[/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]

DEMOCRATS EYE NEW IMMIGRATION STRATEGY AFTER SUOZZI WIN  
[[link removed]]


 

Rafael Bernal
February 16, 2024
The Hill
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Suozzi’s message was twofold: more border security and an
expansion of legal pathways for migrants to come in legally. _

Democrat Tom Suozzi rode to victory Tuesday by latching on to
vulnerabilities for his own party. , Mary Altaffer/AP

 

Tom Suozzi’s success this week flipping a New York congressional
district from red to blue is emboldening Democrats to “go on
offense” on immigration, raising both hopes and fears among
advocates.

The former and future congressman leaned into immigration during his
campaign to replace ousted Rep. George Santos
[[link removed]](R), bucking a trend of
Democrats shying away from the issue as Republicans consistently
hammer President Biden [[link removed]]over his
handling of the border.

Suozzi’s message was twofold: more border security and an expansion
of legal pathways for migrants to come in legally. The two-tiered
message resonated with the New York suburban district’s voters and,
as a package, it’s music to the ears of advocates.

“Tough border security, coupled with increased legal pathways,
humane efforts to bring in the immigrants safely — those who really
have a reason to come over here and ask for asylum,” said Maria
Cardona, [[link removed]] a Democratic
strategist.

“Now I think Democrats are understanding the way that Suozzi won was
not just the security, the tough approach. He did both, and that’s
why he won. It demonstrated that that’s where the American people
are,” Cardona said.

For years, immigrant advocates have been telling anyone who’ll
listen that they support better border security, and that they want to
see fewer people forced to use asylum as a means of U.S. immigration.

“Against conventional wisdom, the Suozzi campaign didn’t ignore
the issue of immigration, but addressed it head on, addressing border
security and the path to citizenship for long-settled immigrants,
while countering his opponent’s extremism. We’ve long advocated
for this winning formula,” said Beatriz Lopez, deputy director of
the Immigration Hub.

Few in either party had been listening.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), the group that’s taken
ownership of representing immigrant communities in Congress, was shut
out of the bipartisan Senate border negotiations for the deal that
crashed spectacularly this month.

That legislation was heavy on the border security elements and light
on the creation of new pathways for new immigrants or for existing
undocumented immigrants to fix their papers.

Though the Senate package provided immigration relief to groups
including so-called “documented Dreamers,” the children of
work-visa holders who age out of status, its relatively one-sided
approach drew ire from advocates
[[link removed]].

Sen. Chris Murphy [[link removed]](D-Conn.),
one of the architects of the deal, released a memo Wednesday after
Suozzi’s victory, encouraging Democrats to replicate the Long Island
model and go on the offensive on immigration.

Murphy implied, however, that Democrats in the past had put too much
focus on relief for the undocumented.

“The primary, proactive change Democrats talk about is a pathway to
citizenship for undocumented people. This is a worthy, broadly popular
objective — one that we should keep as a priority,” wrote Murphy.

“But we can make it more popular by framing it inside a message that
prioritizes strong and fair border policies. An immigration message
that supports legal immigration and a pathway to citizenship, but
leads with a belief in an orderly, safe border is both politically
advantageous and morally defensible.”

Immigration advocates, on a high after Suozzi’s victory appears to
have changed the conversation in their favor, skirted around their
differences with Murphy’s approach, but pointed out what they see as
the core deficiency of the failed bipartisan Senate deal.

“One of the things that needs to happen is that we need to be at the
table. And unfortunately, the process in the Senate did not guarantee
that,” said Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.).

“We need to be at the table so that we can have our agenda items
fully discussed, understanding that we’re not going to get
everything we want, just like the other side is not going to get
everything they want — that there must be a consensus built to move
forward together, as the election showed last night.”

The subtle differences between Murphy’s and Espaillat’s approaches
boil down to a chicken-or-the-egg scenario: Do voters want border
security first and a functioning immigration system second, or vice
versa?

For immigration advocates and experts, that distinction is important
because they see expanded legal pathways as a first step to reduce
demand for illegal crossings and asylum claims.

