The next time you read this newsletter, there will have been several votes cast that will give some indication of what issues, policies and ideologies will drive the future direction of politics in America.
First, the Iowa caucuses will be held on Tuesday February 7th, followed by the New Hampshire primary on February 11th. These votes matter because they will start to shape who the likely Democratic nominee for president will be and what issues voters care most about in selecting their candidate of choice.
Nobody ever gets what they want in a democracy, but democracies do have a way of revealing the current social mood. Are we going to get left-of-center populism with Warren or Sanders? Will Joe Biden save the Republic from another Trump term by siphoning off the remaining blue collar, gun-owning Democrats in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin? Could Klobuchar build a midwest oriented coalition of centrists and progressives united against the excesses of the 1%? Or does America need a mayor? Mayor Pete? Mayor Mike? We don’t know until the votes are counted and the data is returned.
Meanwhile, as 2019 closed and 2020 opened, Congress took up impeachment, shifting the focus of American politics away from the effects of the Trump administration’s actions dismantling healthcare exchanges (Obamacare), propping up the economy with deregulation and tax cuts, meandering foreign policy misadventures and of course the administrations’ harsh stance on migration, both documented and undocumented migrants.
The issue of immigration is still generating attention among voters eager to hear where the candidates stand. The policies put in place by team Trump have an immediate and lasting impact on the entire migration system. Many of the policies have been implemented through Executive action, administrative law changes, or simply by ignoring existing laws and policies. These actions have been put in place without congressional authorization and therefore fall outside the scope of legislative action in undoing them. President Bernie Sanders or Amy Klobuchar could easily sign orders undoing most of Trump’s immigration policies on day one.
Migration is a powerful issue during elections. It is almost universally understood as most Americans have a migration story, but the contours of fairness, equality, empathy for American bound migrants has ebbed, brought on by conservative populism and nationalism, and by the president’s own rhetoric to keep his base activated and motivated going into an uncertain general election. Most recently, at a rally in Iowa, the president made several false statements about the impact of illegal immigration, clearly designed to instill fear of the ‘other’ and to remind his supporters that he is their protector:
“On no issue have Washington Democrats more thoroughly betrayed the American people than on immigration. Illegal immigration costs our nation hundreds of billions of dollars, drains public services, overcrowds our schools and hospitals, and threatens innocent American lives at a number that you wouldn’t even believe. But we have got it closed up, but we’re getting your people in. You have people that have worked for you for a long time, don’t you? I know who the people that you have, and they are hard workers. We have a lot of great people. You have a lot of great people out there. Right here in Des Moines, a twice deported, illegal alien was charged with shooting and killing a woman, her 11-year-old daughter, and her five-year-old son.”
After falsely laying out the cost and the crimes, Trump returns to familiar themes of paternal protection against the ravages of the outside world, projecting himself as the pillar of strength, a wall of reinforcements, against the whirling masses of illegal immigrants bound for the southern border. Only He can fix it!
“In this region of the county alone, last year, ICE officers arrested nearly 4,000 illegal aliens charged or convicted of heinous crimes, including robbery, rape, and murder.”
And, in clearly keeping the wall as his central issue in 2020, he reminded Iowans of the progress made (which isn’t much progress at all):
“Thanks to our tireless efforts to secure the border we have reduced illegal border crossings seven straight months in a row, and they’re getting lower, and lower. Shockingly, as that wall gets longer, the crossings get less.”
Trump’s accusations and false assertions about migration closely tracks the narrative being published by the far-right media. At The Gateway Pundit, a far-right conspiracy oriented website, articles on immigration focus on the cultural and political divide in the country. An article from December 2019 features a photo of a sign hung on an interstate overpass reading “Mass Immigration Turned Virginia Blue,” a warning for Republicans to unite against the Democratic party and their migrant friendly policies or else the immigrants will come and eventually bloc vote for Democratic candidates.
Nearly every immigration article features a comment section with direct calls for violence. In this article, a commenter named Be Still writes, “The government itself is trying to nullify our vote on top of unchecked immigration. We may need to dust off 2A sooner rather than later.”
In another article, the Gateway Pundit celebrates the upcoming deportation of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA) recipients. The image of non-white people protesting in front of the White House evokes deep anxiety and fear among the Gateway Pundit readers, as it shows the power of group activism and diversity:
Many of the comments on this article are in praise of the policy, with one writing “what a beautiful way to close the year.”
Coverage of migration is a major theme at Breitbart News, the conservative ‘new-right’ or ‘alt-right’ publication. Breitbart continues to report about border crossings, especially the number of people coming across the border from other continents, a theme they’re obsessed with, with references to ‘prayer rugs, and turbans’ found by border patrol agents in Texas and Arizona.
The comments are more conspiratorial and ominous:
“No one can convince me that Mexico isn’t a gateway for the invasion of the USA. Mexico is used by a collective of hostile foreign entities to help the Democrat Party topple the USA from within. Global communism came creeping in through the central bank and Democrat Party, and they are determined to eliminate free people and all opposition to their rule. We are their greatest obstacle.”
Another article celebrates the Trump administration’s win at the Supreme Court validating the immigration ‘wealth test:’
This article is particularly inflammatory, using images of children in line at an immigration center. The use of ‘anchor babies’ is an old trope used by anti-immigration groups to warn of the ‘browning’ of America. The children’s faces are intentionally supposed to inflame emotions of the Breitbart audience. As captured by a commenter:
“Oh, and another thing. No more anchor babies. That would go a long way into ending people coming here to live off the “American gravy train.” Then when they get here, they call us racist and demand all kinds of special favors. Demanding that we cater to them and all the while telling us what great places the countries they left are. If that were true, then why didn’t they stay there….MONEY!”
Over at Fox News, the coverage is less charged but decidedly anti-immigrant in order to retain the Breitbart and Gateway Pundit readers. Fox News has a special interest, focusing on the criminal and illegal actions to smuggle and employ migrants:
Fox focuses less on the hotly charged rhetoric and more on the cultural and political divisions:
As usual, Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is (falsely) cited as the ‘leader’ of anti-immigration enforcement:
The national political media takes a more policy-oriented look at migration, closely following immigration legal cases and cultural issues:
The New York Times focuses on the legal and cultural issues surrounding immigration, with a view toward the role of migration as a political issue in other countries:
The Atlantic recently featured a piece about presidential candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s use of the word “Heartland” and its “othering” effect:
Over at Politico, a Washington DC insider publication with wide reach, the focus is on voters’ feelings about immigration as seen at rallies and in the public sphere:
…and in-depth coverage of where the candidates stand on the issue of immigration:
Left of center publications, like Talking Points Memo, tend to focus on a formula of highlighting differences between ideological opponents:
The left-wing site Salon.com shines a light on the false, offensive and inane comments of former government officials regarding the issue of immigration:
As the winter voting contests close, the intensity will shift to the midwest and Super Tuesday states. The issue of migration will continue to be used in political discourse as a central point of division between a punitive federal government and those seeking refuge and hope in America’s economic and political system.
Media coverage reflects the siloed and isolated information bubbles separating those on the right who want ‘protection’ from what they see as an invading horde, and those looking to extend opportunity and advancement to those willing to make America their home.