Nathan Newman delivers a righteous smackdown of TAPPED's latest foray into the immigration issue, in which the supposedly liberal blog defines "cracking down" on "illegals" as the default position and declares that "pandering" to Latino voters (you know, that all-mighty bloc) is the reason neither Dems nor Republicans support such a policy.
I've already explored some of the reasons why a sensible immigration policy (i.e., one based on taking the incentive to hire undocumented immigrants away from employers by enforcing wage and safety laws) isn't happening. What I'd like to spend a moment on is this canard that when politicians tell Latino voters what most of us want to hear on the immigration issue, that somehow constitutes "pandering" and should be frowned upon.
My dictionary defines "pandering" as "catering to the weaknesses or vices of others." (So maybe this would constitute pandering; certainly it's insincere.) That makes TAPPED's use of the term pretty damned insulting, if you ask me. Far from being based on "vice" or "weakness," I'd say most Latinos' disgust with immigrant criminalization as a policy is based on the facts that (1) Latinos are more likely to pay attention to the issue and thus are better informed, and (2) Latinos are more likely to know people who have come to this country sín papeles and have a much clearer idea of both the personal cost of the policy of treating undocumented as criminals and the enormous sacrifices those immigrants make for our country while getting very little in return. And yes, it is only natural for Latinos to be attuned to the anti-Latino bias that infects much of the immigration debate. If TAPPED wants to advocate a right-wing position on immigration, it's their magazine (I'll keep not subscribing), but they won't get any respect from me so long as they presume that opposition to their point of view is based on "weakness" or "vice."