Has the worm really turned on federalism? Can blue states successfully resist the ultra-conservative agenda emanating for Republican-controlled Washington? A lot depends on California. In the words of one observer (see link below):
“California is the Trump administration’s most formidable adversary, not only on matters of immigration, but on damn near everything. No other entity—not the Democratic Party, not the tech industry, surely not the civil liberties lobby—has the will, the resources, and the power California brings to the fight. Others have the will, certainly, but not California’s clout.”
Yes, the GOP and Trump have been slow and incompetent at enacting their program. But it is still coming, and some of it will hit California hard (and is aimed specifically at us), including on climate and energy policy, immigration, health care, and even housing and transportation. A lot has already happened. Governor Jerry Brown, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and others have been talking tough – and passing laws and filing lawsuits – on almost every conceivable front. This week’s links give some of the details.
How successful CA’s “resistance” to Trump/GOP will be in the long run will depend on all of the usual factors in federalism disputes: Law, legal strategies, and judges; public opinion; congressional priorities; media coverage and sympathies, and so forth. It also will depend on wild card factors of a kind that has become an exhausting staple of the Trump era: Things like the President’s volatile personality, congressional GOP foibles and schisms, and God knows what else.
On Monday, I will go over a few of the main policy battleground areas and talk a little bit about the shape of the legal and political terrain ahead. I’m not up to date on all the details in the news, but maybe some of you who focus more on state politics are.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- What are the main Trump/GOP policies that will be aimed at CA and its interests? Which ones require new law v. merely regulatory changes?
- Which ones are top priorities for the GOP and/or Trump? What’s coming next?
- Pols: What has California done so far to oppose specific GOP/Trump actions? Other states? How is GOP trying to crush it?
- Points: Who’s winning so far? Who decides and (how) will the fight end?
- People: Do Californians support all of these actions? The broader U.S. public? Does public opinion really matter?
- Principles: Is federalism just a tool for hypocrites? What actual and enduring principles are at stake here and is anybody being consistent?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Not all Californians:
- GOP is going to crush blue state federalism just because they have the power. Recommended.
- CA Democrats suddenly love federalism.
- Climate/energy: CA is…
- More: Internet privacy, national monuments, and the all-important 2020 census. The list is endless.
NEXT WEEK: Is there a “New American Nationalism?”
President Trump seems to have backed down on many of his most controversial promises on immigration. There will be no big “beautiful” border wall. No brand new paramilitary deportation force prowling the country. No flat out ban on Muslim immigration (h/t The Judiciary). The same is proving to be the case on his pledge to defund and thus eliminate “sanctuary cities.”
What are those? As the links below explain, there is no formal legal definition of what a sanctuary city is. But basically, a large number (400+!) of cities and towns across the USA have pledged not to turn over certain undocumented immigrants (UIs) that the local governments come into contact with, or even to notify the Feds that they are in custody. These places are not literally sanctuaries in the medieval-Quasimodo sense. Local authorities cannot physically interfere to stop federal agents from seizing a UI in local custody if they learn about it and want to do so. But, sanctuary cities do refuse to (1) spend resources arresting and holding ever person they encounter they suspect might be here illegally, and (2) inform ICE/DHS and hold the person until they Feds come to take them away. Sanctuary cities say they need to spend scarce law enforcement resources on serious crimes, not enforcing federal immigration law.
But, I don’t think this is over. The idea of sanctuary cities really, really infuriates many conservatives. They think it’s unconstitutional. Plus, the idea of big blue cities defying law and order to protect people who are here without permission (and are disproportionally violent criminals, our President said) hits all the conservative outrage sweet spots. Since I’m seeing progressives going all-in to support the undocumented and defy the GOP’s push to reduce illegal immigration, I think this now almost totally partisan issue will be with us for a long time.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- What are sanctuary cities? Different meanings of, history of.
- Moral and policy pros and cons.
- Constitutional and legal pros and cons
- Trump’s actions and their legality.
- Bigger picture on immigration.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Primer on sanctuary cities from bipartisanpolicy.org. Recommended.
- More thorough explainer, esp. of legal issues, from progressive POV. Recommended.
- Irony: Recent conservative legal rulings on federalism may protect sanctuary cities.
- Latest: Trump has eased up on threats to defund sanctuary cities – but only after losing in court.
- [Update- a short article] The one paragraph in federal law that Trump says prohibits sanctuary cities does no such thing.]
