Donald Trump Caves.
Today's news has Democrats tasting sweet victory. Watch out.
 |
| Click: "total humiliating defeat." |
Trump has agreed to stop pushing for a citizenship question on the 2020 census. Democratic politicians and the friendly media are feeling good. Trump lost, they say, and Attorney General Barr saying "Congratulations, Mr. President" doesn't make it a win.
Actually, it is a win for Trump.
The citizenship question has a First Glance problem for Democrats.
The question, "Which people in this household are citizens of the US?" does not, at first glance, seem like an improper question to most Americans. It is, after all, a census, and it asks who is there. "Who" would seem to require the simplest and most material facts of identity, a question no more intrusive than asking the names, dates of birth, occupations, years of education, and whether people are working full time or in school. It is certainly less intrusive than the sampled questions a portion of households get on how many toilets and bedrooms are in the house.
Democratic activists and legislators and people closely cued into the issue of census participation understand the chilling effect of the question, but Trump is on solid political ground. The question seems OK to ask, and especially so when Trump asserts it as obvious and reasonable, and when the conservative media does as well. He can sell. This is an easy sell.
Trump, briefly, made a mis-step, but Attorney General Barr rescued him. For a couple of days Trump suggested he might push ahead and use executive authority, saying citizenship was a matter of national security and he would ask the question, doing it by Executive Order. It positioned Trump as strong and decisive and firm on the issue. Trump was OK with that.
Most Republicans in Congress would no doubt go along--GOP voters would demand it--but that stance would create a new issue, whether or not Trump was lawless, positioning him against the courts. It would give Democrats the "rule of law" argument to add to the "obstruction of justice" argument. It would be a smoking gun in an impeachment trial, based on separation of powers.
 |
| Silly, but a strong message anyway |
Trump political base wants to rub Democrats' noses in his power, but not those of the Supreme Court. Trump wants them as a compliant 5-4 ally, not an enemy.
The Attorney General stood beside Trump in the Rose Garden and fixed it, openly denying Trump said he would do what he had just been saying he would do, and calls it fake news.
The Attorney General stood beside Trump in the Rose Garden and fixed it, openly denying Trump said he would do what he had just been saying he would do, and calls it fake news.
Now the issue is back on exactly Trump's politically strongest ground: citizenship.
Democrats are slow to wise up: Trump is winning on the immigration issue. This is a huge part of Trump's appeal. Make America Great Again is ethno-nationalism and it is on the rise worldwide. Populist movements are fueled by the anxiety over immigration from places that seem "other" i.e. people from new ethnicities, religions, and cultures that seem strange, and therefore dangerous. Democrats minimize at their peril the anxiety many people feel.
Democrats think they are winning by fault finding on particulars. Family separation and kids in cages and photos of the dead father and child create sympathy. These are minor point victories. They actually empower Trump. They show that Trump is acting decisively, risking making enemies, risking being seen as cruel while he attends to the big thing: protecting American borders and recognizing American citizenship.
Democrats appear to be nitpicking over how. Trump deals with what, protecting America against losing our culture and identity to foreign invasion.
 |
| Click: Democrats answer the question |
Democrats are calling illegal immigration "an opportunity" (O'Rourke); "not much of a problem" (Hickenlooper,;"a strength" (Gillibrand), "pass comprehensive immigration reform" (Harris); "not the kind of problem Donald Trump makes it out to be" (Sanders); the problem "starts down in Central America" (Warren) and so on. Click the link for more.
They don't draw a firm line.
They don't draw a firm line.
Democrats can fix this. The successful Democratic candidate will articulate an actual policy of who is in and who is out. It can and will appear more compassionate than Trump's policy. Trump said we have too many immigrants and that they are invaders. Democrats have room to say that, no, we need more immigrants and they are a net good.
But they have to draw a line somewhere, and defend it as good and reasonable, and not apologize for it. They are showing that they are rule-of-law Democrats, not scofflaw Democrats.
But they have to draw a line somewhere, and defend it as good and reasonable, and not apologize for it. They are showing that they are rule-of-law Democrats, not scofflaw Democrats.
Democrats need to articulate an actual plan, not just a goal. "Comprehensive immigration reform" is a goal. You cannot beat something with vagueness.
2 comments:
Plan, schwam...the Plan is money, and lots of it.
Housing, courts, case workers, medical, education, transportation, employment...
Who pays?
We all do, for electing leaders who turned a blind eye to this for decades, for accepting artificially low prices for goods produced by exploited labor, and for thinking fomenting discord in our hemisphere wouldn't bite back.
So far no candidate, even our in house revolutionary, Bernie, won't tell it like it is.
Pay up, America.
Here's a thought: How about the "path to citizenship" being a job?
There are legal paths of entry into the US. There is such a thing as legal immigration - there's a process with many legal entry points. Current legal residents of the US are citizens, green card holders, accepted refugees, and visa holders with short and long term entry privileges.
There's even a legal process for those seeking asylum or refugee status who apply at embassies.
We have a loophole being exploited, those who enter by crossing the border between different official border crossings. Those apprehended at those crossings have been coached what to say, and must be provided with due process.
Who much should we provide for that latter group, and how much are we willing to pay to provide those humanitarian services until their due process has been followed.
The parties don't seem to want to resolve this, even though our ability to provide those services are being overwhelmed.
Grandstanding is the order of the day, and Congress controls the funding, the quotas for visas, green cards, and entry permits.
At the debate last week, there was near unanimity when candidates were asked whether illegal immigrants should be provided with shelter and healthcare. No one knows how much that would cost. Yes we could count then, but how many are already here? Evidently certain people don't want to make that effort to count them.
The international convention that asylum seekers apply at the first frontier of entry has the responsibility to take care of those people. Pressure was applied to Mexico, and they're starting to take responsibility.
I have no problem with legal immigration, and I suspectmost other Americans would agree.
As Peter proposed previously a few days ago, no one likes line cutters, especially when we can't even take care of the poor, the homeless, and the middle class families who are already rightfully here.
So to those candidates trying to defeat Trump, they had better start paying attention to those who are citizens, and those with legal presence here.
And there is room for a compromise to grant legal residency to the many unlawfully here, but there doesn't appear to be much desire to float those solutions.
Post a Comment