Winning Progressive

Below are some in the moment thoughts about the second Presidential Debate.  Our take is that President Obama stood up proudly for his record, offered a positive vision, called out Romney’s lies in a calm and cool way, and, most importantly, showed some real fire in the belly.

Keep in mind that the post-debate impressions spread by the chattering classes in DC often shapes voters’ views about who won or lost a debate, so let’s all go out there and trumpet President Obama’s strong performance in social media, with your friends and family, in letters to your local newspapers, and by signing up to volunteer for the Obama campaign.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

I missed the first 25 mins of the debate, and tuned in to Romney lying about his tax plan. What a shock.

Is Romney also going to give us all magic unicorns? No. In reality, he’s going to raise taxes on the middle class and take away our Medicare and Social Security.

Nice. President Obama ties Romney to the House Republicans, while linking Democratic policies to economic growth under President Clinton.

So what will Romney do first – produce his tax returns, or tell us what tax exemptions he will eliminate?

If Romney cannot stop his own Bain Capital company from shipping jobs overseas, then why would we think he would create American jobs as President?

The only “sources” that Romney can claim supports his mystical tax plan are blogs and articles written by Republicans.

Let’s see if Multiple Choice Mitt takes a position on Lily Ledbetter Act. He has refused to in the past, because his party opposes every effort to achieve gender equality.

The difference between Romney and W. Bush is that Romney is offering the Bush agenda on steroids.

Romney simply lied about access to contraception. He vowed to “get rid of” funding for Planned Parenthood, and supported the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed any employer to deny its employees health insurance coverage for contraception.

President Obama has the real record of supporting actual small businesses.

President Obama has taken steps to make Medicare more efficient, without cutting benefits. Romney opposes those efficiencies, and wants to eliminate Medicare.

Under President Reagan, government employment increased significantly. Under President Obama, the GOP required massive layoffs of state and local government workers, which is largely what is holding the economy back.

Here’s how reactionary Romney is on immigration – he vowed to veto the DREAM Act, and wants to make life so difficult for immigrants that they will “voluntarily” leave the country through “self-deportation.”

Here’s the details on President Obama’s sensible policy to stop deporting DREAMers – law abiding immigrants who were brought here by their parents when they were children.

And the Obama Administration took on Arizona’s anti-immigrant SB1070 all the way to the Supreme Court, while Romney calls Arizona’s law “a model for the nation”.

Romney’s “blind trust” is not blind - as he said, “blind trusts are an age old ruse.”

Nice to see the moderator call Romney out for being flatly wrong about Obama’s statement on Libya.  Here’s what President Obama said in a Rose Garden statement on September 12 – “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

Back in April, Romney went and kissed the ring of the NRA leadership, buying into their silly conspiracy theories rather than calling them out for opposing sensible gun safety legislation.

On jobs, Romney could begin by making sure his Bain Capital companies stop shipping American jobs to China, like Sensata is doing in Freeport, Illinois.

Here’s an example of what Romney’s Bain Capital is doing to every day Americans by shipping their jobs overseas.

If Romney cares about 100% of Americans, why did he tell his wealthy donors that he does not care about 47% of us?

President Obama knocked that closing answer out of the park – absolutely beautiful how he showed passion for every day Americans while making clear that Romney doesn’t care.

Over the past three-and-a-half years, President Obama and Democrats have successfully enacted significant progressive legislation and executive policies that have, among other things, created 5.2 million private sector jobs over the past 31 months, kept our nation safe and taken out Bin Laden, made a fairer and more just society, advanced gender equality, and rescued the American auto industry.  At stake in November 2012 is whether these accomplishments will be repealed by the GOP, or whether we will be able to continue to focus on moving our country forward in 2013 and beyond.

Unfortunately, the message of the significant progress that has been achieved so far during the Obama Administration won’t get out unless we progressives talk to our neighbors and friends, write letters to our local newspapers, and use social media to help keep other voters well informed.  In order to help our readers do so, below are links to Winning Progressive’s coverage of just some of the Obama Administration’s progressive accomplishments.  Please share widely.