- Conservative POV: Sanctuary cities are unconstitutional, etc. [Some of you might recognize the author as being (im)famous for his other legal opinions.]
- Trump has not given up on this.
- His budget asks Congress to change a key law so he can defund sanctuary cities.
- ICE is using war on terror tools to hunt down illegal immigrants.
- State govts have the power to ban/restrict sanctuary cities. Texas just did.
NEXT WEEK: July 3 fireworks – What does the United States stand for?
People all over the world have long anticipated that the 21st century will be “Asia’s century.” According to this point of view, long-term demographic and economic trends already have begun to shift the dynamic center of the global economy from the West to the East. China will keep rising and become Asia’s main hegemon, perhaps challenged by India and other emerging Asian powers. The West will slowly (or maybe rapidly) decline, at least in relative terms, and a new global order will emerge that is anchored in the East, not in Europe or in North America.
CivCon member Aaron (The Younger) asks an important question: Is it all true, or is it just the latest wave of Western declinism? China’s government and people sure believe it, spurred along by the global but U.S.-based 2008-09 financial crisis, from which China was basically immune. President Obama believes it, or at least he has attempted to “re-pivot” American foreign policy towards East Asia and away from our endless preoccupation with the Middle East and a declining Russia.
I have a few questions of my own, as shown below. Here are some of them, and some links on the basic idea of an Asian-centered 21st Century, obstacles to it, and different ways the United States might respond.
With Donald Trump still forming his administration – and his recent bizarre, disturbing phone calls to world leaders, some in direct contravention of longstanding U.S. policy – it’s hard to guess what U.S. policy might be the next four years. Still, global politics tends to follow its own internal logic, plus (the main point of this topic, IMO) is that many things lie beyond U.S. control. So, all of these questions will stay relevant pretty much no matter how badly our foreign relations are screwed up in the near future.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- Which major trends presage an emerging Asian century?
- What evidence of a shift to the East have we seen so far: Economic/financial activity? Political and diplomatic? “Hard power” military and alliance shifts?
- What could Asian powers do to screw it up for themselves?
- Specific Countries:
- New/old leaders: China? India/South Asia? Japan? SE Asia?
- Bad actors: Russia? North Korea? Iran?
- How would a huge shift to Asia harm the USA? Could it benefit us?
- How should we and the West react: Bilaterally? Alliances? Militarily? Reforming global institutions?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
Have we jumped the gun?
- [Update Sunday night] I should have had you read this seminal article arguing China’s rise will challenge the US-centered world order and likely lead to war.]
- Wrong probably. Rethink the Asian century: They have too many problems + Western values/institutions/free markets are too dominant. Recommended, from AEI.
- There will be no Asian century in the sense no Asian country will dominate (Clyde Prestowitz).
- No one’s century: There will be no single, dominant power. Recommended.
China and India –
- Not quite yet is it China’s century. (click at page bottom for 6pp pdf) Recommended.
- But It’s all up to China.
- China’s authoritarian govt will keep holding it back.
- India may be better poised than China. Recommended
Trump and Asia –
- An “epochal” change for the worse almost certainly. Recommended.
- Asians may bail on the United States with Trump in charge.
Asian-Americans and our future –
- Will Asian-Americans be the rocket fuel of the U.S. economy in the future?
Next Week (Nov 28): What future does the news media have?
Today’s “boat people” fleeing the Middle East for Europe are just the latest in a long line of water-borne refugees fleeing wars and chaos. Carl, who has some personal experience in this, wanted us to talk about what most people old enough to remember it think of as the Boat People: The 1.2 million Southeast Asians that fled the aftermath of the wars in Indochina in the 1970s-80s. Most of them that resettled in the United States were Vietnamese, many of Chinese or Hmong descent. But, there were also tens of thousands of Cambodians, Laotians, and others.
I won’t be at Monday’s meeting. Too bad because I remember these events pretty vividly. I remember we faced the same hard questions and anguished choices the Europeans are facing today over their refugee problem. What is our moral responsibility to these people? Which countries should let in how many? Who should screen them and using what criteria? How can we help the host countries near the war zone that are overwhelmed with asylum seekers? Should some refugees be sent back to their home countries against their will (some Vietnamese boat people were)?
