How the Democrats can still blow it in November
Just last month the NY Times reported Democrats Are Dominating the Generic Ballot. The margin was reaching levels never before seen, by an average of 13%.
There was a Huge Blue Wave building against a historically bad Republican government.
Then today this poll came out.
The new poll's 49% Democrat to 44% Republican margin among registered voters is almost identical to Democrats' standing in January of 2006, the last midterm election year in which they made significant gains in the House of Representatives.
But it represents a large shift from CNN polls conducted in the past three months, in which Democrats held double-digit advantages over the Republicans.
So what happened? What changed?
For starters, the Democratic establishment has backed unpopular Republican policies time and time again.
Whether it was giving the Pentagon more money than it asked for, and spying on the American public or deregulating Wall Street.
And that's not all.
In addition, three House Democrats have co-sponsored a Republican-led bill that would make it easier for predatory payday lenders to charge borrowers effective annual interest rates exceeding 300%. You have to look hard to find something people despise more than payday lenders -- a recent poll found them to be more than five times less favorable than used car salesmen. And that makes sense. Their entire business model revolves around trapping vulnerable Americans into seemingly never-ending cycles of debt, which is why they cluster near lower-income communities.
That's not what the Democratic Party stands for. Our party lifts up vulnerable communities. It doesn't open them up to Bush-era vulnerability.
Yet another bill would allow payday lenders to override usury laws on the books in 15 states and the District of Columbia. The bill, informally dubbed the Madden bill after the court case Madden v. Midland, would make it easier for non-banks (payday lenders) to partner with national banks to skirt state laws. The bank takes a commission, and payday lenders are able to sidestep basic state consumer protections. The bill has been denounced by the NAACP and others.
It's increasingly hard to ignore the fact that establishment Democrats are not significantly better than Republicans.
Fortunately, there is hope in the form of a progressive, grassroots uprising.
In 2016, a total of 12 Democrats were elected to the U.S. House in Congressional districts that voted for Trump. Of these Democrats elected to pro-Trump districts, four of the 12 are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which represents the leftmost wing of the Democratic Party.
A true progressive agenda would distinguish the Democrats from the Republicans, and this may happen, but for now that's not the reality of the Dems.
There is a way that establishment Dems are distinguishing themselves from Republicans, but it may be a bad thing come November.
Second, the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party may well exact a heavy cost. In the Senate, a cluster of potential presidential candidates—Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand —has gone all-in on the immigration front. Whatever the outcome of the current fight, they have helped lead most of their colleagues into a government shutdown over their demand for increased protection undocumented (or illegal) immigrants. Yes, polls show most Americans want Dreamers, the immigrants brought here as children, to be protected from deportation. But looked at more locally, the picture is different. One recent survey, taken before Friday’s fireworks, showed that in five deeply red states—each of which has an incumbent Democratic senator up for re-election—voters would blame Democrats if the government shut down because of a fight over the rights of the undocumented.
Establishment Dems are always quick to lecture progressives about being "pragmatic" when it comes to immensely popular economic issues like Medicare For All, but when it comes to an issue that can be framed in Identity Politics, like immigration, pragmatism goes straight out the window.
Suddenly it's a question of moral superiority. Winning the election is an afterthought.
And that's the problem.
A nationwide poll conducted by last year by the Associated Press' NORC Center for Public Affairs research found 47 percent of Americans believe illegal immigration is threatening to the American way of life, while 15 percent think legal immigration threatens it.
The poll also found 71 percent feel the US is losing its national identity, or the beliefs and values the country represents.
Forget whether these fears are right or wrong. People feel this way, and just telling them they are wrong isn't enough.
Historically it's rare for a people to oppose all immigration, but there are no historical examples of nations supporting mass immigration, legal or illegal. Mass immigration always comes with a political backlash.
So the pragmatic approach would be a middle-ground. That doesn't appear to be the Dems' strategy.
What's more, Republicans feel MUCH stronger about immigration than Democrats do. While a majority of people support the Dreamers, they also support ending chain migration.
So it's a weird and risky strategy to go all-in on immigration when few voters outside of your base support the strategy.
If I was to make a guess, I would say the Dems will win big in November, but not as big as they should win. Only a progressive take-over of the Dems can achieve that.
Comments
You probably have seen this...
but it speaks to your theme...the dems are not an answer - just the same old same old
They are willing to fund the wall for DACA legislation...whaat? Jimmy covers the story...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPIHZIW9q4I (14 min)
Don't you suspect the sudden spinal growth/shut down has more to do with rising latino/a population demographics?