List of 2009-2010 Democratic Accomplishments

Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Rescuing the American Auto Industry

Closing the Medicare Doughnut Hole

The Successful 2009 Stimulus

Credit Card Industry Reform

Fighting For Small Businesses

Ending Combat Operations in Iraq

Ending Abusive Health Insurance Industry Practices

Expanding Health Insurance Coverage to 32 Million More Americans

Making College More Affordable

Reforming Wall Street

2011 Health Care Reform Benefits

Eliminating Co-Pays on Contraceptive Services as Preventive Care

Challenging the Defense of Marriage Act in Federal Court

Rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline

Finalizing Air Pollution Rules That Will Save 13,000 Lives Per Year

Increasing Vehicle Fuel Efficiency to 35.5mpg By 2016 and 54.5 by 2025

Implementing a Sensible New Immigration Policy for “DREAMers”

Obama DOJ Wins Significant, Though Not Complete, Victory Over Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Law

American High-Speed Rail Moving Forward

A Good Friend of Labor

Obama’s Record of Support for Israel

As we’ve explained previously, Mitt Romney’s speech last week to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (“NALEO”) left open far more questions than it answered about Multiple Choice Mitt’s views on immigration.  But one area where Romney was fairly straightforward is in identifying military service as the only path to legal status for undocumented immigrants that he supports.  In particular, Romney stated:

Now, we also have a strong tradition in this country of honoring immigrants who join our military, put their lives on the line to keep the country safe.  Since Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has naturalized almost 75,000 members of the armed forces. Too many of those patriots died on distant battlefields for our freedom before receiving full citizenship here in the country they called home.  As President, I will stand for a path to legal status for anyone who is willing to stand up and defend this great nation through military service. Those who’ve risked their lives in defense of America have earned their right to make their life in America.

Winning Progressive certainly agrees that we should honor people who choose to serve our country by joining the military and that military service should be one path to legal status for DREAMers and other undocumented immigrants.  But we find it beyond disingenuous for Romney to place such a high value exclusively on military service for undocumented immigrants when Romney himself never served and dodged many opportunities that he had to serve in the military.

In a recent Associated Press article, reporter Steve Peoples detailed Romney’s history of seeking deferments to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War.  As the Peoples article explains:

“It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft,” Romney told the newspaper.

But that’s exactly what Romney did, according Selective Service records. He received his first deferment for “activity in study” in October 1965 while at Stanford.

. . . .
After his first year at Stanford, Romney qualified for 4-D deferment status as “a minister of religion or divinity student.” It was a status he would hold from July 1966 until February 1969, a period he largely spent in France working as a Mormon missionary.

He was granted the deferment even as some young Mormon men elsewhere were denied that same status, which became increasingly controversial in the late 1960s. The Mormon church, a strong supporter of American involvement in Vietnam, ultimately limited the number of church missionaries allowed to defer their military service using the religious exemption.

But as fighting in Vietnam raged, Romney spent two and a half years trying to win Mormon converts in France.

. . . .

His 31-month religious deferment expired in early 1969. And Romney received an academic studies deferment for much of the next two years. He became available for military service at the end of 1970 when his deferments ran out and he could have been drafted. But by that time, America was beginning to slice its troop levels, and Romney’s relatively high lottery number — 300 out of 365 — was not called.

Romney’s dodging of military service, combined with his proposal to make military service the only path to legal status for undocumented immigrants living in the US, raises a number questions for this installment of Winning Progressive’s Questions for Mitt Romney:

* If military service is important enough to provide undocumented immigrants with the only path to legal status, why did you, Mr. Romney, choose to avoid serving our country in Vietnam?

* In 2007, you told the Boston Globe “I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there, and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.”   How can you claim to have longed to be in Vietnam when you actively sought four deferments from the draft?  Why did you not simply sign up to serve?

* Why in 1966, when you were receiving an educational draft deferment in order to attend Stanford, did you protest in favor of the Vietnam War and against anti-war and anti-draft students?  Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to be protesting in favor of a war and draft that you were willfully avoiding?

* None of your five sons have served in the military, even though all of them were of military age during either the first or second Iraq wars and the war in Afghanistan.  When asked about your sons’ lack of military service, you noted that: “It’s remarkable how we can show our support for our nation, and one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I’d be a great president. My son, Josh, bought the family Winnebago and has visited 99 counties, most of them with his three kids and his wife. And I respect that and respect all of those in the way they serve this great country.”  Could undocumented immigrants similarly show their support for our nation and, therefore, earn a path to legal status by also helping to get you elected?  If not, why not?

Many politicians from both sides of the aisle avoided the Vietnam War or have otherwise declined to serve in the military.  But few have done so while at the same time as actively cheerleading for military conflict as Mitt Romney has done from Vietnam in the 1960s to the Middle East now, and while pushing for military service to be the only path by which millions of undocumented immigrants could legally stay in the US.  Such a record suggests that Romney is less interested in providing undocumented immigrants with a path to legal status and more interested in finding more bodies to deal with the international conflicts Romney seems eager to trigger.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Earlier editions of this series include Questions for Mitt Romney on immigration, health care reform, the NRA and guns, Jerry Falwell and Liberty University, Robert Bork, and Ann Coulter.

Last week, President Obama and Multiple Choice Mitt Romney both gave speeches to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (“NALEO”) in which they addressed economic and immigration issues.  In his speech, President Obama outlined the economic issues at stake in this election, explained the importance of his new DREAMers immigration policy, reiterated his call for Congress to pass the DREAM Act, and explained why we need immigration reform and a Congress that will stop obstructing such reform.

Multiple Choice Mitt, meanwhile, was in full-bore Etch-a-Sketch mode.  Romney did reiterate some of his anti-undocumented immigrant policies, saying that he would:

re-double our efforts to secure the borders – that means both preventing illegal border crossings and making it harder to illegally overstay a visa.  We should field enough border patrol agents, complete a high-tech fence, and implement and improve exit verification system.

But gone was much of the anti-immigration rhetoric that Romney spewed during the GOP primaries.  In its place was praise for legal immigration and a softer tone on undocumented immigrants.   Romney also promised a “long term solution” for DREAMers but, outside of a promise to provide a “path to legal status” for anyone who serves in the military, he offered no details as to what that “solution” would purportedly involve.

What Multiple Choice Mitt did not address in his speech is whether he still supports the reactionary anti-immigration positions that he has long espoused, or whether he is willing to support sensible and humane policies to address the status of the approximately 11.5 million undocumented immigrants who are hard-working, taxpaying residents of the US.  So, in this edition of Questions for Mitt Romney, we ask:

* Does Romney support President Obama’s DREAMers policy?  It has been more than a week since that policy was announced, and Romney still refuses to give a straight answer as to whether he supports it, though a campaign adviser says he thinks Romney would repeal it.

* Does Romney still believe that the DREAM Act should be vetoed because it is a “magnet for illegal immigration”

* At a time of limited budgetary resources, does Romney believe it is good policy for the US government to be spending an average of $23,148 of taxpayer money to deport each DREAMer?

* Does Romney support the decision of the office of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Romney’s 2008 Arizona campaign chairman to arrest a six-year-old girl on suspicion of being an undocumented immigrant?

* Does Romney still support the strategy of “self-deportation,” which seeks to make life in the US so hard for undocumented immigrants that they “voluntarily” choose to leave the country?

* Does Romney still believe that Arizona’s harsh anti-immigration law is a “model” for the nation.

* Is Kris Kobach, the virulently anti-immigrant Attorney General of Kansas who crafted the self-deportation strategy, still an adviser to the Romney campaign on immigration issues?  What role would Mr. Kobach play in a Romney Administration?

The simple reality is that Mitt Romney has a long track record of taking extreme reactionary positions on immigration issues, and during the GOP primary Romney espoused views that led blogger Steve Benen to justifiably declare Romney “the the most right-wing candidate on immigration of any competitive presidential hopeful in generations.”  Nothing about Romney’s speech to NALEO last week changes the reality that, when it comes to immigration, a Romney Presidency would be marked by extreme anti-immigration policies of self-deportation, not the sensible and humane policies demonstrated by the DREAM Act.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Earlier editions of this series include Questions for Mitt Romney on health care reform, the NRA and guns, Jerry Falwell and Liberty University, Robert Bork, and Ann Coulter.

(By Fay Paxton, cross-posted at The Pragmatic Pundit)

The Obama administration’s announcement that it will stop deporting some young undocumented immigrants has placed immigration at the forefront of the presidential campaign and candidate Romney in a bit of a stew.  Pundits suggest Romney must moderate his position on immigration, but what exactly is his position?

As Governor of Massachusetts, in 2006, Romney signed an agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency that would have permitted State Troopers to arrest and seek deportation of suspected illegal immigrants they encountered during the course of their normal duties.

A group of 30 special-trained troopers were to be deputized to enforce immigration matters; to make arrests on immigration charges, question and detain suspected illegal immigrants, charge them with a violation of immigration law and place them in removal proceedings.  Soon after signing the executive order, Romney left the governorship to run for President.  In his television ad he said, “As President, I’ll oppose amnesty, cut funding for sanctuary cities and secure our borders.”

The newly elected governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, rescinded the agreement within his first week in office.

Romney, who had the harshest immigration policy of the Republican presidential candidates, has received endorsements from Arizona’s SB 1070’s authors and main supporters,  Russell Pearce, Kris Kobach and Jan Brewer. Two days before the Supreme Court was set to hear opening arguments about the controversial law, Romney held several fundraisers and a rally in Arizona, where he embraced and praised birther-extermist and anti-immigration enforcer, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

From Huffington Post:

Joe Arpaio’s Office Arrests 6-Year-Old Suspected Undocumented Immigrant

Romney’s immigration adviser, Kris Kobach told CNN,  “He [Romney] stated very publicly that Arizona’s law should be a model for how the federal government enforces its immigration laws. And he’s correct there too.”

