Democratic Pollsters and Strategists Lay Out Plan for Addressing Immigration in 2008

Leading Democratic pollsters and political strategists laid out the party's strategy for addressing the immigration issue in the upcoming 2008 elections to some of the nation's top journalists in a telephonic news conference today.

Among the heavy-hitters describing the approach they will be recommending to Democratic office-seekers - including the Oval Office - were Peter Bronitz of the Benenson Strategy Group; Christopher Dorval of Dorval Strategies; Celinda Lake and David Mermin of Lake Research Partners; and Simon Rosenberg of the New Democratic Network.

On the other end of the line, were nationally recognized journalists including Morton Kondracke of Roll Call; Peter Walston of the Los Angeles Times;Mark Silva of the Chicago Tribune; David Brooks, columnist for The New York Times; and Jerry Kamber of Copley News Service.

Among those who will be planning the Democratic Party's political strategy for next year's elections, there is widespread acknowledgement that there is a great deal of public anxiety about the issue of immigration, although not necessarily as salient as issues like the War in Iraq. The hour-long conference call revealed a number of interesting insights into how Democrats expect this issue to play out in 2008:

Adopting and adapting the Dobbs approach. CNN's Lou Dobbs has successfully packaged the immigration issue as part of a bundle of concerns that are shared widely by the American middle class. Along with outsourcing of American jobs, "free trade" policies that are running up astonishing trade imbalances, and the failure to adequately ensure the safety of imported products, Dobbs hammers away at immigration policies that are effectively a "war on the middle class."

In 2008, says Simon Rosenberg, the Democrats must address the legitimate anxiety of the American public by promoting the idea that comprehensive immigration reform (read: amnesty, or as they like to put it, "an earned pathway to citizenship") is part of a "pragmatic" approach to making globalization work for the American public. In response to a question from Copley's Jerry Kamber (the only reporter not pitching soft balls) about how they could sell the Bush-Kennedy bill's plan to increase the flow of unskilled workers to the U.S. by 400,000 a year at a time when working class American feel so threatened, Rosenberg described what he called a pragmatic trade-off. Arguing that 11 to 12 million illegal aliens, many working with few rights, are the greatest threat to blue collar U.S. workers, Rosenberg proposed that allowing 400,000 new unskilled workers to enter every year is an acceptable trade-off.

Democrats must "lean into" the immigration issue. Pollster Celinda Lake repeatedly asserted that the Democrats must be proactive rather than reactive on the immigration issue in 2008. She and the other strategists emphasized the importance of standing firm on the "comprehensive" approach which all of them claim is the preferred option for most voters. Democrats cannot be seen as weak on enforcement, but it must be tied to the other two components of the Bush-Kennedy bill, guest workers and especially legalization. To back up this contention, they cite a new release from the National Immigration Forum that asserts that all polling data affirms popular support for the so-called comprehensive strategy.

A quick review of the polls cited in the NIF release, http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PressRoom/PublicOpinion/2007/PollingSummary0407.pdf, indicates that the pollsters themselves believe their own push polls. In each of the polls cited, respondents were either asked to choose between "earned legalization" and mass deportation, or were not given viable strategies such as tough enforcement of employer sanctions or cutting off of nonessential public benefits and services to illegal aliens.

Unaddressed by any of the reporters or participants was the fact that this week a new enforcement-only bill, known as the SAVE Act, was introduced in the House, with more than 80 co-sponsors. Half of those signing onto this legislation were Democrats.

High profile "mainstream" journalists are as out-of-touch as Washington politicians. Even more than the thinking of the people who guide the Democratic Party, the telephonic press conference revealed why the American public is increasingly turning away from traditional media:

Asking about Tuesday's election in Northern Virginia, Virginia Pilot reporter Dale Eisman acknowledged that all of the supervisors in Prince William County, which has taken a very tough approach on illegal immigration, were easily re-elected. Eisman went on to ask whether this has wider political implications, or whether this was a phenomenon unique to "fringe communities" like prince William County. In other words, to traditional media types, communities that choose to enforce immigration laws are on the fringe, while others, like the city of Alexandria, a few miles down the road, are, by contrast, in the mainstream.

David Brooks of The New York Times was perplexed about the continuing, if belated, enforcement efforts by the Bush Administration. He noted that these raids were "understandable" during the run-up to the vote on the Senate bill since the Administration needed to establish some measure of credibility with the American public that they were prepared to do some enforcement. But, what is the rationale for continuing these enforcement policies now that the bill is dead, especially since it is angering groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Brooks wanted to know.

Ira Mehlman, National Media Director for FAIR