There are probably two issues that hurt Democrats more than any others: transgender stuff and immigration. Let’s deal with immigration today.
It’s a tricky issue and so Democrats need to read the polls. If you ask people if they’re for deporting illegal aliens (we like to use that phrase here at YSDA just to irritate NPR listeners) almost two-thirds are for it. But then if you qualify that by asking them if the alien is employed and law-abiding, only 42% still want to kick them out of the country.
So, Wisconsin Republicans knew what they were doing the other day when they introduced a bill in the Legislature to penalize counties that don’t cooperate with ICE in deporting those who are both here illegally and have committed violent crimes. Of course they knew that Gov. Tony Evers would promise to veto the bill and that he and legislative Democrats would come out forcefully against it. In fact, they were counting on that.
The Governor’s spokesperson said that, “this is not a serious proposal.” And, as a matter of policy, it’s probably not. But as a matter of politics it’s a dead serious proposal. It puts Evers and the Democrats on the side of opposing efforts to deport people who are both here illegally and are violent criminals. An overwhelming 83% of Americans are for deporting illegal aliens who are violent criminals, according to a poll taken in January.
So the Republican proposal was designed to highlight how unpopular the Democrats’ position is on this issue. And Democrats accommodated them beautifully.
The most sensible take on all this came from Darryl Morin, national president of Forward Latino, based in Franklin. In a Wisconsin State Journal story on this, he said: “I’ll be clear here: Forward Latino has no issues with individuals who have been found guilty of conducting heinous and violent acts of crime — they do not need to be allowed to stay here,” he said. “Where we do take exception is when good Christian families are being separated, particularly in our churches, in our schools and in our hospitals.”
Yes. Perfect. That should be the Democratic line on this. Instead, the party took the bait and underlined their opposition to a position taken by 83% of voters.
At some point Democrats have to decide if they’re a political party, focussed on winning elections, or an advocacy group, intent on pursuing their point of view because they think they’re right. Looks to me like they’ve decided to be the latter.
YSDA stands for:
Free speech.
The rule of law.
Reason.
Tolerance.
Pluralism.
Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos 
Fetterman fixes this.
LikeLike
You wrote that the bill would require counties to cooperate with ICE in deporting those who “have committed violent crimes.” In the WSJ article you linked, though, it says the bill would pertain to those who are “confined in the jail for an offense punishable as a felony.” In other words, the people are accused of a crime, but not (yet) convicted. Looking again at the quote from Morin, he says he has no problem with deporting individuals who “have been found guilty of conducting heinous and violent acts of crime.” In other words, actually convicted of a serious crime. I agree with Morin.
The way this proposed law would be operationalized is that ICE would be made aware of the folks in jail for an alleged felony offense. The person’s case would necessarily go through the adjudication process and, if convicted, they’d be sentenced. Upon completion of their sentence, they’d presumably then be deported. Fine. But, if their case was dismissed, or if they were acquitted by a jury, they’d STILL be deported. That doesn’t sit well with me.
If the Legislature would propose a law requiring anyone placed under Department of Corrections custody or supervision to have their immigration status reported to ICE as a function of the DOC (misdemeanor or felony, doesn’t really matter to me), and Evers opposed that, I’d agree that would be the wrong move.
LikeLike
Of course you’re right in your close reading, but as the Governor’s press person said this isn’t a serous proposal. Policy making is not what’s going on here — voters won’t be aware of the nuance. They’ll just get 30 second ads from Republicans saying that Democratic Legislator X voted not to deport violent killers. That’s why they introduced the bill in the first place. Still, I wish the Dems had responded with your point. I think most people would agree that simply being accused of a crime doesn’t warrant deportation. But instead they responded with a complicated argument about local control that won’t resonate with anyone.
LikeLike
Dave –
I agree that it’s a waste of money for Dems to do a big study to figure out how to move to the Center. On the other hand, at their meeting, they could have elected a Chair to take them further to the left.
I think readers would appreciate your thoughts about how Wisconsins Dems could move more to the center in April’s Supreme Court elections. I’m not clear who is leading Crawford’s campaign. As a lawyer who started in the early 70s, it used to be that conservative/liberal referred to how a jurist approached precedent and even the most liberal stayed in their lane of being just a judge and refrained from swerving into legislative or executive lanes. Nowadays, with Governor and Legislature permanently split, it looks like The Court will always have the final word.
Ken Streit
Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef
LikeLike
Thank, Ken. I think the Supreme Court race will likely come down once again to abortion and so, Crawford will win. These have become more like partisan legislative or gubernatorial races than real court races. Both candidates will talk about how they’ll be unbiased and they’ll just read the law and follow it (while being real tough on crime, never mind the small number of violent crime cases that come before the court). And all the while they’ll be winking at their voters, signaling (or in Janet Protasiewicz’s case, saying out loud) how they’ll vote on the most controversial cases. Anyway, in the Crawford/Schimel race I don’t think there’s reason for Crawford to move to the center. I think it’ll just be about abortion. She’ll make it clear how she’ll vote on that without saying so too explicitly and that’ll be that.
LikeLike
Dave
Thanks for your response. I think that the new legislative boundaries will challenge the Dems to move away from the far left. The districts outside of downtown Madison will definitely have to bring a non-elite message. In addition, the ultra Dem districts in the Ithsmus will have to tone down their Squad rhetoric so that they aren’t a distraction/liability for Dems campaigning in 50/50 districts.
Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef
LikeLike
I don’t disagree. I just don’t see the hard-left tamping things down. They believe very strongly in what they believe. To them, it’s not just about winning elections. It’s about being right. In some ways, they LIKE being in the minority — sort of speaks to their moral superiority.
LikeLike