Thanks for the links...
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Good thing that Hillary won by 3 million votes
Durbin tweets that democrats gave Trump everything he wanted, including the full funding for his Wall as you stated. Jimmy and company are pissed! For a good reason.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Repubs deny that, SD. Supposedly, Schumer
voted on the 'authorization' of spending on a border wall several years ago.
However, the 'lie' is in the use of the word 'authorize.'
Or, to put it another way, "authorizing, without a promise/deal to 'appropriate,' means nothing." And, he hasn't made that assurance.
FWIW
(I haven't had a chance to read the transcripts, yet. I'll try to locate this passage, and post it next week, or the next. Got a lot on my plate this week.)
Mollie
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage."--Lao Tzu
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
It's difficult to know what's true or not anymore.
This article says that he did offer to fund it.
As does this one.
Bernie has said that he wants a stronger boarder and more BP agents. Democrats have donors who are involved with building the wall and we know that democrats take their orders from their donor masters even if most of the country doesn't want it.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Donorcrats practice 11 dimensional judo
Lean waaay forward to the right to hand R's what they want. R's back up to the right. Donorcrats fall forward, and smash R's toes with their face. Victory!
Heh, this sums them up
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Those articles somewhat demonstrate
the problem, since the language used in them doesn't address Schumer's offer in budgetary language.
IOW, the phrases 'I offered funding,' and 'I offered to put the wall on the table' are meaningless in a serious budget discussion, or negotiation. Basically, they're 'weasel' words, because there would be no way that language such as that could hold anyone accountable, if what Schumer claims he's said in those articles and Tweets, is correct.
As it is, the Administration's Budget Director (Mulvaney) is complaining that Schumer did speak in exactly those vague and non-budgetary terms. Anyhoo, I'm 'guessing' that Schumer's putting that language out there as a defense, hoping that he and the Dem Party won't be blamed for the shut down. All the Dems that I heard on shows, today, sounded pretty worried about that aspect of the budget impasse.
Hey, sounds like lawmakers may take another vote tomorrow. I sorta doubt that any of them want this to drag out too long. After all, when military members start not getting their combat duty, hazardous duty, etc., on time, all of them will go into panic mode. (I believe that military members just received their regular pay, so no worry about it, for a week or more.)
It's probably mostly Kabuki, that we're watching unfold. Having lived through almost as many furloughs as I have fingers, I know that the effects are mostly greatly exaggerated.
Have a good one!
Mollie
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage."--Lao Tzu
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
A democrat wanted to fund the military families
and McConnell said no. This was after he blamed the democrats for putting them at risk. Kabuki theater doesn't begin to cover their antics.
I posted a video of the Washington Generals and the Harlem Globetrotters game in another essay. In it you can see how hard the General players work to miss their shots. This sums up my thoughts on the shut down. Just a game between the two parties. Too bad that people are caught in the middle of this.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
This is an interesting take on the shut down
Just as they did in October of 2013, the media is uniformly calling the selective starving of government by Republicans in Congress a “government shutdown.
Yep. Kabuki theater, mollie
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Ugh
Corporate Dems and Establishment Dems - but I repeat myself - are 100% OK with fucking this up: playing the role of #McResistance for the teevee and lockstep #TeamBlue liberals while continuing the corporate agenda.
As your Jimmy Dore video points out, Dems hold all the leverage in this DACA and Continuing Resolution stand off but Schumer, Durbin and Dem "leadership" do the bidding of their $$$ masters. Reasonable bipartisan cooperation is on the menu...
We are so fucked. Today I had an otherwise decent political conversation with a 70-year old liberal who exhorted me *to subscribe to the New York Times* because that's where the leftie information could be found...I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. #JustShootMe #JudithMillerAnyone? #Puke
JVolvo2
Yep. This is just more theater to them
They don't care if people don't get paid and have all the problems that go with not receiving their pay checks on time. Have a mortgage or car payment due soon? Don't worry, we might vote for paying you back once we're done playing our games.
Have a child who is in the middle of treatment and you can't continue it because we haven't funded CHIP yet? Oh well, are families aren't on the program so it's no big deal. Ect every damn time this happens. They know that they have to fund the government on a certain time each year, but they wait until the last moment to work on it.
