Posts Tagged ‘ DREAM Act ’

Playing Out the End of the Lame Duck Congress

Friday, December 17th, 2010
Ed Kilgore


Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

The end-game of this congressional session has suddenly come alive with developments that could have a major political impact down the road, if not sooner.

Last night’s House approval of the Obama-McConnell tax deal is a case in point.  The White House survived its most emotional collision yet with the left wing of the Democratic Party, and managed to secure a majority (139-112) of House Democratic votes for the deal, despite an earlier Democratic Caucus resolution disapproving it.  It’s probably worth remembering that in his own disputes with House Democrats, Bill Clinton wasn’t always so successful: majorities of House Democrats voted against NAFTA in 1993 and welfare reform in 1996.

If you look through the roll call on the tax deal, the Democratic votes are generally not surprising: most “nays” came from the more liberal Members, including, interestingly enough, all members of the leadership other than Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi (who didn’t vote).  There was, however, a smattering of deficit hawks among the naysayers.  The vast majority of true “lame ducks” (defeated or retiring Members) voted for the deal.

Approval of the deal will obviously create another big tax debate during the 2012 presidential campaign.  But more immediately, it will be interesting to see to what extent the deal and the debate over it has set back efforts to build bipartisan support for deficit reduction measures.  Without question, congressional Republicans will now be under more pressure than ever to cut “liberal” spending programs, but the very limited Democratic support for such steps probably got a lot weaker during the tax deal debate.

That brings me to the other big development yesterday: the defeat-by-threatened-filibuster in the Senate of an omnibus appropriations bill for the current fiscal year.  This outcome resulted from no fewer than nine Republican senators reversing earlier support for the bill, and was very heavily influenced by publicity over earmarks—many inserted by Republican senators—which is now officially a no-no for Republicans.

Tea Party types were actually upset not just by the earmarks, but by overall levels of spending.  And Republicans may have bought themselves some early trouble: after a short-term continuing resolution, they will bear new responsibility for drafting a House version of either individual or omnibus appropriations bills, and will finally have to admit that items more popular than waste, fraud and abuse would have to be cut to produce sizable savings.

On the other hand, as David Dayen has pointed out, by losing the omnibus appropriations fight, Democrats could have set the table for undoing the stimulative effect of the tax deal.  If Republicans succeed in securing major appropriations cuts—say, an across-the-board reduction attached to a continuing resolution—then that could indeed reduce aggregate demand, particularly in conjunction with the wide-scale spending reductions that will soon be initiated by state governments who can no longer count on the safety net dollars of the 2009 stimulus legislation.

Other bills kicking around the Senate at the end of this session also carry a lot of political freight: the DREAM Act, which was once an acceptable Republican vehicle for offering a hand in fellowship to Latinos, yet is now an opportunity for casting an angry anti-immigrant vote; the DADT repeal, which is inevitable, but is also still a source of great angst in Christian Right circles; and the START Treaty, which could determine whether anything like a bipartisan foreign policy can be carried out in today’s polarized atmosphere.

We’ll know a lot more after a frenetic weekend that could feature a DADT vote on Sunday.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Political Memo | No Comments »

The Obama “Theory of Change”, the 50-50 Nation, and the “It’s-the-economy-stupid” Dodge

Thursday, November 4th, 2010
Scott Winship


Scott Winship is research manager of the Pew Economic Mobility Project and a recent graduate of Harvard's doctoral program in social policy. The views he expresses do not represent those of Pew.

by Scott Winship

On the eve of the Iowa caucus in late 2007, Mark Schmitt, editor of The American Prospect, wrote an influential essay titled, “The ‘Theory of Change’ Primary”.  The thesis of the piece was that Barack Obama’s frequent paeans to bipartisanship were not to be understood as the naivety of a political Pollyanna who would be rudely awakened upon taking the reins of power.  Rather, Schmitt argued, appeals to bipartisanship were a tactic that President Obama would use to make Republicans an offer they couldn’t refuse: join with your colleagues across the aisle to enact the progressive policies the country demands, or reject bipartisanship and bear the wrath of voters in 2010.