Advocates have fought to maintain the current standard to apply for
asylum — prospective asylees must convince border authorities they
have a “significant possibility” of making a successful asylum
case before a judge.

The Senate deal would have raised that standard to only allow
applicants with a “reasonable possibility” of making their case,
in order to reduce the number of foreign nationals who get to the
second step in the asylum process.

In theory, that heightened standard, coupled with more detention and
other border security measures, would deter people from crossing the
border to claim asylum, though some advocates say it would only
encourage migrants to attempt to enter the United States undetected.

Improving legal pathways — creating visas that migrants can
realistically apply for and receive — would channel migrants away
from unauthorized border crossings and asylum applications altogether,
advocates say.

Espaillat said Suozzi beat Republican Mazi Pilip’s immigration
attacks by “speaking right in front of it, directly through the
center and talking about not just border security but opening up
pathways to legal migration — which we see how it impacts favorably
the situation at the border.” 

Yet Suozzi also crossed lines that under different circumstances would
have landed him in the doghouse with progressives and immigration
advocates, for instance expressing comfort at calling conditions at
the border an “invasion.”

Suozzi’s vision also matches Murphy’s more closely than it does
the advocates’; he praised the Senate deal and used its failure to
attack his opponent.

The immigration left is mostly ready to give Democratic candidates a
pass on that sort of campaign language, so long as “going on
offense” doesn’t imply going back to the Senate deal’s approach.

“While this election will not predict the winners or losers in
November, the lesson for President Biden and Democrats is key. No
strategy that rushes to the far right or attempts to out-Trump Trump
will mobilize voters,” Lopez said.

And many Democrats feel comfortable with Suozzi’s approach, with the
party requiring less fealty to its leader than the GOP under former
President Trump.

“What you’re not going to see is President Biden going out there
and throwing Tom Suozzi [[link removed]]under
the bus because he distanced himself from him, the way that you’re
seeing Donald Trump throw his candidates under the bus if they don’t
come and kiss the ring,” Cardona said.

“That means that Democrats understand the politics of all of the
different districts and states that Democrats need to win. And the
president and the White House and the campaign are absolutely OK with
that. We are a big tent party.”

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chair Suzan DelBene
(D-Wash.) told reporters Wednesday that Suozzi’s approach worked
because “he spoke authentically about his positions,” and because
he had a resume as a deal-making centrist in his prior tenure in the
House.

But DelBene didn’t explicitly endorse going on offense as a national
Democratic strategy.

“Each of our districts are very different in different parts of the
country in terms of how they rank issues, how they’re impacted by
issues. … So you’re gonna see folks talking in an authentic way
about how they’re going to approach issues,” she said.

And some on the left are warning against attributing Suozzi’s win
entirely to how he talked about immigration, or to his willingness to
adopt some right-leaning language on the matter.

“All the hot takes hanging the entirety of Suozzi’s win on
‘immigration’ are conflating two different dynamics. Suozzi
didn’t win because he edged rightward on immigration. To the degree
that his focus on immigration helped, it was because it highlighted
Republican chaos, political theater, and their complete lack of
interest in serious governing, all with a crisp receipt in their
choice to tank their own border bill,” said Ezra Levin, co-executive
director of Indivisible, a group that supported Suozzi.

Levin added that Suozzi’s campaign also leaned on other top issues
such as abortion, and benefited from the fact the special election was
held to replace Santos, who was expelled from the House amid scandals
and criminal indictments.

“Suozzi successfully made the contrast sharp: Republicans are chaos
in Congress, they’re a threat to abortion and elections, and they
can’t be trusted to work for solutions. It’s all political theater
for them. And that lack of trust is especially true in a district that
had just been represented by George f‑‑‑ing Santos.”

_—Caroline Vakil contributed._ _Updated at 11:15 a.m._

* Immigration
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[/contact/submit_to_xxxxxx?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [/faq?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]
Manage subscription [/subscribe?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]
Visit xxxxxx.org [/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]