The NYT? Yuck. Not only did they push for the Iraq war, they sat on the Bush illegal spying until after the election. Both the Times and the Washington Post have been pushing the Russian propaganda since it started. The Times has lost any credibility that they once had.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Some of this
may be an artifact of the way polls are structured, giving people two options to choose between. In Virginia, Alabama, and Wisconsin we saw a double digit move away from Republicans. That's not identical to moving towards Democrats. Republican voters thought they could nominate anyone at all for Senate and it was a sure thing, but not even Alabama would elect Roy Moore. Democrats think they can nominate anyone at all and they'll beat Republicans, and in some places that will be true. But they will nominate such odious neoliberal fucktards that voters will be discouraged and stay home, and the mighty wave will collapse into a mere ripple. Still might be enough to flip the House, though, and a couple of seats would be enough to flip the Senate.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
Thanks for pointing out that the Jones Race
was an anomaly. Heck, I'd bet the family farm that if Mo Brooks, or probably even Luther Strange, who's considerably less popular by the Republican rank-and-file, were to run against Jones next week, they'd win.
And, if Sessions were to step down as AG--which I'm guessing he'll probably do before the next election cycle--and run for his old seat, he'd probably win by a landslide. He garnered 97.25% of the vote in his 2014 Senate race. (Now, I don't believe that Sessions could win with that margin, now that Bernie's networks have been activated. But, I'd be shocked if a challenge by Sessions didn't leave any Dem candidate in the dust.)
IMO, the Jones win has been blown out of proportion. Remember--with all the accusations against Roy Moore, Jones only pulled out a win by 1.5 percentage points.
I do believe, though, that Dems will continue to mostly run on identity politics. That's really all they know.
According to their Dem talking heads/CNN shills--the Dem Party will go after the same 'O' Coalition--white professionals, students, minorities, woman, and the LGBT community. The idea that they are hoping to garner white 'working class' votes is almost laughable.
So, the 'agenda' in 2020, and probably this year, will be no different. Didn't bookmark it, but read the other day that 'O' will be very actively campaigning for Dems this year--even though he rarely bothered when he was Prez. Go figure.
Have a good one!
Mollie
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."
--Will Rogers
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Regarding Virginia and Wisconsin,
it's been trending 'corporatist' Blue/Dem for some time, hasn't it? (IOW, since the days of right winger/Republican George Allen.)
No surprise, since there's a very heavy, highly educated federal employee/federal contractor/upper middle class presence, there--especially in urban/northern Virginia.
Of course, a win by a Democrat who (admittedly) twice voted for GWB isn't much to brag about.
Wisconsin? Don't know much about that state. Some folks used to say how 'progressive' the state is/was. But, my own experience with folks in Green Bay (very Republican) is anything but that.
There's even talk that Paul Ryan may not run again. I hope it's true.
(Understandable, since DT had about 10 points on him--in his own district.) All in all, Ryan's the Repub that most keeps me up at night, with his Randian vision/agenda. Also, he actually knows what he's doing.
So, that win may be a significant one for Dems.
Mollie
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."
--Will Rogers
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
re Wisconsin
Veteran of 2011 #WalkerUprising speaking here: WI has been blanketed with RW radio for 20+ years and ALEC / Koch Brothers agenda for 10+. We've been swamped with distorted RW anger and fucked by DLC agenda, NAFTA and Dem capitulation.
Seek out UW professor Kathy Cramer's 2016 "Politics of Resentment" to understand how decent- and-losing-ground-under-Predatory Capitalism non-urban whites have turned angry, blamed big city "Libruls" and voted hard Right for over a decade to understand today's WI, 2-term idiot Scott Walker and 2016 Rust Belt voting for Trump.
Read Thomas Frank's larger-scale "Listen Liberal" to see how corporate Dem pursuit of Wall St $$$ and professional class/meritocracy has created Dem losing streak and pResident Trump.
DC Dems/DCCC/DNC are not stupid. They know what they're doing. Dem "leadership" gave up on the New Deal and working class in the 70s. The shit we're in today is the result of that choice.
We're #Fucked
Subscribe to Jimmy Dore show on youtube or his website. At least you get some chuckles out of the flaming shitshow we're in. : /
JVolvo2
Hi, JVolvo--thanks for the info
about Wisconsin. Good to hear from someone who really knows the state. Must say, that Scott Walker dude is a real piece of work!
In many ways, what you describe is pretty much what happened in the once-heavily Democratic South. I realize that the urban legend is that the Civil Rights Era totally flipped it, but, it's really a bit more nuanced than that. IOW, it took quite a number of years. And, much of what you described regarding the economic plight of working class folks (in WI) as a result of NAFTA, outsourcing of job, loss of decent paying factory jobs, etc., also applied to many blue collar folks in the South. Probably, even more so, since it was never heavily unionized, and 'better paying' industrial jobs were even harder to come by.
