At least in their weblog form, Tapped, the American Prospect has been making some odd conservative jags recently. First they trashed the global justice protesters a few weeks ago-- see http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/09/tapped-s-09-23.html#530pmprotest ers
Then, responding to a post I did on my blog praising Gephardt's support for immigration amnesty, Tapped wrote the following at http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/10/tapped-s-10-07.html:
"ANTI-IMMIGRANT" VS. ENFORCING THE LAW. Nathan Newman praises Dick Gephardt for pandering to the Latino vote with his proposal to provide amnesty to millions of "undocumented" -- that means they're here illegally -- workers:
(Quoting me)"What is fascinating is how the Democratic Party has moved from a moderately anti-immigrant point in the 1980s with the 1986 law enforcing employer sanctions to a more ambiguous position a few years ago now to full-throated support for the rights of the undocumented. It's a textbook example of democracy in action -- as Latinos massively turned out to register and vote in the wake of Prop 187 in California, it has forced a sea-change in politics, especially among Democrats who once took them for granted."
Employer sanctions are "moderately anti-immigrant"? Hold on there, little doggy. Why is it anti-immigrant to hold employers responsible for employing people who are in the U.S. illegally? Not only is it illegal, it's also basically anti-labor. Employer sanctions were opposed primarily by knee-jerk civil libertarians, Latino organizations (which gain political power the more open the border is) and big business (which likes the downward pressure on wages illegal immigrants provide). That doesn't make them pro-immigration. "Earned legalization" is just a nice way of saying that if you've managed to elude deportation for long enough, you get to have citizenship. Now, Tapped isn't entirely unsympathetic here. Too often, a law-and-order stance on immigration is a cover for pure nativism. And the vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country are here to work and contribute to society. But they're still here illegally. And Gephardt's brand of cynicism -- the doublespeak, the pandering -- is one reason why Americans are still so suspicious of immigration and why they tend to support cuts in legal immigration. They feel, rightly, that the whole system is crooked. The best way to create a nativist backlash is to pretend none of this matters. And the best way to ensure broad American support for immigration is not to pander to special interest groups like La Raza, but to build an immigration regime that welcomes legal immigrants as prospective citizens and is serious about preventing illegal immigration. [posted 1:00 pm]"
My original post and my response are at http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/000438.shtml#000438 and http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/000443.shtml#000443
What is bizarre is that the AFL-CIO has repudiated employer sanctions but American Prospect folks are beating the drums for them. Has there been a shift in political control at the magazine. I know they kicked Harold Myerson off the editors desk and I wonder if this reflects a new "repositioning" of the magazine in some kind of Americanist pseudo-populism?
-- Nathan Newman