Romney’s “self-deportation” policy shares the same basic approach as Arizona’s SB-1070.

President Obama took a bold step this past Friday when he announced that his Administration would no longer seek to deport “Dreamers” – young, undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children by their parents, have been in the US for at least five years, and are law abiding and willing to attend college or serve in the military. The decision has triggered wholly predictable outrage from nativist conservatives, combined with a politically motivated effort by a handful of Republicans to suggest that President Obama’s action would somehow prevent Congress from addressing this issue. The reality is that President Obama’s decision was the right one and that Republicans have stopped Congress from helping Dreamers for years.

President Obama’s new immigration policy will lift the threat of deportation from nearly 1 million Dreamers and is an important step towards making our immigration system fairer, more efficient, and more just.  Therefore, it is critical that we all express our support for this step, and share the word about what the new policy is and why it is the right one.  Here are some of the details.

What The New Policy Is

The new Dreamers policy is set forth in a memorandum from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano that calls on immigration officials to use their prosecutorial discretion and not spend limited resources attempting to deport individuals who:

• came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
• have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
• are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
• have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety; and
• are not above the age of thirty.

Instead of facing the threat of deportation, the approximately one million people who qualify under this new policy will instead be able to apply for a two-year work visa that can be renewed at the end of the two years.

Why The New Policy Is the Right One

The new immigration policy is a matter of basic fairness, and also furthers the interests of our country as a whole.  The Dreamers who are covered by this policy are in the US without proper documentation through no fault of their own and are law-abiding people who are contributing to society through obtaining an education, working, and/or serving in the military.  There is simply no moral or rational justification for deporting such people.

The policy would also be economically beneficial, as the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that keeping the Dreamers in the US would generate $1.7 billion in additional federal revenue and reduce the deficit by $2.2 billion over 10 years.  And by reducing the number of people in the US whose undocumented status enables employers to underpay, the policy could help to place some upward pressure on wages for all Americans.

Why The New Policy Is Legal

Republicans have responded to the Obama Administration announcement by claiming that the policy is somehow illegal and an abuse of Executive authority by the President.  For an especially ironic presentation of this argument, see this essay by John Yoo, who infamously found while he was serving in the George W. Bush Administration that the President had the authority to authorize torture of enemy combatants.  But the claims by Yoo and other conservatives that President Obama somehow abused his authority ignores the import of the well-establish doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, which provides that the Executive has considerable discretion in deciding exactly how and against whom criminal laws should be enforced.  As explained in a letter to the White House from nearly 100 law professors, the law plainly allows this sort of exercise of prosecutorial discretion and Presidents have exercised that discretion in similar situations in the past.   Given that it costs the federal government $23,148 to deport each individual, it is perfectly rational for the Administration to decide to focus limited resources on pursuing serious lawbreakers, rather than blameless and law-abiding undocumented immigrants.

The GOP Was Not Going to Act to Help Dreamers

Perhaps the most disingenuous objection from conservatives has been that President Obama should have waited for Congress to act. But the DREAM Act, which would provide Dreamers with permanent residency status, has been floating around Congress for more than a decade and has received majority support in both Houses of Congress on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, it has never become law because Republicans in the Senate have filibustered the legislation a number of times, most recently in December 2010 when it was halted by 41 Republican Senators.  The fact that the GOP has been preventing the majority in Congress from passing the DREAM Act for years now completely undermines their argument that President Obama should have waited for Congress to act.

Conservatives also claim that President Obama’s action was not needed because Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was purportedly going to propose a watered-down version of the DREAM Act.  But Rubio has been all talk and no action on this issue for months, and still has never submitted an actual legislative proposal.

What is Mitt Romney’s Position on This Issue?

Perhaps realizing the political peril that this issue puts him in, Mitt Romney responded with a vague statement that legislative action should be taken to deal with the Dreamers issue, but not explaining what such action should involve.  Previously, however, Romney vowed to veto the DREAM Act, which he called a “magnet for illegal immigration,” and announced his support for an approach to undocumented immigrants of “self-deportation,” which involves making life so difficult for immigrants that they will “voluntarily” decide to leave the US.  And Romney’s “informal advisor” on immigration issues, the virulently anti-immigration Kris Kobach, has made clear that he would not support even the watered-down version of the DREAM Act that Senator Rubio has discussed.  While Romney may try to Etch-a-Sketch his way out of his previous statements about the DREAM Act, his behavior during the Republican primaries makes clear that were Romney to become President, he would be answering to the anti-immigration advocates in his party, not seeking to find ways to help the Dreamers.