Good to see you again! Don't be a stranger.
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
It's not just nominating neolib jerks.
It's also sabotaging progressives that get nominations. Guarantee you there will be a handful of these. Enough to leave the House under Republican control.
If Obama's terms were any indication
the Democrats will work hard to keep government in Republican hands, while taking just enough of it for themselves to fortify their claims to being an "opposition."
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
But Obama said that he was taking away their keys
after they drove their cars into the ditch. People blame his presidency on the republicans obstruction, not his insistence on bipartisanship.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
A very, very, very...
loyal opposition.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
I saw what you did there.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
More games in DC
Not too much to brag about here.
In the past few months, we've witnessed the awesome impact Democrats can have when they're united. Together, we defeated the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We've held demonstrations (yeah) to oppose the Trump tax scam. We elected a Democratic governor in Virginia, in addition to turning 16 Republican-held districts blue. And we even elected a Democratic senator in deep-red Alabama. (Who just voted to give Trump more power to spy on us.)
Democrat Co-Sponsors: Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana), Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota), Jon Tester (D-Montana), Mark Warner (D-Virginia), Tim Kaine (D-Virginia), Angus King (I-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), Gary Peters (D-Michigan) and Michael Bennet (D-Colorado).
Maybe Warren should give another one of her fiery speeches about the evils of the banks. That will show them.
(6:25)
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
There are people in the Democratic ‘Party’ who are
confused as to why Dims will shut down the government for immigrant kids but when we had another government shutdown, THEIR kids had needs but what they got was Austerity, a shutdown of WIC and Head Start. Done while a (Hahahaha) Dim was In the White House. It was HIS Austerity package that was served up.
There is also a big lack of honesty involved. They talk about 800,000 ‘Dreamers’. That’s nonsense.
I don’t want these kids to be deported. But I can understand why people are upset. No one gives a fat rat’s ass about the poor and sick kids here. The Republicans want to strip any aid to those kids, and the fucking Dims have rolled over and let ‘em ‘have their way’ with the country.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
The swing is worse than it looks.
Polls commonly have a vulnerability to about a 5% Democratic bias for "voting booth" swings. This used to be attributed to latent racism - that voters refused to admit that they were racist and lied to polls. That claim has faded with time, now it is attributed to methodology - that polls are intentionally overrepresenting over 60 Democratic women. Or that polls overestimate voter turnout - that the young and progressive, when the chips are down, don't show up. Personally, my favorite conspiracy theory is that polls are intentionally lying to discourage voters - constant hype of obviously flawed candidates folloved by the inevitable "surprising" losses are demoralizing.
How can (how may/how will) the Democrats snap defeat from the jaws of victory? (like they always do) 1. universally sabotage progressives. (apparently they are not succeeding quite as much as before) 2. universally marginalize those progressives who get past sabotage (Keith Ellison anyone? John Lewis supporting the racist Hillary Clinton then playing the race card with fanfare and impotence against Trump. John Conyers.) And of course the ever successful betrayal. (too numerous to mention, besides, gjohnsit has already done better than I could)
Why will (why must) the democrats throw the election? If I were an establishment Democratic strategist (a corporatist 5th columnist) I would take back the House but not the Senate, reinstall Nancy Pelosi, and make sure that nothing good, but a lot of evil, was done for two years, insuring a perpetual fascist hegemony.
I think we better admit it - the American voter is fed up, but he's more fed up with the Democrats than the Rep... fascists. Not only is eliminating the Republican Party presently impossible, but it is essential that we eliminate the corruptocrats first.
On to Biden since 1973
I'm not even sure
they'll win that big. Like the Hildebeast Her self, they've taken the stance that they've already won. But, yeah, I agree this could be a Yuuuuge win. It won't be becuz corporate Dems are acting like corporate Dems. They don't care if it's a win or not, just that they get reelected. All about maintaining and expanding that Beltway mojo.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Dem strategy
I agree, Cassiodorus. That is exactly how the Dems prefer to position themselves. They never need anger their masters/donors this way by having the real power to effect change.
Accidental truth on CNN
Agree with Reston--which is why I'm pleased
that Dems and the corporatist mainstream media don't seem to 'get it.'
Mollie
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage."--Lao Tzu
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Even NPR
had a show on the other day, talking about how lame the Donorcrats are. A Pelosi/Schumer rally (if I recall correctly) that drew 100 people, contrasted to the crowds that Sanders drew.
They don't care. Just make enough of a showing to keep the money rolling in.
