The Republicans haven't just telegraphed that they're going to use immigration as a wedge issue in this year's midterms -- they've flown fighter jets across the country dragging big, red banners proclaiming as much, skywriting "IMMIGRANTS SUCK" in 500-point Palatino font and backlighting the message with a few hundred blowtorches.
Curiously absent from the Republicans' anti-immigrant rhetoric is a call for any kind of action to be taken against those who would employ such craven lawbreakers. Not only does this reveal the Republicans' intent to demagogue the issue without actually DOING anything about it, it offers a perfect opening to the Democrats to seize the initiative and frame the issue to their advantage.
The Republicans, of course, aren't the least bit serious about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants -- the low-wage, no-benefits, no-rights, easily-replaceable labor pool these immigrants provide fits in perfectly with the GOP's feudalistic worldview. But a few highly-visible "crackdowns" against a few hundred desperate brown people here and there allows them to cultivate the proper illusion for public consumption. It's like occasional big drug busts offered as "proof" that the War on Drugs is "working".
So the Democrats, if they play their cards right, can call the GOP's bluff on immigration, and drive some nice, deep wedges into their faithful by calling for an all-out crackdown on the employers of illegals.
Why is this the best approach, BOTH practically and politically?
1. It's more efficient. It's much easier (and cheaper) to ensure that a few thousand businesses are following the law than it is to police every last stretch of the border.
2. It's more humane. Without the incentives to come to America in the form of jobs ready and waiting for them, illegal immigrants are far less likely to make the arduous trek north -- and will also bear political pressure upon THEIR governments to improve conditions AT HOME.
It's easy to split the Republicans on immigration -- their base wants illegal immigrants tortured, shot and killed; their wealthy contributors want the illegal-immigrant (cheap labor) flow to continue unabated. And it's easy to frame this -- all the Democrats have to do is say that by cracking down on employers, they're protecting those employers who do follow the law and hire American citizens (which is exactly what they're doing). The Dems would be taking a firm stand on the rule of law.
Imagine this exchange between two candidates:
Pug: Immigrants are evil! They're taking your jobs! We should show no mercy for these parasites!
Dem: I agree that we should stem the flow of illegal immigrants. I propose that we take strong measures against any individual or business who hires them. If the jobs aren't here for them, they won't come here to begin with.
Pug: <splutters> Did I mention that 90% of illegal immigrants are child molesters and cut open family pets in secret desert ceremonies?
Dem: I believe in standing up for and protecting those American businesses who honorably follow the law and hire only legally documented workers by cracking down on the cheats.
Pug: Lookie over there! Gays trying to get married!
Dem: I thought you were AGAINST illegal immigration. Why the flip-flop?
Now, I am well aware that the Democratic Party is almost congenitally incapable of proactively setting the terms of a debate and pre-empting Republican framing. But might the Dems, just once, actually TRY to take some initiative?