Of course the core MAGA voter won't be moved by anything that comes from the Biden campaign. But a positive message is always more effective than a defensive one. Yes, highlight the importance of "security" and Trump's order to Republicans in Congress to kill any immigration legislation. But put the role of immigration in maintaining a strong economy front and center, and also remind voters that immigration is what makes us "American" -- almost all of us ultimately are immigrants.
I grew up in a small town in NW Ohio that's been a casualty of rustbelt economic decline for the past 50 years. And even though I'm a quite liberal progressive Democrat, to me your proposed messaging sounds tone-deaf and mis-targeted. The places that appear to matter most to election success right now are the rust belt areas like where I grew up, and they seem relatively up-for-grabs between Democrats and Republicans, but increasingly lean Republican. Talking about economic success in these areas is ridiculous and a non-starter. Ditto the benefits of immigration. These areas haven't had anyone moving to them in great areas for generations. In Ohio the only place that's growing is Columbus -- which is a world away for much of Ohio. I assume it's similar in Michigan, upstate NY, western PA, and Indiana.
In the small, declining towns that have lost their purpose and their engines of broad-based economic opportunity, I don't think there's any message of hope one can give without a radically different approach by business and industry. So talking about economic benefits of anything to such a crowd just seems silly. Two generations of decline and all you're really left with as working emotions are anger and resentment, and any electoral messaging needs to figure out how to work with that.
It's similar here in Texas, where the jobs are mostly in urban areas, so that's where most folks settle when moving from wherever: other states or other countries. Most, but not all, and aye, there's the rub. Some of the outsiders are moving to rural areas because there are jobs there, too, and the cost-of-living is less than in the cities/suburbs. They're mostly taking hard/dirty jobs at wages that aren't compelling for long-time residents, but by the same token, those long-time residents aren't doing well, economically, _especially_ given the inflation that spiked (under Trump) in 2020 and has subsided a bit under Biden.
All of the above is just human nature, I think, and the built-in (structural) bias toward economic resentment explains a key part of the appeal of Trumpism. What are the other part(s)? Many immigrants speak Spanish, not English. That's a powerful reminder to those long-term residents that the way of life they'd known for several generations is changing, and not in ways that will benefit them and their fellow English-speakers.
The problem -- and this is the toughest political nut to crack -- is that the voters who'll benefit most from immigration aren't old enough to vote yet (or may not even have been born yet.)
So, what might be an effective argument for higher levels of _legal_ immigration? Fairness, I think. After all, a child doesn't choose to be born in Central America (or wherever), but after they're born, they have as much of a right to live in the USA as the rest of us whose ancestors arrived a few centuries back, willingly (as in the case of my White ancestors) or unwillingly, as in the case of Black slaves.
Immigration is a net benefit - unchecked millions pouring over your border is disaster - one that is unfolding in American cities and will be come to your Town shortly.
Well, it OUGHT NOT to be. Immigration ought to be thought of as one of many economic policy tools for improving the welfare of Americans. Many prospective immigrants will contribute to welfare, some by a great deal (Elon Musk) but some will not. We need a system that selects for, actively recruits, the immigrants we want and ejects (or better, deters) the prospective immigrants we do not want.
Republicans talk only about the need to prevent entry of immigrants that will not contribute. Democrats need to talk about that AND the benefits of the entry of desirable immigrants.
There’s a credibility problem here, insofar as the core message you propose—“border security is important but we also need an orderly immigration process”—isn’t materially distinguishable from what the party line has been for basically my entire adult life, and in practice that party line has seen the Democrats veer between disinterest and outright hostility to the border security side of the equation. Pushing the same line the Dems have been selling as their standing on the issue deteriorates seems unlikely to help anything.
Of course the core MAGA voter won't be moved by anything that comes from the Biden campaign. But a positive message is always more effective than a defensive one. Yes, highlight the importance of "security" and Trump's order to Republicans in Congress to kill any immigration legislation. But put the role of immigration in maintaining a strong economy front and center, and also remind voters that immigration is what makes us "American" -- almost all of us ultimately are immigrants.
I grew up in a small town in NW Ohio that's been a casualty of rustbelt economic decline for the past 50 years. And even though I'm a quite liberal progressive Democrat, to me your proposed messaging sounds tone-deaf and mis-targeted. The places that appear to matter most to election success right now are the rust belt areas like where I grew up, and they seem relatively up-for-grabs between Democrats and Republicans, but increasingly lean Republican. Talking about economic success in these areas is ridiculous and a non-starter. Ditto the benefits of immigration. These areas haven't had anyone moving to them in great areas for generations. In Ohio the only place that's growing is Columbus -- which is a world away for much of Ohio. I assume it's similar in Michigan, upstate NY, western PA, and Indiana.
In the small, declining towns that have lost their purpose and their engines of broad-based economic opportunity, I don't think there's any message of hope one can give without a radically different approach by business and industry. So talking about economic benefits of anything to such a crowd just seems silly. Two generations of decline and all you're really left with as working emotions are anger and resentment, and any electoral messaging needs to figure out how to work with that.
It's similar here in Texas, where the jobs are mostly in urban areas, so that's where most folks settle when moving from wherever: other states or other countries. Most, but not all, and aye, there's the rub. Some of the outsiders are moving to rural areas because there are jobs there, too, and the cost-of-living is less than in the cities/suburbs. They're mostly taking hard/dirty jobs at wages that aren't compelling for long-time residents, but by the same token, those long-time residents aren't doing well, economically, _especially_ given the inflation that spiked (under Trump) in 2020 and has subsided a bit under Biden.
All of the above is just human nature, I think, and the built-in (structural) bias toward economic resentment explains a key part of the appeal of Trumpism. What are the other part(s)? Many immigrants speak Spanish, not English. That's a powerful reminder to those long-term residents that the way of life they'd known for several generations is changing, and not in ways that will benefit them and their fellow English-speakers.
The problem -- and this is the toughest political nut to crack -- is that the voters who'll benefit most from immigration aren't old enough to vote yet (or may not even have been born yet.)
So, what might be an effective argument for higher levels of _legal_ immigration? Fairness, I think. After all, a child doesn't choose to be born in Central America (or wherever), but after they're born, they have as much of a right to live in the USA as the rest of us whose ancestors arrived a few centuries back, willingly (as in the case of my White ancestors) or unwillingly, as in the case of Black slaves.
Immigration is a net benefit - unchecked millions pouring over your border is disaster - one that is unfolding in American cities and will be come to your Town shortly.
Well, it OUGHT NOT to be. Immigration ought to be thought of as one of many economic policy tools for improving the welfare of Americans. Many prospective immigrants will contribute to welfare, some by a great deal (Elon Musk) but some will not. We need a system that selects for, actively recruits, the immigrants we want and ejects (or better, deters) the prospective immigrants we do not want.
Republicans talk only about the need to prevent entry of immigrants that will not contribute. Democrats need to talk about that AND the benefits of the entry of desirable immigrants.
I stop reading when I see long shot polls by the same folks who’ve mostly gotten it wrong over at least the past decade or so.
There’s so much more to these stories than made up spin data. Yawn.
There’s a credibility problem here, insofar as the core message you propose—“border security is important but we also need an orderly immigration process”—isn’t materially distinguishable from what the party line has been for basically my entire adult life, and in practice that party line has seen the Democrats veer between disinterest and outright hostility to the border security side of the equation. Pushing the same line the Dems have been selling as their standing on the issue deteriorates seems unlikely to help anything.
Explain to me how the bill that Republican rejected represents "hostility" or even "disinterest." in border security?