Obama’s theory of change—as interpreted by Schmitt—has not worked out so well.  Half the country supports repealing the healthcare reform bill, half say Democrats are too liberal, and half think that “the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses”. While the lackluster economy clearly played a major role in ushering in the sweeping gains made by the GOP on Tuesday, progressives need to recognize that Democratic losses were not simply due to bad luck.  Progressives overreached, which may or may not have been worth yesterday’s shellacking but which certainly calls for a change in strategy over the next two years.  By taking seriously the theory-of-change strategy and recognizing that the 50-50 Nation continues to govern national politics, progressives can come back in 2012.

There are limits to blaming the economy for Democratic losses.  Most strikingly, the exit polls last night revealed that Republicans won a majority of the national House vote even among the one in three voters who said something other than the economy was the most important issue facing the country.  No, the theory-of-change strategy failed because the priorities Democrats pursued and the specific solutions they offered were not popular enough that Republicans felt any pressure to go along.

Nowhere was this truer than for health care reform, where controversies over government intervention into medical decisions, deficits, Medicare cuts, illegal immigration, and abortion gradually eroded the fragile support for reform among moderates.  Democrats, oversimplifying polling that showed support for “health care reform”, convinced themselves that the time, budgetary resources, and energy spent on pushing through their particular vision of reform would trump the anemic jobs picture in the midterm elections.  (And simmer down, public option advocates—there is absolutely no evidence that the purer original reform proposals would have produced a better outcome politically.)

Abandoning the “it’s-the-economy-stupid dodge” will be crucial for progressives moving forward, because in the most important respect the Administration finds itself right where it was in January of 2009.  The country is mired in an economic downturn, with few positive signs on the horizon.  Progressives can passively wait and see and allow the 2012 election to depend on what happens to the economy between now and then.  Alternatively, by taking seriously the theory-of-change strategy, the President and Congressional Democrats can improve their chances of success next time and minimize the damage should the economy remain lousy.

Taking the theory-of-change strategy seriously means discarding the naively hopeful view that the 2008 election was a mandate for progressivism.  As I wrote the night of that election, that view profoundly ignored the evidence from 2008 and political history since the Clinton years.  The 50-50 Nation lives, and the Administration will have to stake out positions that are both popular and on which Republican-led gridlock will be met with disapproval from moderate voters.  Such positions will often be met with howls of protest from the left, but if Democrats are smart, they will look to President Clinton’s success after 1994 as a model for how to get another bite at the apple in two years.

For instance, the easiest way to continue providing some stimulus to the economy is going to be via tax cuts.  Rather than continuing to push for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers, Democrats should instead advocate for ex-budget director Peter Orszag’s proposed two-year extension of tax cuts for everyone.  Such a stance would be both pro-stimulus and anti-deficit.  Both positions are important, for while the economy is the overwhelming priority of voters, the broad question of the size, scope, and effectiveness of government is second, and this is where Democrats’ weakness really lies.

Democrats could also take a moderate position on foreclosures and the barrier to growth that underwater mortgages present.  Rather than bailing out distressed homeowners—which polls show commands only weak support, due to perceptions of irresponsibility on the part of homeowners who took out mortgages they could not afford—Democrats could propose incentives for lenders and loan servicers to refinance the mortgages of distressed borrowers.  For instance, Ben Bernanke has suggested allowing the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to insure “shared equity” mortgages, whereby lenders would offer lower interest rates in return for an agreed-upon stake in the home’s equity upon purchase or refinancing.  Democrats could also offer tax breaks or loans to make up the difference between the selling price of a home and a (bigger) mortgage payoff.  This would help homeowners seeking to move for better economic opportunities who are not in danger of foreclosure or delinquency.

Welfare reform is up for reauthorization, and President Obama is in a strong position to preemptively lay out proposals that promote individual responsibility but that also fund the block grant more generously in response to data showing that the program’s growth has not nearly kept pace with the rise in joblessness.  Furthermore, he could advocate responsible fatherhood provisions and other family-oriented policies, consistent with his past championing of such initiatives.

On immigration, Democrats should abandon their proposals advocating a general pathway to citizenship—a hopeless cause that will always be seen as rewarding law-breaking—and embrace the DREAM Act, coupled with tougher enforcement.  The DREAM Act gives undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as minors the chance to earn residency if they serve in the military or complete some college.  It addresses a fairly sympathetic group—the sons and daughters brought over the border by their parents, who never chose to break the law but who now face severe restrictions on their ability to get ahead through higher education because of their lack of documentation.

Finally, on deficit reduction, Democrats should use the housing crisis as an opportunity to begin a conversation around the distortions introduced into the economy by tax subsidies (such as the mortgage interest deduction’s complicity in the mortgage and financial crisis).  Larry Summers has suggested that a global cap could be placed on the amount of itemized deductions a taxpayer could take, which would be progressive while avoiding fights over this tax provision or that one.  The President can ask whether the federal government should really be subsidizing the purchase of second homes and vacation homes.

Democrats used the first two years of Obama’s first term to take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make big changes in domestic policy.  Progressives may differ in their evaluation of whether the cost has been and will be worth it, but what is clear is that if 2012 is to turn out differently than 2010, they will have to scale back their ambitions in the next two years.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics, Issues | 1 Comment »

Earning Green Cards Through Diplomas

Friday, May 14th, 2010
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Will Marshall

The recent re-emergence of immigration on the national agenda, not to mention our slow recovery from an economic slump, has illuminated an underappreciated but serious flaw in U.S. immigration policy: It is fundamentally misaligned with the needs of America’s economy.

Our current policy does little to prevent an influx of undocumented workers across our southern border, or to raise the education levels of those who are already here. It admits legal immigrants mostly on the basis of unifying extended families, rather than the skills they bring. The U.S. in recent years has admitted roughly one million legal entrants per year. Of these, about two-thirds are admitted based on family ties, while 16 percent come in for employment-related reasons. Programs targeted at skilled migrants let in only about 180,000 people each year. Our immigration policy, in short, lowers the overall skill level in the U.S.

It is time we looked at immigration reform through the prism of human capital development. America’s ability to compete globally increasingly depends on skilled workers and ceaseless innovation. Two policies in particular will help us re-orient our immigration posture.

First, we need to make it easier for foreign students who receive advanced degrees from U.S. institutions in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) to stay in the U.S. and join the workforce. Our current immigration system makes it unnecessarily difficult for STEM advanced-degree graduates who are here legally to gain employment. Those students have to compete with foreign-educated and more experienced workers for the 65,000 H1-B visas and 80,000 priority worker and advanced-degree green cards issued every year. We need to change immigration law so those students have a chance to earn a green card with their diploma.

But they are not the only students whose potential we are squandering with an outmoded immigration system. Every year up to 65,000 children of undocumented immigrants graduate high school. While it’s not illegal for them to attend college, universities and colleges have given new scrutiny to immigration status in the wake of 9/11, which has had a chilling effect on undocumented immigrants’ enrollment. It’s in our economic interest to encourage these kids to get a college education. Enacting a policy that would give them a path to citizenship through college education and national service can only strengthen the country.

Rewarding Achievement in Science and Math

First, we should enact policies that make it easier for motivated, capable young immigrants to establish U.S. citizenship. Attaching a green card — granting lawful permanent residence — to every foreign student’s post-graduate STEM degree diploma is one such policy.

Currently foreign students are allowed 12 months of practical training after completing their studies. Under a Department of Homeland Security interim ruling issued in 2008, foreign students with STEM degrees can extend that out to just over two years (29 months). However, students cannot have more than 90 days of unemployment during this time. Once their visa expires, they have to leave the U.S., taking their education and skills with them.

But the average unemployment stint is 130 days, and in this recession, over 200 days — more than twice the official limit. The rule means that students in technically intensive degrees are being turned away after valuable education capital has been invested in them. By attaching a green card to a STEM advanced degree, hardworking and high-achieving foreign students won’t have to leave the U.S. to apply their skills and find good work. From the U.S.’s perspective, it would get to keep bright and industrious workers who can add the most value to our economy.

The government should also exempt green-card recipients who hold advanced STEM degrees from green card caps currently in place. Advanced-degree holders currently face a five-year wait to get a green card. By exempting them from that cap, we can keep valuable human capital here.

Not everyone is on board with this idea. Critics have argued against policies that would encourage foreign students to enter STEM graduate programs in the U.S. They contend that providing further incentives for foreign students will accelerate the crowding out of U.S. students — particularly minorities — and workers in the STEM fields.

But such skeptics ignore the considerable benefits of a vigorous STEM/green card policy. The open flow of knowledge and talented researchers has long helped keep the U.S. at the forefront of science and technology. According to a National Academies report:

The participation of international graduate students and postdoctoral scholars is an important part of the research enterprise of the United States. In some fields they make up more than half the population of graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. If their presence were substantially diminished, important research and teaching activities in academe, industry, and federal laboratories would be curtailed, particularly if universities did not give more attention to recruiting and retaining domestic students.