And, I recall the fierce political opposition the Boat People inspired, not just here but in other countries – including, BTW, Germany and Great Britain. In 1975 when Saigon fell, everybody was generous. As migrants kept on coming in large numbers year after year, not so much. Yes, a lot of that opposition was racist. But 1975-85 were tough economic times, too. A lot of Americans did not want to compete for jobs and government resources with an unexpected new wave of immigrants from countries that we had already sacrificed 57,000+ of our young men to defend.
As Carl will explain in my absence, many of the Boat People of the 1970s-80s had a kind of happy ending. The international community eventually resettled over 2 million of them, mostly in developed countries, with the United States taking the most. They joined a long historical list of boat people (see links), from Cubans (1980s) to Haitians (1980s) to European Jews (1940s).
You would think we’d have this down by now.
Anyway, on Monday evening Carl will give his take on whatever happened to the Indochinese Boat People and what lessons we perhaps should have learned.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Who were the Boat People of the 1970s?
- A profile of today’s Vietnamese immigrants in the USA.
- Other 20th century boat peoples:
- Right now boat people in Southeast Asia! A Burmese minority is fleeing genocide. Recommended.
- Parallels between ‘70s Boat People and today’s refugee crisis:
Next Week: What does today’s science fiction say about our culture?
Borg on the fourth of July!
The mind just reels. Donald Trump will be the 2016 GOP presidential nominee. . One analyst I read said this is the saddest moment in American politics since Nixon’s resignation. I think it’s surely the most shocking political development since JFK was killed. May you live in interesting times, I guess.
But it’s great timing for us! Certainly, it is too simplistic to chalk Trumpism up to GOP voter racism and nothing else, even though progressives will do it anyway. Yet, as calls proliferate to hold accountable the people, institutions, and processes that led us here, the role played by escalating White conservative racial identity and anxiety must feature prominently, IMO. And they must have been caused by something, too. Are deteriorating race relations the answer we’re looking for? If so, how did it happen and why?
I used the old term “race relations” because it conveys more than just the political expression of racial tensions. Race relations refers to the whole spectrum of ways that people of different races in a society resolve (or not) the tensions and conflicting interests that arise between them. Yes, the term often was used euphemistically, to avoid talking about plain old racism and to shovel responsibility for bad relations onto both “sides.” Still, I think it’s a useful bucket term for us in trying to figure out what fissures and fault lines brought us to this extraordinary moment.
Anyway, on Monday I imagine people will be anxious to talk about Trump. Love to oblige (see all the links). But, I also hope we can focus a bit on the broader topic of why racial tensions seem to be so high right now. Is it just a confluence of events, like police shootings and the Trump rhetoric, or is it a confluence of trends, too, like demographic changes and hard economic times?
To take it easy on everybody, I’ll limit my introduction on Monday to a brief description of the (1) possible reasons why U.S. race relations seem to have worsened lately, and (2) some major theories (some subtle, some not) of the role that racial anxiety has played in putting Donald Trump one-person away from the nuclear launch codes.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- What do we mean by “race relations?” What fields are race relations played out on: Political, cultural, economic, etc.? Are any of them level; i.e., can we separate “race relations” from differences in “objective lived racial realities?”
- Perceptions: Regardless of reality, how do Americans view race relations? Agreements/Differences?
- Events: What big events may be straining race relations, like police killings and the Great Recession?
- Trends: Same for demographic/immigration and economic and cultural developments.
- Culprits: Who has been particularly unhelpful, besides Donald Trump?
- Now what?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Perception/public opinion:
- There’s a huge Black/White gap in economic well-being in the USA. Recommended.
- There’s only a small gap in racist viewpoints among White Democrats and White Republicans.
- But, some U.S. Whites believe they are racism’s worse victims.
- Trump and 2016:
- Trump himself is obsessed with racist conspiracy theories. .
- His supporters have fused racial anxiety and economic anxiety. Recommended. Or, maybe they mainly see his racial comments as proof he’s a fearless outsider and a disrupter.
- No. Trump’s supporters look to him to restore a racial hierarchy they think got inverted by the Great Recession. A crucial but debatable read.
- Conservative POV: The tables have turned somewhat. Being non-White now conveys many advantages.
- FYI: Old CivCon mtgs on race:
- 2014-15: Trump’s rise. Racial profiling and police shootings.
- 2012-13: What is racism, perceptions versus reality, and its role in our politics. Racism and mass incarceration. Racism as a motive for hating President Obama. Our increasingly race-based politics – nice links. Will we end up with all-White GOP and a largely non-White Democratic Party?
Next Week: Are there any universal religious principles?
Two years go one of my favorite political analysts predicted that immigration policy was going to be the big sleeper issue of the 2016 election. I thought this was overstated. But, I also believed the elite news media was missing the importance of immigration in our politics. In the last 20 years a substantial chunk of the electorate has developed a thick crust of anti-immigrant hostility, especially but not exclusively on the Right. It is a minority within the GOP, but a much-feared and influential one. At the same time, the Media also was failing to understand that public opinion towards immigration was complex and divided by class and other socioeconomic characteristics, too.
Well, thanks to Donald Trump, immigration is back on the front burner. Since I haven’t the slightest doubt that the Media will fail to do its job again, I’m glad this topic came up for Civilized Conversation now, before elite Media memes have hardened into stone. We can do better. We could hardly do worse.
I’m very short of time this week. But, I will try to do enough research to open our discussion by describing the basic topography of public opinion on (legal and illegal) immigration. Then, we can debate the incentives politicians in both parties face on this issue. My hope is the understanding we gain will help us understand what happens the next year and a half.
Discussion Questions (detailed) –
- WHAT does the U.S. public really think about immigration issues and how important is this issue to them? How do opinions vary by
- Partisanship and ideology?
- Socioeconomic status, religiosity, geography, and other factors?
- WHY do people hold these opinions? Rational interest? Support for rule of law? Economic scapegoating? Racism/xenophobia? How can we tell which motive rules?
- HOW has public opinion influenced political leaders’ strategic calculations?
- In general.
- On specific issues, like on comprehensive reform, border security, path to citizenship? How about on Obamacare and criminal justice reform?
- Do the most anti-immigrant base votes rule the roost? How much room for maneuver do GOP leaders have?
- What role has conservative talk radio/news media played?
- Will immigration politics determine the GOP presidential nominee? How anti-immigrant will the GOP congress be
- Trump: How many GOP voters really support his wall + deport all POV? Is he saying anything not said every day in conservative news media? Will he harden the party’s stance on immigration or is this xenophobia’s last hurrah?
- Obama: How supportive are they of Obama’s immigration policies? Who dissents?
- Clinton: What’s in Hillary’s new immigration plan?
- Motives: Is this all about winning Latino votes, or is it principled?
- Will Dem policies drive away White working class voters? Is it worth it?
- FUTURE: How might politics of immigration change in the next 2 yrs? In 10?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Substance: Our 2013 mtg on what policies would “work” on immigration reform. .
- Public opinion:
- Obama’s policies: Their big political upside for Dems.
- Presidential candidates: Hillary Clinton’s plan and Jeb Bush’s plan. Read with the politics in mind.
- Future challenges:
- Trump: He’s the monster the GOP created. Word.
Next Week: Anti-Science Views of the Political Right and Left.
In the last two years, a huge surge of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children (UAC or unaccompanied children – mainly teenagers) into the United States has occurred. In most years, about 6,000-8,000 such minors are apprehended trying to cross our southern border. Some come to reunite with a parent who’s already here, others are sent by desperate parents trying to get their kids away from poverty and/or violence, and still others are victims of human trafficking. But, starting in 2012, something changed (opinions vary on what -see links) and the number of UACs began to soar. A lot. In the eight months prior to July 2014, over 57,000 UACs and undocumented children with a parent turned themselves in to immigration authorities at the border.
This surge had two big effects. First, it overwhelmed the government’s system for dealing with UACs. As I’ll explain, the situation was exacerbated by a 2008 anti-human trafficking law that gave all such children a right to make an asylum claim before a judge before being deported. Second, conservatives reacted with fury to the sudden influx and to the government’s ham-handed efforts to find room to house the kids by moving them to locations around the country. Protestors blocked buses carrying the children (in Murrieta, for example), and conservative media went ballistic. They blamed President Obama’s executive orders and “pro-amnesty” rhetoric for luring the kids here. All this likely put the final nail in the coffin of comprehensive immigration reform in Congress; no major GOP candidate is running for election or reelection in 2014 on an immigration reform platform – except on a deport-them-all platform. The UAC issue also has been used to pressure Obama not to issue any sweeping new executive order on immigration. The wave of unaccompanied minors crested in July and has fallen back to normal levels in recent months, but the sour taste among conservatives – and liberals – remains.
