Immigration reform under the radar, Alinsky style

By Dean L

I think the current crop of progressives have developed a new tactic to add to the Alinsky playbook.  The additional rule for radicals would go something like "Overwhelm your opposition with issues all at once, and some of your objectives are sure to get through in the chaos."  That seems to be what's playing out here. A diversion, or at least, using existing circumstances as cover for an agenda item.

With Obama seeking to cement his progressive liberal achievements in his second term he is going to want to have some signature achievement to bookend his first term Obamacare passage.  What that might end up being is a political achievement - getting citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, very likely predisposed to vote Democrat once they are eligible.   Passing the current immigration reform bill floating around Capitol Hill would cement that legacy of one ominous social/governmental achievement (Obamacare) and one political achievement of a (potential) permanent shift of voter demographics to the left, ensuring progressive liberal domination for perhaps decades.

Sliding immigration reform through the Congress would be difficult were it the sole issue facing the country.  But with government overreach at an all time high, and the myriad of scandals facing the administration, the president can leave the efforts on an immigration reform deal to his party and allow some sort of compromise (where Republicans once again get hosed on enforcement of laws) to others in his party.  And that, is creative politics.  It's not good for the country, it's good for Democrats.  It's avoiding the debate on immigration, one the Democrats probably believe they can win anyway.

But while Congress and the public's attention is focused on the scandal the chances of sneaking one agenda item through certainly are no worse and possibly higher than with so many resources who believe the rule of law should apply to immigration, being focused elsewhere.

That may seem cynical and ascribing too much deviousness to the president, but I remember the days when someone in his administration was advising "never let a crisis go to waste".


  1. It's all about priorities. Republicans haven't exactly excelled at prioritizing of late.

    1. Agreed RN. However, to be fair, it's hard to prioritize your focus when there are so many things going wrong.

      It's like the proverbial Chinese fire drill in D.C. right now.

  2. My response to the permanent political class in D.C. trying to shove this crap sandwich down our throats. If they liked the impressive historical 70 year seat change in November 2010, they just need to wait a year for the November 2014 election. These D.C. Bozo's haven't seen nuthin yet. Never too early to start discussing the next election. I also have a list of Senate seats opening and Senator's retiring.

    1. I like your enthusiasm Keyboard Jockey and the list is valuable. I have little doubt that 2014 will be a good year for Republicans (preferably conservative Republicans). But it doesn't account for 2012 and that means 2016 is far from certain too.

      The higher turnout for the party out of power in off-presidential years model seems to be completely valid still. That's not to say 2010 wasn't affected by all of the awfulness coming from the Democrats, but Obama was able to prevail in 2012 and Democrats fared better than 2010. If Hillary Clinton is at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2016, I fear it will be a repeat of 2008. Worse, the following 4 years will be a repeat of Obama's first term of progressive slop.

      Your point is well taken - now is the time to be looking at 2014. It's never to early to be thinking ahead.


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.