Today at Take Back America a panel titled(*)Immigrants and the Soul of America focused on the issue of illegal immigration. In the final analysis, the panel was a disappointment, and offered very little substantive information. Talk centered around ideals, morality, and self-improvement, preaching to the choir at the expense of conducting a more productive discussion.
Very quickly it became apparent that panel members unanimously agreed that the issue of immigration reform is best framed as a fight for the soul of America. Speakers related stories of unfair treatment of illegal immigrants, painting the issue as “the new civil rights frontier,” a matter of “good people and bad laws, not bad people and good laws,” and “a seige on the Latino Community.” It was all lofty, and justified, but wholly inappropriate given the context.
Take Back America is a progressive event, which means it is not only acceptable, it is necessary, that speakers assume their audience stands on the same progressive platform. So why waste your hour and a half preaching to the choir? Yes, we all agree that there is need for humane reform of immigration laws. Yes, we recognize that civil rights are being violated in our current approach. But we didn’t come here to have views reinforced. We came to seek out solutions.
We want tools to organize, we want refined arguments, we want information on initiatives, programs, coordinators. We want effective refutations of the arguments that opponents of humane immigration reform rely on. Instead, we got idealism, and the frame of “morality.” It should be obvious to anyone who is paid to work on this issue, as all the panel members are, that progressives already have their fair share of idealism. It should be equally obvious that most, if not all, individuals who are willing to see immigration as an issue of human rights are already on our side.
In my view, there are two general categories of “anti-immigrant” voters; racists, and those who are concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration. Progressive activists citing verses from Leviticus will not change racist attitudes, and it will certainly not alleviate economic concerns. A focus on the “morality” of a humane stance is important, but, when we’ve gathered together folks who have demonstrated their willingness to volunteer time, sweat and intellect to help the cause, we shouldn’t dwell on common ground. We should develop the tools we need to push ahead.
These professionals need to come packing precise knowledge on the obstacles; data, numbers, facts and effective talking points that can appeal to an(*)opponent’s(*)self-interest. Economics is a perfect means of doing that. But during the entire hour and a half there was no mention of illegal immigration’s effect on the economy, no mention of its perceived benefits or disadvantages. There was no mention of the possibility that the economic frame is the most compelling(*)rebuttal to the racism-infused “rule of law” frame that anti-immigrant groups push.
When the people who are supposedly in the vanguard of a movement use their 1 and 1/2 hours in vain, it’s no wonder more advances on this issue aren’t being made. The real(*)progress we seek on this particular issue won’t come until we’re organizing more intelligently, and, in addition to debating from the pulpit, we’re(*)debating from the pocketbook.
</img> </img> </img>


(Source Link)