as our boomers' demands on government spending begin to add up exponentially. This could create an acute financing crisis for American government, on top of rising inflation, and the second economic crisis of the Obama presidency. Recalling John Kennedy, what we can do for our country is to be prepared to support serious entitlement reforms that will mean less for all of us and even, yes, new taxes on top of it.

But today, wherever we are, let's celebrate our own good judgment and good fortune in Barack Obama.

But the crowds on TV, the people, all braving the cold.  I am off to the swearing-in soon, am already overwhelmed by what I'm seeing on TV.   As Barack has been saying this new day is about him and his new team, but it is more about us, our country, our people standing up, our people putting things right (http://ndnblog.org/node/3431). 

More later.  Congratulations all. 

Here's a video I just recorded on the idea of how race is changing in America. Some additional links to related essays are below.

For more of NDN's analysis of race in American politics, please see:

The GOP and Magic Negros - 12/30/08

Virginia and the New Coalition - 11/30/08

The Long Road Back - 11/18/08

"The Tipping Point" - VIBE, 10/14/08

Race and 21st Century America - 3/18/08

On Obama, Race, and the End of the Southern Strategy - 1/4/08

The 50 Year Strategy - Mother Jones, 11/07

In an excellent article written shortly after the November 4 election by the Boston Globe's Peter Canellos, Simon was quoted:

Simon Rosenberg, president of the liberal think tank NDN, formerly the New Democrat Network, calls the Immigration Act of 1965 "the most important piece of legislation that no one's ever heard of," and said it "set America on a very different demographic course than the previous 300 years."

By adding so many Asians, Latinos, and African immigrants, Rosenberg says, the act changed the racial narrative in America from one of oppression - the white-black divide dating to slavery - to one of diversity. That change was strongly echoed in the Obama campaign, which emphasized the candidate's mixed-race background as making him representative of a new generation of Americans.

Some of the ideas touched on in Canellos' report, "Obama victory took root in Kennedy-inspired Immigration Act," surface again in an equally compelling piece by editor Jon Meacham in this week's special Inaugural edition of Newsweek:

The message seemed mixed. It was 3 o'clock on the afternoon of Sunday, Oct. 3, 1965, and President Lyndon B. Johnson had come to the foot of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor to sign the unsexily named Immigration and Nationality Act. It was a grand and sentimental stage for Johnson, who loved the grand and the sentimental. There he was, less than a year into a term he'd won in the greatest of landslides over Barry Goldwater, at the mythic gateway to America, Robert and Ted Kennedy in the audience, the eyes of the press fixed on him in the shadows of the nation's most fabled icon of freedom. "Our beautiful America was built by a nation of strangers," Johnson said, reaching for political poetry. "From a hundred different places or more they have poured forth into an empty land, joining and blending in one mighty and irresistible tide."

But the president was openly ambivalent, too. "The bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill," he said, defensively, almost as though to reassure white Americans that they had nothing to fear. "It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power."

To borrow an old line about Winston Churchill, when Lyndon Johnson was right, he was right, but when he was wrong, well, my God. (See, for example, War, Vietnam.) On reflection, the bill LBJ signed on that October day was one of the most significant of his momentous presidency, and the virtually forgotten legislation played a key role in creating the America that made this week's inauguration of Barack Obama possible.

<!--AD BEGIN-->

Why exhume the long-dead Johnson on the occasion of one of the most engaging inaugurals since George Washington took the oath at Federal Hall in New York City in 1789? Because who we are now—a country in which traditional barriers of race and age and gender are crumbling—flows in many ways from what LBJ did then. His conflicting language on that October day, meanwhile, underscores the nation's occasionally wary view of the changes wrought by immigration. We like to say we love the new, but the familiar, come to think of it, is awfully comfortable, too. So which will it be in the coming years: the America of the melting pot, or the America of resentments? The America of Lincoln's better angels, or the America of Nixon's Silent Majority?

The answer is almost certainly that we will be one or another of these Americas at different times depending on different circumstances. One reason to think that we might find ourselves with Lincoln more often than with Nixon, though, is that the "we" is getting ever trickier to define quickly and easily in terms of race, ethnicity and religion. We the People of 2009 are not the We the People of 1959 or 1969 or even 1979. And that is because of Lyndon Johnson.

There is something quintessentially American about a lumbering white man from Texas—a complex, gifted and ultimately tragic politician—transforming, however inadvertently, a largely Anglo-Saxon nation into a country which, in roughly the same amount of time that separates us from John F. Kennedy's inauguration, will have more people of color than whites. (The shorthand for this milestone, projected to take place in about 2050, is the arrival of a "majority-minority" country, but if the minorities are actually the majorities, we should probably find a cleaner linguistic way to talk about the coming reality.)

NDN has made compelling arguments about how the idea of what race is in America is dramatically changing. Whether it was the Immigration Act of 1965 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lyndon Johnson changed politics forever with legislation he signed into law. In the case of the Civil Rights Act, we are only now witnessing the end of the southern strategy that resulted.

Also in his Newsweek report, Meacham cites another group who made Obama's election possible: the Millennial Generation. NDN Fellows Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, & the Future of American Politics, have written extensively on Millennials and are recognized as two of the nation's foremost experts on this massive -- in size and impact -- generation.

Writes Meacham:

By and large, the younger you are, the more assimilated you are in this new tapestry of daily life. The key cohort is the 75 million-strong generation known as the millennials (those born roughly between 1980 and 2000). To state the obvious, the experiences of the younger generation—now voting and beginning their adult lives—are not the experiences of their parents or of their grandparents. Vietnam seems as distant as Saratoga; Roe v. Wade as far off as Dred Scott. That much is self-evident, and perennial. (Every generation is shaped by unique forces; that is part of what makes them a generation, aside from the accident of a birth date.) What was less than clear until the election of 2008 was whether the experience of younger Americans would produce a shift in political attitudes, and would such a shift be felt beyond Facebook and Starbucks? Could Obama count on them to show up?

The answer, according to Winograd and Hais? A resounding, "yes:"

The 2008 election not only marked the election of America's first African-American president, it also saw the strong and clear political emergence of a new, large and dynamic generation and the realignment of American politics for the next 40 years.

The first large wave of the Millennial Generation about one third of the young Americans born from 1982-2003, entered the electorate to decisively support President-elect Barack Obama. Young voters preferred Obama over John McCain by a greater than 2:1 margin (66% vs. 32%). This is well above the margin given by young voters to any presidential candidate for at least three decades, if not at any time in U.S. history. In 2004, young voters preferred John Kerry to George W. Bush by a far more narrow 10 percentage points (55% to 45%). Moreover, the support of young people for Obama crossed all ethnic lines: he won the votes of a majority of African-American (95%), Latino (76%), and white (54%) young people.

To read their full essay on this subject, click here.

I doubt that President Obama will mention LBJ during his Inaugural speech tomorrow. But the history is there: the 36th president started down a legislative road that led directly to the election of the 44th.

In Politics:
One reason why the economic recovery plan matters to  immigration reform -  There's been much written debate in major publications about whether the economic recovery plan is causing tension between Congress and the incoming Obama administration.  With Obama not even in office yet, a major concern of mine: if the alleged tension is true, I hope this doesn't cause major rifts that could damage discussions for an overhaul of the current - broken - immigration system.

Another Example of the Broken Immigration System - Even Tim Geithner's cleaning lady couldn't keep her status in check.  Again, we need to fix the current broken system that is so impossible to manage, which is why people fall out of status.  And as for Mr. Geithner's appointment - this guy is going to have to help solve the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression...this whole cleaning lady controversy - let's keep our eye on the ball, people.

Debate in Congress this week - The House is set to vote on legislation to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) this week, and the Senate Finance Committee will also take up companion legislation.  This bill includes provisions that would eliminate the existing five year waiting period LEGAL immigrant children must endure before qualifying for coverage.  We agree this requirement only threatens the well-being of already eligible children, but this debate has equally important political implications.  I know many thought SCHIP could serve as a "mini victory" before going for the "big enchilada," comprehensive immigration reform, but I disagree.  Time and time again, this Congress will try to take action on major domestic policy issues, and time and time again the issue of how these programs deal with the undocumented will come up (even though this bill deals only with legal immigrants), so the best way for Democrats to tackle this challenge is to clear the table - fix the root of the debate, a broken immigration system, and then we can actually make progress on the rest.  Most of the constituency that both Dems and Reps now admit they need to win elections - Latinos and immigrant communities - are unfortunately not monitoring the SCHIP debate, they want to be able to stop having to walk around with their passports in hand for fear of being stopped for no reason other than their appearance.  That is the reality we live in.  This tone will change to a great extent if Democrats seize the opportunity CIR affords them.

Everyone expects Republicans to try to bring up the old anti-immigrant mongering, but right now the Hill is actually buzzing due to Democrats that oppose eliminating this waiting period.  By going for SCHIP first, if it fails, Democrats have put themselves in a position that makes them seem divided (see Sen. Baucus), opened the door for more immigrant hate-mongering, they have taken up their time "preempting" potential Republican attacks on the bill instead of leading the debate and dictating a new agenda, and lost political capital and energy that is going to be needed if CIR legislation is introduced.  And if the bill passes, they have still invested political capital that will be needed for CIR, and if Republicans actually "get it" and shift their tone to an immigrant-friendly one, then that opens the door for Republicans to start making their way back among Latinos and immigrants - while certain Dems oppose this bill.  Until CIR passes, there will continue to be bickering over immigrants and "illegals" on every single policy issue that hits the floor.  And even if SCHIP passes, state and local governments are still left with the unfunded mandate of having to act as immigration agents, which will not stop until we have fixed our broken immigration system.  

It's the economy stupid - The San Antonio Express had a piece by Hernan Rozemberg this week on why immigration reform is on the "back burner."  The article accurately posits that anti-immigrant forces will argue that, "hard economic times" will impede making reform politically feasible.  We argue that the broken immigration system exacerbates economic problems because - as stated by Rep. Hilda Solis - it affects all workers, not just immigrants.

The economic crisis will not be solved in two months, or in one year.  And in one year, when legislators have to go back to their districts to campaign - what are they going to campaign on exactly? What major achievement? It's not likely that a tangible result like peace in the middle east, or a complete economic turnaround, or a major overhaul of the education system will be achieved in a year, but fixing the broken immigration system can happen in one year.  It is a major issue, recognized by the general public as a "problem" that needs fixing.  SHCIP, Equal Pay...these are all necessary and worthy achievements, but they are not recognized by voters as one of the top five major issues on their mind.

The piece also states, "Other leading national immigrant advocates said in the past week they'll wait patiently while Obama takes care of the economic mess, but they're not willing to let the crisis push the issue aside," which worries me.  Again, those of us for CIR should be advocating that immigration reform is one tool to begin to solve the major economic mess! This issue cannot wait until the economy turns around in two or five years.

Rozemberg adequately points out that the anti-immigrant voices will echo Roy Beck - a prominent member of the white supremacist hate network as reported by SPLC - shifting their focus away from the "illegal" argument (because they now see that Americans don't blame the immigrants), to "protecting American workers from competing for jobs with unauthorized immigrants."  And we have to preempt this strategy.  Our mistake in 2007 was responding to these PR stunts as opposed to anticipating them.  The truth is: 

- 12 million people are currently working outside the system - these people contribute to all our lives and the lives of all Americans will benefit from bringing them out of the shadows.
- The undocumented who are already here do not compete for American jobs, those who are employed work because they take jobs Americans will not fill, for wages Americans would not accept, outside of U.S. labor laws.  The economic crisis has also created many illegal immigrants - many have come into the country legally, and in hard economic times have lost their job or work less hours and thus cannot afford the ridiculous fees charged by USCIS to renew or change their status.  

- Whoever argues, "temporary worker programs or visa programs would only have more immigrants in the U.S. competing for U.S. jobs," completely misses the problem.  The reality is that: 1) visa programs are limited, but the current limits are unrealistic and do not meet business demands (hence 12 million undocumented).  Whether we take action to accept legal immigrants or not, they will come, let's accept that.  The question is: do we want them coming in legally, or illegally?  2) In hard economic times businesses might be particularly predisposed to hire workers who will work for less, and have no rights.  Let's work out a system that is amenable to American workers and helps meet labor demands in specific areas - the reason we have a broken system to begin with is that we are never forward looking, we've always tried to fashion a law that meets our "ideal" as opposed to meeting reality, which is why the 1986 and 1996 laws have not worked. 

Roy Beck said Obama would, "commit political suicide" if he tried to legalize millions of unauthorized workers with so many Americans out of work - that's also what everyone (including Democrats) said after he came out in favor of drivers licenses for the undocumented in the 2008 Primaries, remember? The bottom line is: the American people want Congress to solve problems.  And the broken immigration system is a problem. 

President-elect Obama met with President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon. Click here to see NDN's statement on yesterday's visit.  The statement released by Obama spokesman, Robert Gibbs:

"President-elect Obama underscored his commitment to working with Congress to fix the broken U.S. immigration system and fostering safe, legal and orderly migration.  He expressed his strongly held view that immigrants should be treated with dignity and that the immigration debate should not be a vehicle for vilifying any group, and that our two countries need to work more effectively to stop the flow of illegal immigration into the United States." 

Mexico Human Rights Comission Speaks Out Again - This time, the CNDH (initials in Spanish) spoke out against the border fence during a tour of the border, explaining that a fence does not deter immigration, and criticized Mukasey's recent decision to strip immigrants of any semblance of due process during immigration proceedings (see below). 

Still No Commerce Secretary - There are many rumors regarding potential appointees - I think the thought of Federico Pena as Secretary of Commerce sounds excellent.  Not only does Secretary Pena - member of NDN's Hispanic Advisory Board - enjoy a wealth of executive experience, he is a community and business leader, he's pragmatic, respected, and most importantly, he is an ally in the fight for immigration reform.  Secretary Pena has acted as advisor to Barack Obama on this issue, and has submitted four key points for immigration reform.

Immigration reform legislation affords opportunities - In 2008, Republicans lost 3 of the 5 seats in the Senate opened by retiring members. In 2010, Republicans must defend 16 incumbents and 3 open seats, while Democrats have to defend 15 incumbents and two open seats.  Passing comprehensive immigration reform in order to solve the very broken immigration system affords Democrats an enormous opportunity to demonstrate a solid achievement as they battle for these Senate seats in states that do not clearly favor either party.  The seats up for grabs:
Jeb does not go to Washington - Jeb Bush had been mentioned as a contender for the seat being vacated by retiring U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez, but this week he announced he is in fact not going to run for U.S. Senate in 2010.  One can only speculate as to Mr. Bush's reasons for not running, but I have the feeling a major factor is discontent with what the Republican brand currently stands for - or lack thereof.  In part it is a shame because he might have followed Sen. Martinez's moderate Republican voice in the Senate, and like Martinez, supported immigration reform.  Bush governed one of the states with the largest Latino populations in the country, and as husband to Columba Bush - an immigrant from Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico - is inclined to be more sympathetic to immigrants than most of his colleagues.  On the other hand, given the Democratic win in Florida during the 2008 Presidential, maybe this paves the way for Democrats to make new inroads into what used to be the Republican solid south.

Someone else who won't be seeking reelection - U.S. Sen. Kit Bond announced this week that he will not seek re-election in 2010.  The Republican party is also losing U.S. Sens. Mel Martinez (Florida) and Sam Brownback (Kansas).  These retirements provide Democrats - and those in favor of CIR - major openings (both Bond and Brownback acted as voices against immigrants and immigration reform). Missouri voters have been unpredictable in statewide elections lately. They handed Democrat Jay Nixon an easy victory last year in the governor's race, then backed Republican John McCain in the presidential election. Two years prior, Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, managed to win her seat by a slim margin.

Friends in high places - President-elect Obama officially introduced the new DNC Chair, Gov. Tim Kaine, last week - good news for pro CIR advocates.  A little known fact about Gov. Kaine, of Virginia, is that he began his career in public service outside of the U.S., as a missionary in Honduras.  He is still fluent in Spanish.  Virginia has suffered among the highest number of anti-immigrant policies and legislation at the state and local level, but Gov. Kaine has remained committed to respecting the rights and humanity of immigrants in Virginia, arguing for comprehensive immigration reform, and ending divisive and ineffective tactics in Virginia.

