Thought I'd share this sharp essay on the elections and the immigration debate, by Rich Stolz at the Center for Community Change. We've posted the original on our blog, the Movement Vision Lab.
On Thursday, February 21, in a key Democratic debate, Senator Hillary Clinton unequivocally called for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and that she would introduce such legislation in the first 100 days of her presidency. But that’s not what she said in early December at another presidential forum, when she dodged the question and was booed by the audience. Unfortunately, this is a pattern. On the issue of immigration, many of this year’s presidential candidates are leading with their finger in the wind of public opinion rather than moral conscience.
Americans care about the economy, the war and health care, but important constituencies also want fair and just immigration reform. But the test for any candidate on immigration is less about their position on policy. It’s really about character. Voters want to know two things: can this candidate solve the complicated issue of what to do with the millions of hard-working and vulnerable immigrants in this country, and can they do it in a manner that reflects our values as a nation? Clarity of vision and consistency matter most for voters concerned about the character of a candidate.
So days before a pivotal primary election in Texas, where immigrant and Latino voters are expected to be a major force at the polls, the candidates are striking a more positive tone on immigration, dropping the harsh law-and-order border security emphasis they adopted for whiter states. But where does this leave voters — not only those of us who desire consistent support for justice and human rights, but those of us who want a president who stands up for what’s right, not just what’s popular?
At the February 21 debate, Senator Clinton pledged to stop the raids against immigrants until a comprehensive policy solution is passed: “When we see what's been happening, with literally babies being left with no one to take care of them, children coming home from school, no responsible adult left, that is not the America that I know. That is against American values. And it is a stark admission of failure by the federal government. We need comprehensive immigration reform.”
At the same debate, Barack Obama said, “It is absolutely critical that we tone down the rhetoric when it comes to the immigration debate, because there has been an undertone that has been ugly.”
And in 2004, in a debate in the Arizona Senate race, John McCain said, “Things are terrible, and we've got to fix it. But we're not going to fix it until we have comprehensive immigration reform. When there's a demand, there's going to be a supply. There are jobs that Americans will not do, so we have to make it possible for someone to come to this country to do a job that an American won't do and then go back to the country from where they came.”
For the moment, immigrants and Americans that care about the fundamental American value of inclusiveness and the unique American experience of immigration can take solace in the candidates’ remarks. They can also find hope in a new conventional political wisdom emerging from this primary season — scapegoating immigrants is a losing strategy. Real solutions that build America for all of us are what voters — immigrants and citizens alike — are clamoring for. But the question remains, will the presidential candidates demonstrate the strength of conviction and the character to follow-through on their words?
Rich Stolz leads the Immigration work of national nonprofit Center for Community Change which coordinates the Fair Immigration Reform Movement. FIRM is a coalition of hundreds of community based immigrant rights groups across the country advocating for comprehensive immigration reform legislation and the civil rights of immigrants.