Welcome, PR--great to see a handsome fur baby avatar! ;-D EOM
Mollie
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."
--Will Rogers
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Dogs
One of the best human inventions.
He's much bigger and shaggier now, and he thanks you for the compliment.
De nada, PR. Hey, if you've got photos
of him 'bigger and shaggier,' don't hesitate to post them at one of our regular Friday Photography Open Threads (OTs) if the mood strikes you.
Of course, they can also be shared in any of the daily OTs--including in Joe's afternoon Evening Blues (EB).
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Glenn Greenwald on how fucked the dems are
and how fucked we are because they are not standing up to Trump
for 2 years Glenn has been screaming that the Russia hacking is a red herring
Here is Glenn speaking ...
This just came out today
Does This Man Know More Than Robert Mueller? Glenn Greenwald’s war on the Russia investigation.
The Believers don't want
to hear it.
They're convinced Russia!
Russia! Russia! did in their Hillary,
and won't let it go until Her properly seated upon Her royal throne in the Oval Office.
And the M$M that certainly must know the truth are happily willing to play along.
"We've learned more stuff supporting Russia! Russia! Russia! and we'll be breaking it down for you over the next news cycle. Keep it right here!!"
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
What about the third parties?
Isn't it funny how the corporate media and even the alternative media always frame things totally around the two duopoly parties and never even acknowledge the existence of third parties.
Even affects the commonly used language,
in that all other of multiple 'outside' parties are always '3rd parties' and perceptually placed in relation to the basic corporate ideal of two parties, that being the minimum required to give voters some illusion of choice and a trade-off to another corporate party. And no matter how many parties there may be, anything out of the Two-Party Trap is a '3rd party' - as well as, in every case, one that can't possibly win, because 'nobody will vote for them in case the wrong party of the two (wrong) parties gets in'. But the absurdity of having several '3rd parties' in the last election was rather striking... we need to take the language back from the Orwellians twisting our means of communication and self-identification in order to more easily confuse and sucker us even more and harder...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
democrats following hillary's campaign strategies
What could go wrong? Trump is evil. Russia is evil. Identity politics. Hollywood is for democrats.
Immigration
I'm going to set Dreamers aside here and look at illegal/legal immigration.
To be frank, while there can be a racial component regarding being against illegal immigration, is it so wrong to be against illegal immigration.
For whatever reason, illegal immigrants get conflated with legal immigrants, and thus if you are against illegal immigrants that means you are against immigrants in general. Then cue in racist xenophobe.
I mean now people say undocumented. Seriously, undocumented? Is it strange for a country to define their immigration policy?
When I went to Japan, they were quite strict on following me around. Not with say a guard, but asked my duration and also my stops along the way. Staying at hostels or hotels I had to fill out forms to give to the person in charge stating where I was and for how long. Yes, Japan is quite restrictive on their legal immigration and can be xenophobic. But, that aside, they set up their immigration policies and that is what they wish to stick with. That is their choice as a nation. Considering their low birth rate and growing aging population, immigration could be useful. But again, that is the choice they made. It does make it easier to do so since they are an island, but that is besides the point.
Now, I'm not talking about things like Norway vs. "shitholes".
I'm not talking about racial components.
That is its own category over there.
I don't know, perhaps I'm the odd one out but something I've wondered over time.
Another problem is,
People mistakenly believe that D.C. lawmakers actually give a shit about undocumented immigrants. What they really care about is contributions from a powerful cheap-labor/open borders lobby (giant produce farmers, food processors, construction industry, hospitality industry etc.).
If they really gave a shit about immigrants they would want exclusively legal immigration, secure borders, ports, effective Visa enforcement to prevent legal immigrants from having to compete against undocumented immigrants, who will work for peanuts due to having very limited options.
Many also mistakenly believe we can legalize everyone without secure borders, effective Visa law enforcement etc. There are about 7 billion people on the planet and a significant percentage of those (at least 2 or 3 billion) would come here in a heartbeat if we legalized everyone without having secure borders, ports and effective enforcement of Visa laws.
I'm ok with DACA. My only problem with DACA is that it's almost the only issue that I've ever seen Democrats really go to the mat on.
I guess their fundraising hasn't been that great (since they abandoned the working class) and must make sure to please the powerful cheap-labor open-borders lobby (which is the only thing they really give a shit about anyway, or they wouldn't want deregulated immigration).
It's amazing how so many people will complain about deregulation, yet want to keep immigration (i.e. citizenship, the most fundamental tenant of government) so badly regulated.
Mike Taylor