June 27, 2006

Judicial Candidate LTE on Immigration

Randall Kallinen is a candidate for Judge, Criminal District Court District 185 on the Democratic ballot.

Houston Chronicle

Sunday, June 25, 2006
Cooperation of immigrants

Once again, anti-immigrant zealots led by grandstanding politicians are seeking to harm the citizens of Houston with their short-sighted actions.

Let's get two things straight right off the bat — being an undocumented worker in this country is a federal civil violation — not a crime — and many foreign nationals are deported everyday from Houston who have committed crimes. Houston is not a "sanctuary" city.

Houston police depend on the cooperation of undocumented workers to solve crimes against any resident of Houston. Let's simplify things.

Suppose a resident of any Houston neighborhood is carjacked and the only witnesses are the undocumented construction workers building a house nearby. If the workers are in danger of being sent back to their country of origin at great expense and inconvenience, they will likely take an understandable "I saw nothing" attitude. Regardless of who you are, it is in every law-abiding citizen's interest to increase witness cooperation with police anti-crime efforts. Fear and mistrust of police will counteract the good relations the police have built with the immigrant communities in order to solve crimes.

Immigration laws are complex, and the Houston Police Department should not be burdened with the great time and expense of enforcing immigration laws that take away from solving serious crimes. Both Police Chief Hurtt and the police unions agree on these matters. Already many immigrants are likely wondering if they should report crime while the current debate rages.

Let's ask these anti-immigrant proponents if they want the local police enforcing federal civil rights laws, voting rights laws or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Many leading conservatives oppose local law enforcement of federal immigration laws because of the precedent that may be set for local law enforcement to enforce these other federal laws.

Keeping HPD's current policy on questioning about immigration status will protect the citizens of Houston while demonstrating compassion toward your fellow man. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

RANDALL L. KALLINEN president, Houston ACLU

Posted by Lyn Wall at 10:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 21, 2006

Bad Analogy of the Week

Congressman Charlie Norwood (R-GA) explains his rejection of amnesty programs to Tim Russert:

Where I come from is I want to do what the American people want us to do. They feel like that just a slap on the wrist for having broken is our law is simply not enough. What, what they’re talking about is like a bank robber who stole $100,000 dollars and we say to him, “If you’ll just turn yourself in, we’ll fine you $2,000 dollars and you don’t go to jail and you get to keep the $100,000 dollars.”

Charlie, do you think you speak for the American people when you say undocumented workers are analogous to bank robbers?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12851815/page/6/


Posted by Jon Boyd at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 19, 2006

Securifying our Borders

Photo ops are the perfect expression of government in an era when the power of our government rests in the hands of a celebrity spokesmodel.

Where's my 'Mission Accomplished' banner?

...particularly when it's a celebrity spokesmodel who, you know, can't speak.

I'll never quite understand why, of all the idiots in the world, the powers that be behind the Republican curtains came to select this particular bumbling, rudderless twit to run the government for them.

Look, Ma! No Brains!

But the latest sleight of hand pandering on the immigation issue shows the extent of their cynicism. On the one hand the US Chamber of Commerce fatcats just love having that steady swarm of cheap, unionless labor around to keep human resource costs adequately depressed. On the other, keeping the Flyover Country rubes voting for their spokesmodels means occasionally stirring up a heaping dose of xenophobia by militarizing the border and treating our visiting labor pool like a national security threat.

Dope Seeking Dog Hits Paydirt

So how do they have it both ways? Simple: propose inadequate solutions for problems you don't want solved, casually tap an overburdened public asset like the national guard while ignoring the costs, and send the celebrity spokesmodel down for a photo op to create a positive news story that makes it look like the situation is actually being managed.

The term "photo op" originally meant photo opportunity. The government was doing such-and-such a thing; so let's have the president run down there to pose with it and get our guy on the news. But the photo ops of today aren't utilizing existing opportunities--they are stage managed falsehoods, premature declarations of missions accomplished. They don't highlight government action, they substitute for government action.

The problem with this approach, besides the obvious of not accomplishing a durn thing, is that we've seen it all before. The public is a lot more media savvy than I think our Republican friends understand. If your guy is riding 65% approval ratings, most people are willing to accept a Fauntleroyesque turkey strut across the deck of an aircraft carrier. But when your boy is in the low 30 doldrums, it's not going to convince anyone if you dance in the endzone every time someone snaps the ball.

Why don't they rehearse these things?

Of course it also would help if your "war hero" knew how to climb out of a dune buggy without some dashing young gentleman there to hold his hand.

Posted by Bucky at 03:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 18, 2006

Progressives as their own worst enemies

Cross posted at TexasKos


"A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll."

Remember that one?

