FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Napolitano’s Hard Line

by TOM BARRY

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano shows few signs of reining in the immigrant crackdown launched by her predecessor Michael Chertoff. She recently called for “more boots on the ground” along the border and touted her determination to promote the “rule of law” in immigration enforcement.

The “rule of law” framing of immigration policy copies the language of the Bush administration and the agenda of the immigration restrictionists. The apparent continuity between the enforcement agenda of Chertoff and Napolitano alarms advocates of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).

But Napolitano’s tough talk on immigration enforcement reflects key components of the new messaging of the leading CIR advocates in Washington. As the immigration debate has shifted to the right, liberal groups like the National Immigration Forum, America’s Voice, Center for American Progress, NDN, and National Council of La Raza have also been calling for an immigration reform that “secures the border” and “restores the rule of law.”

As a strategy to build center-right support for comprehensive immigration reform, including legalization, the Washington, DC-based liberal immigration lobby has advocated that the Democratic Party and all immigrant-rights advocates adopt a “rule of law” framework that includes more border security and employment verification while placing the onus on immigrants themselves to “get right with the law.”

The concept behind this strategic maneuvering is that Americans will support a legalization provision for illegal immigrants if the proposal is couched in tough “rule of law” language. In other words, by moving to the right immigration advocates would be better positioned to advance a liberal immigration reform.

Thus far, however, this pro-immigration strategy of talking tough to advance CIR has fallen flat. The Bush administration used the “rule of law” position on immigration to rationalize the immigrant crackdown. The Obama administration to date has shown few signs of backing away from the Bush administration’s enforcement-first regimen. The “rule of law” logic of border control and immigration enforcement continues to dominate the immigration debate in America.

In a Feb. 16 interview with NPR, Napolitano signaled her intention to embrace that agenda. “First of all, the rule of law applies on the border, and we want to make sure that that happens, No. 1. That means manpower. That means technology—things like ground sensors. It means interior enforcement against those who intentionally are going into the illegal labor market and creating a demand for illegal laborers, so that’s all going to continue. How we do that may change with me as a new secretary, but we want to make sure the rule of law is applied, and it’s applied fairly and forcefully across the border.”

Like Chertoff, who frequently explained the Bush administration’s “enforcement-first” regime as an effort to “restore integrity” to immigration law and border control and thereby create a foundation for immigration reform, Napolitano sees enforcement and border control as laying the groundwork for immigration reform.

In her Jan. 30 departmental directive, Napolitano stated: “Smart, resolute enforcement by the department can keep Americans safe, foster legal immigration to America, protect legitimate commerce, and lay the groundwork for a more comprehensive reform.”

Napolitano has repeatedly, both as Arizona governor and DHS secretary, declared her support for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. But at the same time she has also articulated her strong commitment to enforce immigration law—as dysfunctional as it might be. And to secure the border—no matter its multi-billion dollar cost and unproven effectiveness in protecting the homeland.

With respect to border security, she has adopted militaristic terminology and a posture that dials up the enforcement-first rhetoric of her predecessor. “You’ve got to have boots on the ground,” says Napolitano. “You’ve got to have technology. You’ve got to have interior enforcement of our workplace laws. Some fencing in some places may make sense, but only if it’s part of an overall system.” That system has little to do with protecting the nation from terrorists, the central mission of her department, and is all about cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Napolitano places herself on firm political ground in continuing the enforcement-first immigration agenda of the Bush administration. She can point to language in the Democratic Party platform and the policy statements of the Washington, DC immigrant-rights groups.

Leading up to the adoption of the party’s platform, a coalition of immigrant-rights, ethnic, and policy groups came together around a strategy intended to co-opt the law-and-order rhetoric of immigration restrictionists. With great success, they advocated that the Democratic Party and all CIR proponents rally around a “get right with the law” framework for immigration reform.

The two groups central to this strategy were the Center for American Progress (CAP) and America’s Voice. In typical DC fashion, they commissioned a poll to demonstrate the political viability and wisdom of a new “rule of law” messaging for comprehensive immigration reform.

