Ruy Teixeira considers a recent poll on U. S. immigration policy:
Taking immigration first, we asked voters to choose from three options:
- People around the world have the right to claim asylum and America should welcome more immigrants into the country;
- America needs to secure its borders and create more legal and managed immigration paths to bring in skilled professionals and workers to help our economy grow; or
- America needs to close its borders to outsiders and reduce all levels of immigration.
Under a quarter (24 percent) chose the first option, emphasizing the right to asylum and admitting more immigrants, which is closely associated with the Democratic Party. By far the most popular option was the second one, emphasizing border security and skilled immigration, which 59 percent favored. The draconian third option, which favors just closing the border and reducing all immigration was chosen by 17 percent. The latter two positions outnumber the permissive first position by three to one.
Among moderates, the second position was chosen by an overwhelming 66 percent and just 18 percent favored the permissive first position, not much more than the 16 percent who favor the draconian third position. Among the swing-y pure independent group, the story was similar: 62 percent chose the second position and the same number—19 percent—chose the first and third positions.
It’s clear Democrats do not occupy the center ground here.
His poll found the same true for environmental policy and transgender policy: The positions staked out by the party organization are closely aligned with the Democratic Party’s progressive wing and out of sync not just with the majority of Americans but with the majority of Democats.
How can the Democratic Party be so undemocratic? I’ve already provided my answer: the party organization is under the control of its progressive wing and I was widely criticized for stating that but it’s obvious to anyone who actually understand how the parties work today. Much more power is concentrated in the hands of the party leadership than was the case fifty years ago. When you recognize that Nancy Pelosi is a founding member of the House Progressive Caucus and Hakeem Jeffries was a member in good standing of the caucus for years. They each left of the caucus only when they assume a leadership position in the party.
But what about Joe Biden? Isn’t he a moderate? The policies he’s espousing are more closely aligned with the progressive wing of the party than with its moderates.
I think the real problem is being missed. Position number 3 is the GOP position. It is even more unpopular than then number 1. (Yes, I know that some Republicans favor #2, but some Democrats also favor #2. Suspect a higher percentage of Dems do but not sure how to prove that.) The second problem is that as i understand it if want to stop granting asylum to people we need to change the law.
Steve
“But what about Joe Biden? Isn’t he a moderate?”
Belly laugh of the day.
“The second problem is that as i understand it if want to stop granting asylum to people we need to change the law.”
Ooops. Real best belly laugh of the day. Try enforcing the law. A vanishingly small number of people are seeking political asylum. And they don’t stop in Mexico, as the law states.
Since 1and 3 are physically untenable and politically impossible they were selected by voters trying to make a point, not staking a position.
Number 2 was chosen by moderate voters because it is the only reasonable choice.
Question is why doesn’t that become enforced law?
Pols on the left see the issue as leverage that benefits them politically, they won’t let that go even for human rights.
Party masquerading as the good guys.
Immigration law is confusing but as of right now anyone who makes it into the US can apply for asylum. Note that in February the Biden admin tried to implement the same policy that Trump had blocked in court of denying asylum to anyone who had not applied for asylum to the country through which they had passed.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-administration-to-limit-asylum-to-migrants-who-pass-through-a-3rd-nation
Steve
Cutting through the weeds of
arcane and frankly, gutless immigration policy, the bottom line is that the world is a miserable ungovernable place and the US is populated by naive, soft, and juicy ripe people eager to be used by any predator with a sob story.
If you believe your country is something special then vote to protect and export that.
If like President Obama you believe that it is not then prepare for life in a third world country.
Violence, lawlessness, exploitation come naturally to human beings.
Civilizing them is a long and arduous task.
Giving away the gifts of your ancestors is not a progressive action, it’s capitulation to anarchy for a little bit of dopamine in the act of giving.