I thought we could discuss some of these issues have raised.. There’s a lot to talk about, from asylum laws to border enforcement. On Monday, I’ll open us up by explaining the recent border crisis and trying to summarize U.S. refugee and asylum law. Then, we’ll see where it goes.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- What caused the recent surge in unaccompanied undocumented minors? Why was the government caught flat-footed? How does a 2008 anti-human trafficking law affect the situation?
- What is political asylum and a political refugee? What are U.S. obligations under international law regarding them? How many do we let in, what is the process for doing so, and what burden of proof of persecution must asylum seekers meet?
- Should we change our laws to admit more – or fewer – refugees?
- Has the UAC crisis revealed problems in U.S. immigration law and/or policies?
- Could anything revive the prospects for immigration reform?
- ABC’s of the surge from Central America. (Vox)
- Why did it happen and why has it slowed back to normal levels? Latest. Recommended.
- Conservatives say it’s all Obama’s fault (this shows the conservative anger, too, including over the “diseases” the kids carry – I kid you not).
- Or is it mainly Congress’s fault?
- How our asylum laws work and apply to this situation. Recommended
- Regardless, it makes immigration reform dead, dead, dead. (Politico)
- Most U.S. asylum grantees come from China, and only a small % of applicants from Central America are approved.
- The requirements of international law (in great detail, FYI, from the IJRC)
- [Update: Wiki entry on U.S. asylum law is much shorter than op. cit.]
Next Week: Sex education – What works and what’s right?
Ooh, is this a big, fat issue for our group, even bigger than education reform that we took on last week! Immigration reform is bitterly divisive and the last try at a comprehensive rewrite went down in flames in 2007 fanned by the GOP’s base voters – even though the Bush White House, the Republican congressional leadership, and most Democrats supported it. Could the stars really be aligned just six years later?
Maybe. Everybody knows our immigration system is broken. Republican leaders want reform to start to rebuild their bona fides with Hispanics and the Party’s business wing wants it, too. The Democrats want to bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows and under the rule of law so they can contribute to better wages for all workers, and, yeah, for prosaic political reasons, too (like cementing the Latino vote for a generation, including new citizens). A bipartisan Senate “gang of eight” released an 800-page bill on April 13 and the whole town is trying to hammer out a grand compromise that might be acceptable to the Tea Party-dominated House. The White House is letting Congress take the lead, and House Republicans and talk radio types are not yet openly trying to sabotage the whole thing again. We could talk about the politics endlessly.
But, what about the substance? Which immigration reforms might actually “work” to solve the system’s many flaws? Surprisingly, there is a fair amount of consensus among policy types on what the goals of reform have to be and what the major moving parts of a reform law should look like. the Senate plan is based on that consensus, basically.
So, on Monday night, I’ll open by explaining the
- Major flaws in our immigration system, including our broken legal immigration system, which does not get nearly enough attention; and
- Major elements of reform that the gang of eight, et. al., are negotiating over, and how they would fit together in a new system
I’ll skip the politics of the issue, although the politics are fascinating and more than a little weird. Basically, GOP elites want this to happen, and have to try to figure out a way to make it happen without reawakening the sleeping giant of their base voters and the Tea Party-oriented House members that must answer to them. The Democrats have to walk a fine line between compromising to get GOP support and angering their liberal, union, and Latino supporters. And, nobody wants to put all of this effort and political capital into an end product that turns out so watered down and self-contradictory that it fails to solve our immigration problems.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- What are major problems of our immigration system that comprehensive reform would have to address? Is there any agreement between right and left on what the problems are and their causes?
- What reforms were nearly passed in 2007 and why did the effort collapse? What principles underlay those ideas?
- What is the basic outline of the current reform effort? What are the major moving parts of reform and how are they supposed to work together as policy to solve (hint: just improve, really) the system’s problems?
- How much room is there – both substantively and politically – to compromise before this whole thing falls apart?
- Conservatives and Liberals: What do you want most out of immigration reform? What are your deal breakers? What would constitute victory and what would be a defeat?
- ABCs of legal and illegal immigration:
- Basic immigration facts. Recommended.
- A portrait of unauthorized immigrents in the United States. How many, where from, where go, etc.?
- How does our legal immigration system work?
- The death of immigration reform in 2007. A must-read to understand the politics.
- Today’s reform effort:
- The basics of the gang of eight’s 800-page plan released April 13.
- How does it address the major immigration problems we face? A must-read.
- Conservatives voice their objections (from National Review).
- The Politics:
- Oh, by the way: What the public thinks of immigration reform,
- Your always optional long read: What’s Wrong with our Immigration System?