How the Democratic Party Lost Their Way on (Illegal) Immigration

[glenwo2]

Good more votes for republicans and the Great PresidentTrump.
Thank you libtards.

Let's have more of DC :

 

[Wingslaught]

The author is right that American politicians should be focused on assimilation, Americaness and unity as opposed to diversity and multiculturalism. Well-written piece.

 

[Arkain2K]

Is there any Democrats in the WR who disagreed with former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama on the subject of Illegal Immigration?

 

[Gunny]

The author is right that American politicians should be focused on assimilation, Americaness and unity as opposed to diversity and multiculturalism. Well-written piece.

You can’t form an electoral coalition of aggrieved identity groups based on assimilation. For that you need multiculturalism. I’m not suggesting that was a deliberate strategic goal. Rather, the mere potential for such an electoral coalition to exist formed a sort of political vacuum that had to be filled. Democrats just got sucked in.

 

[Arkain2K]

Long read but we'll worth the time.

Surprised there isn't more discussion on this among Dems as I think it's probably the best OP for discussion I have seen in the WR.

Understandable. It's considerably more difficult and requires actual intellect to discuss actual policies rather than, say, dog-whistling about Trump's latest tweets about his breakfast.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Long read but we'll worth the time.

Surprised there isn't more discussion on this among Dems as I think it's probably the best OP for discussion I have seen in the WR.

Meh. I commented on it (it's not a good piece, IMO), but no responses. Right-wingers here are really badly misinformed about what liberals think.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

If Bernie had Bill Clinton's attitude on immigration, I could potentially go all in on him. But these days, he sounds like a damn sellout when asked about it. It's all pandering to the base.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If Bernie had Bill Clinton's attitude on immigration, I could potentially go all in on him. But these days, he sounds like a damn sellout when asked about it. It's all pandering to the base.

What's the difference in their attitude on immigration?

 

[Ice That Jaw]

What's the difference in their attitude on immigration?

One panders and one didn't. Immigration is the 2nd biggest government fail, so all we can go on is attitude. Nothing will actually get done unless you elect a literal open border nut. Just youtube them both.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Meh. I commented on it (it's not a good piece, IMO), but no responses. Right-wingers here are really badly misinformed about what liberals think.

It's because every liberal here denies basic positions thst define the Dems' platform when it's convenient or potentially embarrassing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

One panders and one didn't. Immigration is the 2nd biggest government fail, so all we can go on is attitude. Nothing will actually get done unless you elect a literal open border nut. Just youtube them both.

OK. I really don't know what you're trying to say.

I don't think OP is a right winger (unless I'm wrong on that) and the writer is a self-proclaimed liberal so I don't think that would apply here since I don't really see them responding on it either. Though I think this would be the type of discussion the right should be at arms length with, or be reading Dems discussion amongst themselves. It's more for the center or left guys to discuss and OP like this.

That never happens here, though. Again, I think we just see a lot of really inaccurate views of what liberals think on this issue (obviously that isn't exclusive to this one).

Looking back I did see you posted previously though, and from what you wrote I understand if you didn't dive all the way in. I'm gonna re-read it again and try to share some insight the best I can between tonight and tomorrow and see if it pulls any traction. I agreed with some parts and disagree with others, but found it one of the best conversational pieces I've seen from an OP in a while. More along the types of threads I come here to discuss and learn. Refreshing change from "Trump is sued by CNN" and "is it legal to burn a rainbow flag" that's for sure.

I read the whole thing, and engaged it in my response. The biggest flaw (which he acknowledges but doesn't seem to understand the implications of) is that the facts on the ground have changed. Illegal immigration was, in fact, a big problem for about 20 years, and it hasn't been one in about 10 years. And studies that have come out in that period have changed the academic consensus on the economic impact (the big one that made a splash--the author of whom is quoted in the piece--was A) not replicated and B) found to contain material errors), and that, in turn, has changed the way liberals think on the issue (as it should be--this is where I think there's a disconnect between more pragmatic thinkers who tend to be liberals and more ideological ones who tend to lean hard right). Further, the composition of immigrants has changed, which again changes the calculation. But the writer assumes bad faith and a crude (and almost certainly inaccurate) political calculation has caused changes.

 

[Trotsky]

If Bernie had Bill Clinton's attitude on immigration, I could potentially go all in on him. But these days, he sounds like a damn sellout when asked about it. It's all pandering to the base.

One panders and one didn't. Immigration is the 2nd biggest government fail, so all we can go on is attitude. Nothing will actually get done unless you elect a literal open border nut. Just youtube them both.

So even if you agree with Sanders' other (much more important) policies and his stance on this issue is no different than previous Democrats who were palatable to you, you will vote against him based on mere "attitude" and rhetoric?

 

[Trotsky]

OK. I really don't know what you're trying to say.



That never happens here, though. Again, I think we just see a lot of really inaccurate views of what liberals think on this issue (obviously that isn't exclusive to this one).



I read the whole thing, and engaged it in my response. The biggest flaw (which he acknowledges but doesn't seem to understand the implications of) is that the facts on the ground have changed. Illegal immigration was, in fact, a big problem for about 20 years, and it hasn't been one in about 10 years. And studies that have come out in that period have changed the academic consensus on the economic impact (basically, the big one that made a splash--the author of whom is quoted in the piece--was A) not replicated and B) found to contain material errors), and that, in turn, has changed the way liberals think on the issue (as it should be--this is where I think there's a disconnect between more pragmatic thinkers who tend to be liberals and more ideological ones who tend to lean hard right). Further, the composition of immigrants has changed, which again changes the calculation. But the writer assumes bad faith and a crude (and almost certainly inaccurate) political calculation has caused changes.

This is a very good post.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So even if you agree with Sanders' other (much more important) policies and his stance on this issue is no different than previous Democrats who were palatable to you, you will vote against him based on mere "attitude" and rhetoric?

To a lot of people, "immigration" is the Most Important Issue facing the country, and while those people often despair of getting any results, they feel comforted if politicians are on their side. The thing is, though, those people aren't really gettable for the left because they aren't really concerned about immigration. It's code for something else.

There's a myth popular among some liberals that Trump's victory was *primarily* about the fact that he talked tough on immigration, and that therefore the path to political success for liberals is also to talk tough about immigration. My general view is that policy-based political arguments are almost always wrong and almost always attempts by the makers of them to sneak in an argument for their own policy preferences (that is, "the way for Party X to win elections is to adopt all my policy preferences"). In this specific case, it's more obviously wrong than usual since Trump lost the popular vote and almost certainly wouldn't have won the election (and would have lost the popular vote by a bigger margin) if not for Comey, despite 2016 being an inherently favorable year for Republicans. Meaning that he likely did much worse than a normal Republican would and that it is not wise to emulate him.

 

[Jack V Savage]

With that said, I do think that politics have played a strong position into the why the Dems (political party not people) have accepted immigration the way they have over the years which is part of what I'm looking into now. The Dems ended up on the right side of this one in a big way, but the "in good faith" part I'm not too sure about.

Overall the OP gave me some good research reading on prior political climates that I want to get a bit more info before I fully agree or challenge. I think it was the most compelling part and I have noticed the shift mentioned, with a bit less detail or explanation. I'll definitely enjoy getting more detail on these.

I think the "racial bloc voting" theory common mostly on the right but in some quarters on the left is both wrong and incredibly toxic (demographic doom scenarios drive increasing hatred and anti-democratic impulses, both of which undermine the fabric of America). I mean, obviously there are racial patterns to votes, but they aren't inevitable, and I think they are in large part due to the GOP's campaigning against them creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Following 2012, there was a sense among a lot of professional Republicans that, "OK, we're going to have to broaden our appeal," but then you had people like Bannon arguing that there was still more juice in white identity politics in presidential elections. It sort of worked (by the narrowest of margins and helped by luck), but the attempt probably did a lot of long-term damage to the party and to the country. Anyway, I agree that there's probably some coincidence between the interests of the party and good policy, but that's only in the short term. I'd bet anything that in my lifetime, we'll see an election where Republicans win the Hispanic vote (and before that happens, lots of white Hispanics will identify simply as white and vote like it--that's already happening).