George is schizophrenic on immigration - Since early December, NDN reported on President Bush's recognition that not passing immigration reform was among his biggest disappointments.  He repeated the same idea yesterday during his final interview as President, adding that the GOP must be "compassionate and broad-minded," in order to return from its 2008 electoral defeat, and the President highlighted that the immigration debate was particularly harmful because those opposed to reform made it appear that, "Republicans don't like immigrants."  At the same time, he turns around and strips immigrants of their rights through the Attorney General's last major act in office:

GTMO for Immigrants - On Wednesday, Michael Mukasey ruled that aliens have no constitutional right to challenge the outcome of their deportation hearings based on their lawyers' mistakes.  This effectively scraps a 15-year old precedent set in a case referred to as the Matter of Lozada, which stated that while "aliens" have no 6th Amendment right to counsel, Lozada recognized their right to effective assistance under due process.  This is absolutely abominable, and we hope Eric Holder's first act in office is to reverse this ruling.  NDN and other major organizations will be interested in seeing whether Mr. Holder is asked about his position on this issue during confirmation hearings.

Immigration and Race:
Demography is Destiny (continued) - This week The Atlantic and Ron Brownstein talk about race.  Brownstein goes into detail on how Democrats' efforts to pursue the vote of minorities paid off in 2008:

"The biggest source of Hispanic population growth is not immigration, but from the children of recent immigrants. And, by definition, they are voting citizens once they turn 18."

The Atlantic has a very interesting piece, "The End of White America?" While I agree with the article's general premise that the future will belong to those who can navigate what we at NDN consider a new racial construct of America, I disagree that we live in a "post" racial America.  The Atlantic piece also weaves in the role of race in pop culture, is it "cool" to be white? Will other ethnic groups grow to be considered more "American" now?  The article explores how the role of race has changed as our demographics have changed - you no longer need to be "white" to be included, incorporated into society, to be able to run for office or to be a Hollywood star. An excerpt:

Whether you describe it as the dawning of a post-racial age or just the end of white America,  we're approaching a profound demographic tipping point....those groups currently categorized as racial minorities-blacks and Hispanics, East Asians and South Asians-will account for a majority of the U.S. population by the year 2042. Among Americans under the age of 18, this shift is projected to take place in 2023.......it's now very cool and in to have multicultural friends. Like you're not really considered hip or 'you've made it' if you're rolling with all the same people."

People should be recognized as individuals, not for their color or creed (and as Obama said, we're all muts anyway).  At the same time, we're not there yet. Just because we're in a new, very exciting, stage of the racial construct of America, does not mean that we are "post" racial. 

Hence the current case before the Supreme court trying to do away with the landmark Voting Rights Act is absolutely preposterous.  The act ended literacy tests and other state measures that had kept blacks from the polls, and now helps ensure that all minorities are ensured the right to vote.  Obama's election reflects an enormous advancement in race relations, but voting, particularly in the South, remains significantly polarized.  Exit polls from the Nov. 4 presidential election show whites in many Southern states heavily favored John McCain to Obama. In Texas, 73% of whites favored McCain, in Georgia, 76%, and in Alabama, 88%. Nationally, the percentage of whites for McCain was 55%.

The Wall Street Journal joins the White Supremacist groups who have changed their strategy from openly demonizing Hispanics to arguing that "population control" is needed and that overcrowding - largely caused by "immigrants" - is the reason we have a climate change problem.  Now the WSJ joins the chorus by blaming us (Hispanics) for the economic crisis, namely the Latino members of Congress, Joe Baca and the CHC. Deplorable.  

Muslims and Hispanics - Victims of racial profiling.  Thanks to the Bush fear mongering machine, we are "suspect" just by virtue of being in a room.  After an American family who happens to be of Muslim faith was detained last week due to overzealous passengers who thought they "posed a threat" because of "suspicious" remarks (yeah, I'm sure it was the remarks), DC Rep. Eleanor Holmes-Norton calls for a hearing to look into the way these people were treated when detained.

U.S. to collect immigrants' DNA - Beginning on Friday, the U.S. government will collect DNA samples from people arrested and detained for suspected immigration violations (which are not criminal, immigration violations are civil).  Key word: SUSPECTED, previously the government only obtained DNA from persons convicted of certain crimes.

Setting the Record Straight - Great, updated version of IPC's fact sheet on the myths of immigrants and criminality released this week. Keep it handy.

In case you missed it - The GAO released a report on USCIS’s processes for screening individuals applying for permanent residence, and found vulnerabilities that need to be addressed, like backlogs and improved collaboration with FBI in the case of FBI checks.