In its report, “Winning the Immigration Issue: Requiring Legal Status for Illegal Immigrants,” the Democratic Party polling firm came back with the conclusion that CAP and America’s Voice sought. Headed by Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, the pollsters r ecommended that Democrats and CIR supporters mobilize around the law-and-order message.

” We must be tough and smart to get our immigration system under control. It is unacceptable to have 12 million people in our country living outside the legal system. We must secure the border but we must also require illegal immigrants to register and become legal, pay their taxes, learn English, and pass criminal background checks. Those who have a criminal record or refuse to register should be sent home.”

CAP then sent out a memo, titled “Groundbreaking Messaging on Immigration Reform,” to Democratic congressional staffers explaining that the new rule of law positioning on immigration would protect the party against right-wing attacks. “As you know,” wrote CAP’s Winnie Stachelberg, “getting the language right on the issue of immigration is important in both helping Democratic members against attacks and laying the groundwork for future reform.”

The same day that the polling report was released a coalition of DC groups then sent a letter to the Democratic and Republican Party platform committees advocating the inclusion of this new messaging in the immigration platform of the two parties. While the letter attacked Bush administration immigration policies, it did mark a new consensus around a rule-of-law messaging that had been until then used mainly by restrictionists and the right-wing.

The Democratic Party platform also marked a sharp departure from the usual “pathway to citizenship” message of the party and its immigration reform forces. As if providing a policy mandate to the next DHS chief, the platform stated: “We need to secure our borders, and support additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.”

With respect to the “pathway to citizenship” that the party had previously supported, the platform propagated the language advanced by the Center for American Progress, America’s Voice, and others in the CIR coalition, stating: “W e must require them to come out of the shadows and get right with the law.”

The “rule of law” and “get right with the law” now reverberates among the circle of Washington organizations that are leading the charge for a new CIR bill in the Obama administration. As if to declare their law-and-order credentials, the National Immigration Forum, America’s Voice, Center for Community Change, NDN, and others routinely insert rule of law language in all their communications.

In an article shortly after Obama’s inauguration, Ali Noorani, director of the National Immigration Forum, observed that Obama realized that ” reforming our immigration system includes encouraging undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and get into the system and right with the law.”

Napolitano’s avid commitment to secure the border, uphold immigration law, and generally promote the “rule of law” in her position as Homeland Security chief is an echo of the very language that immigration reform advocates use in their own statements. In its agenda for immigration policy, America’s Voice stipulates “Smart and Professional Law Enforcement” as a central policy guideline, and calls for a policy that ” restores the rule of law both to our borders and our workplaces.”

“Restore the Rule of Law and Enhance Security” was one of the six principles of the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the now-defunct coalition led by the National Immigration Reform, National Council of La Raza, and Center for Community Change.

In their new strategy for liberal immigration reform, these immigrant-rights advocates haven’t been entirely clear about their priorities. While advancing the tough “rule of law” enforcement and “get right with the law” language, they haven’t explicitly rejected the “enforcement-first” approach.

Rather than forthrightly saying that it is impossible to restore the “rule of law” or promote “smart law enforcement” when the laws are inadequate and unjust, they have incorporated the law-and-order language to widen their political reach.

With the hope of winning center-right support for liberal immigration reform, America’s Voice, Center for American Progress, and others have retooled their own messaging. But in the process they have lent moral support to the law-and-order regimen while burying their message.

What is more, rare was the voice among the immigration reform advocates in DC, who are closely tied to the Democratic Party, that raised alarm about candidate Obama’s own strong support for border security, employment verification, and enforcement of existing immigration law.

Nor did they outline a logic for immigration reform that was more holistic than the simplistic rule of law framework they embraced as a central argument for comprehensive immigration reform. They presented no vision of a future immigration policy that would ensure that immigration flows are sustainable socially and economically.