What does that have to do with talking back to the Right Wing Noise Machine and the immigration issue? Check below the fold…..

krazypuppy demolished this poll here over at TexasKos. The heart of krazypuppy's takedown was that every key question used in the survey was proceeded by a reference to the "war on terror". Thus the skewed outcome . That is called "framing" and in manipulating the average apolitical citizen, it is very powerful tool. It is why progressive's who ram blindly ahead using Repug words are their own worst enemies. It is why you don't use the word 'illegal' in reference to undocumented immigrants.

It ain't about PC, it is about being heard, being an effective voice for Progressive ideas and positions.

The problem with "illegal" is that it talks their langague, it calls forth their ideas, and we lose. You try to think about comprehensive , fair and compassionate reform when your starting point is crime , illegals and criminals. Am I wrong?

So, we end up playing in their ballpark, using their words, reinforcing their ideas, even if it is to say no to them. Almost to the person, friends and acquintances who have spoken to me on this topic have used the word illegal. To a person , the next word out of their mouth was law and laws and enforcement. This is Republican ground. They have owned "law and order" every since Nixon.

Think of it this way, if we are discussing how many troops we should use and how strongly we should punish these "criminals" and never re-frame the issue, at the end of the day we get to influence how hard we punish, They have won the debate. We get no credit at all and we still end up with a system which punishes first and helps a little if at all. That will be calld "compromise" .

Here is how it will play out. At some point they will call us obstructionist, the apolitical onlookers will be inclined to agree. We stand for No, they stand for law and order . The onlookers will want some resolution of the issue. They will offer a "compromise". They will agree to only punish the illegal law breakers a moderate amount, instead of sending them all back as they originally proposed .

From our point of view, what has to happen is 'reframing' of the debate. What do you say about immigration? You should talk of immigration reform framed in terms of fixing , comprehensively, a broken system, not of imposing "law and order" on the illegals. Thus:

"The immigration system is broken and we need to fix it. A bandaide won't do. I believe in an immigration system that provides better security through law enforcement and a fair chance to immigrants. They are seeking the same thing our forefathers were seeking - a way up. Their only offense is trying to provide a better life for themselves and their families through hard work . It is not enough to restore the rule of law, we must also do justice and justice knows no borderline."

We are now talking about Democratic ideas - law, security and compassion. We have now staked out our ground in the debate. Now it is possible the policy we adopt will make us proud, be fairer and more balanced. That is not true as long as all we say is "yes, me too, I want to punish them!" When we say what we believe, to the onlookers, we are not nihilistic obstructionist; we stand FOR something, as much as the Repugs do.

Notice, I didn't even use the word illegal in my statement. I did not reinforce their "frame" by using their language. I used my language, I put forth positive , value based reasons for my choice. I , in other words, changed the conversation , shifting it to my ground and injecting my language .

Even if my ideas are not accepted, the playing field is more level than before. My language and my ideas are out there. People have a choice. At the very least, they will walk away with questions, with a broader vocabulary for thinking about the issue. That is good for us, always good for us. The prevailing frames reinforced in the MSM tend to be Republican because their mighty noise machine has roared unchecked for the last decade or so and been ramping up for at least 40 years on top of that.

The key to all this framing stuff is a lot of theory, but a simple enough formula. Open with statements about what you believe, appeal to solid wholesome American values. Then you add some content. Once the conversation is started, you can talk policy wank if you want, but always contact it back to your values. Life is complicated enough. People want first to know what you stand for, and only then do the detials matter.

Posted by Murvin Auzenne at 08:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

May 17, 2006

You can't throw red meat to the base and still be Mr. Nice Guy

The president's speech last night was a mix of the good and bad. If he had made this speech 6 years ago, it might have been helpful. Like much else he has done, this is too little , too late. The schizophrenia of Bushism is everywhere displayed.

First he keeps using their favorite code word - "illegal aliens". On the other hand he speaks of "hard working people." "vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives."Link


Trapped by his Party's rhetoric, Bush begins by throwing red meat to the base. He continues to "market the [Republican] word that kills" "illegal" . ( a nod to XicanoPwr on this analysis) . As Toni Medillian poignantly pointed at the Democratic Workshop I hosted in April, "No Human Being is illegal ". To make them illegal is to make them less then "Us" and to make them criminals is to make them vulnerable.


"To some, using the term "Illegal" vs. "Undocumented" is just a matter of semantics and to others it means a lot more. When one talks about a group of people who are referred to as "illegals" it never includes people who have committed a crime such as murder, corruption or theft. Nor does it include people who speed or play loud music at a party in the middle of the night. The use of the word "illegal" is only meant for one purpose - the "undocumented." The word itself dehumanizes immigrants and brands them as criminals" LINK


After this Bush does he try to rally public compassion for the immigrants. Well , if he was serious about the second purpose he would not use the rhetoric of fear and division inherent in his initial wording. But then , he can't help himself. He has governed by means of fear and division from the start and when your polls are at 29%, what else can you now do?It goes back to the points in made in my previous post, immigrants as scary criminals is an image needed to rally the base in November, but the business constituency of the party needs the cheap labor. What's a demagogue to do when 2 of key groups supporting his tyranny are at odds with each other? The answer is the speech last night.I owe everybody a thread on how we Progressives can successfully talk about the issue and I will deliver, but for now I give you a link to a Framing Document used at the Democratic Fighting Back Workshop on Immigration back in Houston Texas in April.

Posted by Murvin Auzenne at 10:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 17, 2006

Immigrants as Scapegoats

Thanks to Murvin Auzenne, Chair of the HCDP Communications and message group for this post:

I had the “pleasure” of catching Dan Patrick in all his glory answering questions before the TMO [The Metropolitan Organization] about 2 weeks before the March primaries. It was a most enlightening experience. After telling us that his religious faith would guide every decision he made once elected (something he said with a straight face) , he proceeded to inform the audience that the healthcare crisis here in Harris County was caused by all those illegal immigrants and that the solution was to crack down on them. He was of course just using the talking points provided for him by the spinmiesters of the Republican noise machine, but he was also telegraphing one of the key themes of the upcoming midterm elections. We will be having an Issue Forum on April 8 th to develop a message frame on this issue. Go to http://www.democracyforhouston.org/ for details. More below…

At the TMO event, the minister running the affair promptly asked for a show of hands – how many people present who were struggling with basic healthcare coverage were illegal aliens. No hands went up. The fact of the matter is that 80% of those who lack health insurance are citizens! Of course, this won’t stop Dan and his breed throughout the Republican Party from saying it , over and over, until the uncountered lie becomes the common knowledge of the media class and of the general public.

I think the evidence is clear. Immigrants , as far as the GOP is concerned , are the new “gays”. They can be blamed for everything. They are a narrative theme to which one can attach national security, health care costs, lost jobs. Scapegoating and fear mongering, SOP for the Mighty Rightwing Noise Machine , are the tactics of choice and the GOP thinks they have found a winner in the immigrant issue.

Consider locally, the flirtation of John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison with the Minute Men militia. Cornyn went so far as to endorse them as a supplement to the Border Patrol and only backed off this when there was a generally negative hue and cry. Claiming that he as so concerned and frustrated his anger got the better of his judgment, he retreated to fall back position #2- draconian and comprehensive reform.

Hutchingson , in turn is sponsoring the most Draconian of the present covey of “immigration reform” bills before Congress. It gives a nod to the use of the armed, and untrained, non-Spanish speaking Minutemen to aid in border surviellence . It also s criminalizes the employment of “illegal aliens”. I suspect that neither she nor Cornyn believes or wishes passage of their bills. It is their re-election dog and pony show, red meat for the base.

Of course my stronger suspicion is that what we have here is a classic “good cop”, “bad cop” game. Recall that President Bush offered us his version of a “guest worker” program during the 2004 presidential campaign. It also is not likely to pass anytime soon.

As if I needed further evidence that I am on the right track. This mornings’ paper brings the news that there will not be enough time for “comprehensive” reform measures, the Senate will have to simply go with beefed up border security measures. Add this to the fact that “In December, the House passed a border enforcement bill and blocked debate on temporary worker visas…” and you have the Repub formula on this issue.

What this all means is that now Cornyn and Kay Bailey and their ilk can have their cake and eat it too. They can run on their “tough” reform postures and at the same time, not anger their business base supporters.

The Big Picture

By the numbers:

Public Opinion [ from http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/13383350.htm ]

“….a new poll shows that Texans are increasingly losing patience with the government's efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants and the employers who hire them.

Seventy-nine percent say the government is not doing enough to stop illegal immigrants, according to a newly released Scripps Howard Texas Poll conducted for the Star-Telegram and other publications. The finding reflects a 10 point increase from February of 2004 and a 21-point hike from August of 2001. The survey included 1,000 Texas adults, and the poll has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Well over 1 million illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico, are believed to be living in Texas, making the state's population of undocumented residents the second largest in the nation behind California. An estimated 11 million illegal immigrants are in the United States.

Eighty-four percent of Texans surveyed consider illegal immigration a serious problem, while 76 percent believe the number of unauthorized immigrants crossing into Texas has been increasing in recent years.”

Then there is the association of illegal immigration with national security stated. See here for example. http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=64230380-765E-43AE-ACD7-82CC0D612AB5

How should we frame this issue? I have no final answers, I start with these principles:

[ these last 5 paraphrased from a presentation at a TMO meeting by the head of immigrant issues for the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. I have added the values I think they speak to. ]

We need to do right on this issue. Hopefully this contributes to starting the necessary discussion.

I encourage everyone to join us on April 8th to discuss this very important topic. No one knows how best to frame our position, but together we can make a beginning on this important work. As Democrats we are strong when we work together as a community. These events are intended to help build that community through dialogue and at the same time to create and disseminate good strong value based messages.

It was Jim Wallis in his book, God’s Politics who said it best, “We are the people we have been waiting for….” Be part of solution. Register and come on April 8th.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 02:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack