Immigration-Reform Advocates Don’t Know What to Do Next

After failing to goad Republicans into action, they don’t know what to do next.

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 28: People march and rally in front of the White House to demonstrate against President Barack Obama's immigration and deportation actions April 28, 2014 in Washington, DC. Chanting, 'With the stroke of a pen you can stop deportations, we demand you take action now!' 12 protesters were arrested by U.S. Park Police after refusing orders to move away from the north side of the White House during the rally, which was organized by th National Peoples Action, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, the White House Hunger Strike for Not1More and Sunflower Community Action. (Photo by)
Getty Images
Fawn Johnson
See more stories about...
Fawn Johnson
May 5, 2014, 1 a.m.

Im­mig­ra­tion re­form was once a real thing on Cap­it­ol Hill. Law­makers huddled in secret; polit­ic­al risks were cal­cu­lated and taken; tent­at­ive deals were struck. But now, des­pite some sug­ges­tions from Sen. Chuck Schu­mer about a lame-duck le­gis­lat­ive fix, there’s really no chance of an over­haul of the dread­ful U.S. im­mig­ra­tion sys­tem. The groups lob­by­ing for re­form have failed to gain trac­tion with their strategy of sham­ing Re­pub­lic­ans in­to ac­tion, leav­ing ad­voc­ates con­fused and con­flic­ted about where to go next.

In­deed, many say that at this point, they don’t even know what they’re fight­ing for. Very few will say it on the re­cord, but Arnoldo Torres will. “I don’t know what all of this is about any­more,” says the former ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the League of United Lat­in Amer­ic­an Cit­izens who played a ma­jor role in the 1986 im­mig­ra­tion law that offered am­nesty to 3 mil­lion un­au­thor­ized im­mig­rants. “I don’t think our side knows what it wants to do any­more.”

Ask the ques­tion, and you’ll un­der­stand what Torres means. Some re­form ad­voc­ates talk about push­ing for piece­meal le­gis­lat­ive fixes — a series of bills that would ad­dress cit­izen­ship for un­doc­u­mented youth, leg­al­iz­a­tion for oth­er un­au­thor­ized im­mig­rants, and more visas for high-skilled for­eign­ers, for ex­ample. Oth­ers, es­pe­cially those based out­side of Wash­ing­ton, think the most ef­fect­ive move is to pres­sure the White House for an ex­ec­ut­ive or­der that would provide im­me­di­ate de­port­a­tion re­lief to a big­ger pool of un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants than the “Dream­ers” who were brought in­to the coun­try il­leg­ally as chil­dren.

Count Ar­turo Car­mona, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the left-lean­ing Presente.org, among the lat­ter group. He has giv­en up on a new law and is now fo­cus­ing solely on Pres­id­ent Obama. Car­mona says many re­form ad­voc­ates have be­come tain­ted by an in­side-Wash­ing­ton thought pro­cess that feeds the fruit­less hope that dy­nam­ics in Con­gress will sud­denly shift.

Presente.org and oth­er sup­port­ers of ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tion bet that if Obama ex­pands his de­ferred-de­port­a­tion pro­gram to a broad­er pop­u­la­tion, Re­pub­lic­ans won’t dare stand in the way. They see this strategy as a bold, in-your-face idea, but it’s not one that all ad­voc­ates back.

Those who still want to curry fa­vor with pro-im­mig­ra­tion Re­pub­lic­ans say Obama shouldn’t in­ten­tion­ally ir­rit­ate the GOP with yet an­oth­er con­tro­ver­sial ad­min­is­trat­ive ac­tion. And still oth­ers who are eager to keep the White House listen­ing to them say that pres­sur­ing Obama to act on his own is akin to foul­ing one’s own nest, when the pres­id­ent’s op­pon­ents in Con­gress are in fact the ones at fault.

Most im­mig­ra­tion-re­form groups are some­where in the middle, in ef­fect ac­know­ledging that noth­ing they do will res­ult in either a big im­mig­ra­tion bill this year or dra­mat­ic ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tion. What’s most likely to hap­pen is that Obama will of­fer some type of de­port­a­tion fix at the end of the sum­mer, but not enough of one to be called massive re­lief for the people here il­leg­ally. That would leave those in the ad­vocacy com­munity in more or less the same place they are now, un­sat­is­fied and won­der­ing what to ask for next. 

“We’re fully fo­cused on pres­sur­ing Obama to ex­pand de­ferred ac­tion, but we don’t ex­pect it to be very much,” con­cedes Mario Car­rillo, spokes­man for United We Dream, an or­gan­iz­a­tion of im­mig­rant youth seek­ing ad­min­is­trat­ive ac­tion. “When that hap­pens, we’ll make sure our views are heard that it will not be enough.”

For the next Con­gress, the ad­vocacy strategy, such as it is, will de­pend al­most en­tirely on the res­ults of the midterms. If Latino voters can show they can swing at least a few elec­tions, as they did in 2014, they will have made a power­ful state­ment to any politi­cian seek­ing the White House: Be will­ing to fix im­mig­ra­tion, or we walk. That mes­sage will res­on­ate the most with GOP pres­id­en­tial can­did­ates, who will need His­pan­ic sup­port if they ex­pect to win a gen­er­al elec­tion. But it couldn’t hurt to pres­sure the Demo­crat­ic can­did­ates, either.

The prob­lems with re­ly­ing on the midterms are two­fold, as ad­voc­ates read­ily ad­mit. First, get­ting Latino voters to the polls this Novem­ber will not be as easy as it was in the last pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. Second, even if Latino voters make waves in 2014, they prob­ably will not hand law­makers a road map to fol­low. 

The lack of a clear and uni­fied ap­proach weak­ens the re­form move­ment. In­di­vidu­al play­ers will prob­ably struggle for a while as the over­all game plan shifts from what was solely a le­gis­lat­ive strategy to one that is, by ne­ces­sity, a mul­ti­pronged cam­paign to lever­age pres­sure from the White House to Con­gress and back. It makes for high-stakes man­euv­er­ing that no one en­tirely un­der­stands or can con­trol. The only real cer­tainty is that the is­sue won’t go away.

In the mean­time, those who want im­mig­ra­tion re­form con­tin­ue their protests, something Torres dis­dains. Protests com­mu­nic­ate just one thing, he says: “An­ger, an­ger, an­ger, an­ger.” An­ger, he adds, is not a policy solu­tion.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×