Unleashing the innovative and entrepreneurial energies of our best students — be they American or foreign-born — will be key to America’s resurgence. Stapling a green card to the diplomas of foreign STEM advanced-degree holders is one concrete policy step we can take to ensure that outcome.

A Pathway for Children of Immigrants

The same opportunity to become integrated and contribute to American society should be given to those who came to the U.S. as children with their undocumented parents. This may strike some as controversial, but it’s common sense. When an adult comes into the U.S. illegally, he or she is exercising a choice and is responsible for its consequences. That’s not true of the child who follows his or her parent across the border. A child should not have to suffer severe legal and economic limitations for the simple act of following a parent’s decision.

Yet that’s exactly what happens under the current system. Right now, the children of undocumented immigrants are stuck: As they grow up and go to school, they become more and more American. Yet this country gives them no pathway to legal residency or citizenship. This is bad not just for them, but also for our nation. We are consigning thousands of people to uncertain limbo status, with little hope for full membership in our society. But we are also depriving ourselves of the opportunity to benefit from their energy, ideas, talents and engagement in our national life.

We can tackle this problem by offering an expedited pathway to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants who go to college or engage in meaningful national service. This idea has been floated as part of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. The measure would grant conditional permanent-resident status to undocumented immigrants who entered the U.S. before their 16th birthday, lived here for at least five years, are of good moral character and either graduated from high school or attained admission to college.

Opponents of this initiative complain that giving permanent-resident status to children of undocumented immigrants will be just a backdoor way for their parents to document themselves and live legally in the U.S. But those objections don’t stand up to scrutiny. Permanent residents can only petition for spouses and unmarried children, not parents or siblings. Citizens can petition for siblings or parents, but if that relative has been living in the U.S. illegally for more than a year, they may not re-enter the U.S. for 10 years.

It’s also worth noting that comprehensive immigration reform will likely result in some undocumented families having to leave the U.S. For those who meet the conditions to stay, it’s in our economic interest to encourage their kids to get a college education.

Estimates of the number of young people who would become eligible for legal residency under the Dream Act vary widely. The Migration Policy Institute has estimated (PDF) that 360,000 unauthorized immigrants would become immediately eligible, with perhaps another 715,000 who might become so if they make it through high school and meet the other requirements.

Supporters of this idea should be open to some changes in order to not only win passage but also strengthen the benefits from the proposal. For example, if the only way to get the initiative through Congress is to extend the academic requirement for full permanent-resident status from two years of college to four, that’s better than seeing the whole thing go down to defeat, as what happened with the Dream Act.

A broader definition of national service can also win additional votes. Let’s expand the service requirement beyond military experience. An undocumented youth might satisfy the service provision by teaching in low-income schools, tutoring in an adult-literacy program, helping to maintain our national parks, serving in the Peace Corps, or enlisting in a service program established by one of the states.

A Pragmatic Course

America’s immigration policy is badly broken and requires fixes that go far beyond what we have proposed here. We need sweeping reform that dramatically reduces illegal immigration by enforcing laws in the workplace; that ties legalization to workplace verification of identity and legal status; that enlarges the pipeline for legal immigrants, particularly those with high skills; and that engages Mexico in cooperative efforts to curb the flow of guns and people across the border and confront the scourge of narco-terrorism.

A progressive blueprint for reform must also bring our anachronistic immigration laws into closer alignment with America’s economic needs. America can only hold onto its high living standards by competing on the basis of high-value goods and services. Because rapid innovation is key to U.S. comparative advantage, we need immigration policies that attract more educated and skill workers to our shores.

Immigration reform must tilt our laws toward skills. We could achieve this by increasing the number of permanent visas to skilled workers; by replacing per-country limits — which effectively cap skilled entrants from large countries like China and India — with an overall limit; and by limiting family-sponsored preferences to nuclear rather than extended family members.

And we must take the two steps proposed here: stapling a green card to diplomas awarded to foreign students who graduate with advanced STEM degrees from U.S. universities, and offering legal status to qualified children of undocumented immigrants who get a college degree. Offering a pathway to citizenship to high-achieving immigrants doesn’t just reward talent and diligence — it will lay the groundwork for America’s resurgence in the 21st century.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix, Policy Memo | 4 Comments »