It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that the Democratic Party leadership, like the Republicans, have interpreted the apparent political consensus around a “rule of law” immigration and border policy as a political mandate to continue along the “enforcement first” path set by the Bush administration. Napolitano is doing just that, and it may be time for liberal immigration reform advocates to revisit their opportunistic “rule of law” messaging and center-right framing of the immigration crisis.

TOM BARRY directs the TransBorder Project of the Americas Program (www.americaspolicy.org) at the Center for International Policy in Washington, DC. He blogs at http://borderlinesblog.blogspot.com/.

Tom Barry directs the Transborder Program at the Center for International Policy and is a contributor to the Americas Program www.cipamericas.org.

More articles by:
May 31, 2016
Miguel A. Cruz-Díaz
Imperial Blues: On Whitewashing Dictatorship in the 21st Century
Vijay Prashad
Stoking the Fires: Trump and His Legions
Patrick Howlett-Martin
Libya: How to Bring Down a Nation
Uri Avnery
What Happened to Netanyahu?
Corey Payne
Reentry Through Resistance: Détente with Cuba was Accomplished Through Resistance and Solidarity, Not Imperial Benevolence
Bill Quigley
From Tehran to Atlanta: Social Justice Lawyer Azadeh Shahshahani’s Fight for Human Rights
Manuel E. Yepe
Trump, Sanders and the Exhaustion of a Political Model
Bruce Lerro
“Network” 40 Years Later: Capitalism in Retrospect and Prospect and Elite Politics Today
Robert Hunziker
Chile’s Robocops
Aidan O'Brien
What’ll It be Folks: Xenophobia or Genocide?
Binoy Kampmark
Emailgate: the Clinton Spin Doctors In Action
Colin Todhunter
The Unique Risks of GM Crops: Science Trumps PR, Fraud and Smear Campaigns
Dave Welsh
Jessica Williams, 29: Another Black Woman Gunned Down By Police
Gary Leupp
Rules for TV News Anchors, on Memorial Day and Every Day
May 30, 2016
Ron Jacobs
The State of the Left: Many Movements, Too Many Goals?
James Abourezk
The Intricacies of Language
Porfirio Quintano
Hillary, Honduras, and the Murder of My Friend Berta
Patrick Cockburn
Airstrikes on ISIS are Reducing Their Cities to Ruins
Uri Avnery
The Center Doesn’t Hold
Raouf Halaby
The Sailors of the USS Liberty: They, Too, Deserve to Be Honored
Rodrigue Tremblay
Barack Obama’s Legacy: What Happened?
Matt Peppe
Just the Facts: The Speech Obama Should Have Given at Hiroshima
Deborah James
Trade Pacts and Deregulation: Latest Leaks Reveal Core Problem with TISA
Michael Donnelly
Still Wavy After All These Years: Flower Geezer Turns 80
Ralph Nader
The Funny Business of Farm Credit
Paul Craig Roberts
Memorial Day and the Glorification of Past Wars
Colin Todhunter
From Albrecht to Monsanto: A System Not Run for the Public Good Can Never Serve the Public Good
Rivera Sun
White Rose Begins Leaflet Campaigns June 1942
Tom H. Hastings
Field Report from the Dick Cheney Hunting Instruction Manual
Weekend Edition
May 27, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Silencing America as It Prepares for War
Rob Urie
By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates
Paul Street
Feel the Hate
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe
Andrew Levine
Hillary’s Gun Gambit
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hand Jobs: Heidegger, Hitler and Trump
S. Brian Willson
Remembering All the Deaths From All of Our Wars
Dave Lindorff
With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers
Pete Dolack
Millions for the Boss, Cuts for You!
Peter Lee
To Hell and Back: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Gunnar Westberg
Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew
Karl Grossman
Long Island as a Nuclear Park
Binoy Kampmark
Sweden’s Assange Problem: The District Court Ruling
Robert Fisk
Why the US Dropped Its Demand That Assad Must Go
Martha Rosenberg – Ronnie Cummins
Bayer and Monsanto: a Marriage Made in Hell
Brian Cloughley
Pivoting to War
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail