Replication of the 2014 Cochran-McDaniel experience to make immigration reform possible

This is the first of three articles that show how immigration reform can be possible in two years. This article will introduce the main action line and the goals. The next article will propose a new narrative on immigration, different from the counterproductive current one. And the third article will address all the rest of strategic issues, where a strategic approach based on sound concepts of political marketing. No proposal will imply firing the Senate Parliamentarian. These are serious articles. And I offer to volunteer to implement them if you are interested in helping make them part of the national conversation.

This project, which can succeed where all the others have failed, affects immigration but also the positioning of the far right (Trump's base) inside the Republican Party, and the growing support Trump had among Latinos in both 2020 and 2024 despite his brutal xenophobia, support that broke a pattern of Latino vote of, if not endorsing pro-immigrant candidates, at least punishing anti-immigrant candidates -as Romney learned in 2012 the hard way. (Of course, if the goal is to affect the recent change of parameters in the attitudes of Hispanic voters, this project would have to be complemented with other tactics to target what the ANES surveys consider “Hispanics for which Hispanic identity is not that important,” who are almost one third of Hispanic voters and for whom jobs and the economy are the dominant issues.) Also, consider the potential in social marketing a proposal like this may have if it succeeds. Its possibilities in terms of marketing are similar to the impact tactics focused on creating empathy with gays and lesbians had for gay rights -And now many companies compete to get their names attached to pro-gay rights events.

Said this, allow me to reach you with an introduction to my proposal of replicating/escalating the 2014 Cochran-McDaniel experience, in which a traditional Republican of Mississippi, Thad Cochran, requested the support of Democratic constituencies in the 2014 Republican primaries to defeat a neoConfederate, Chris McDaniel, which saved Cochran's seat.

A couple of weeks ago former President Bush spoke (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-by-southwest-george-w-bush-immigration/; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Rec8bwO10) and last Sunday wrote in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/16/george-w-bush-immigration-portraits-out-of-many-one/) in support of immigration reform, what makes room for that traditional Republicans who could be sympathetic to support it (if we can cover their backs in the next primaries so we don't repeat 2006 and 2013, in which Republicans sympathetic to immigration reform backpedaled their intentions to vote for immigration reform after the far right threatened them with primaries in their districts... and nobody wants to be the next Eric Cantor after all) and for traditional Republicans who may not be that sympathetic to immigration reform but oppose what Trump represents and are retiring at the end of this Congress, to be replaced by Trump Republicans of course, because they don’t see how to hold the line for at least one more term.

Of course, a proposal like this requires getting Carlos Gutierrez or the Diaz-Balart brothers on board to create a bridge to traditional Republicans and maybe even to Bush himself, to Republicans willing to endorse immigration reform and to those who don't care about immigration reform but seek a way to contain what Trump represents inside their party. In this last group we have Senators Blunt and Portman joining the ranks of traditional Republicans who are going to retire at the end of this Congress (Analysis | Rob Portman reflects on his decision to retire from the Senate). If they are replaced by Trump Republicans, the chances of using this initiative to pass immigration reform diminish seriously (and the use of budget reconciliation rules or, worse, the piecemeal approach are terrible ideas, doomed to backfire, not to mention the profound immorality of leaving more than 5 million immigrants behind to the tender mercies of Trump Republicans after having given the false impression of having passed immigration reform.)

And though this initiative was conceived to pass immigration reform (as immigration is the far right’s main motivation), it can also be extended to pass at least the parts of H.R. 1 pertaining to voting rights (especially those struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013, open primaries and maybe gerrymandering reform (as closed primaries and gerrymandering are the source of the far right’s power inside the Republican Party though the gains made by Republicans at the state level at the very start of this decade may make much more difficult to include redistricting in the package), and some concession for unions (as unions did the canvassing work the Biden Campaign didn’t even support financially in 2020, canvassing effort we need to discreetly mobilize voters inside Republican primaries). It even can make a difference in filibuster reform if we can get to lower the level to end debate from 60 to 55 considering that this option (instead of a Talking Filibuster) would put Trump Republicans at a disadvantage with respect to Democrats and traditional Republicans united by this alliance on the issues of their agreement. Thus, this would protect immigration reform if Republicans happened to take both houses in the near future. My proposal has even a product with which Republicans could feel comfortable supporting (as it not realistic to see them supporting the Biden bill, but we can offer them a bill that is compatible with the Biden bill in Conference -and I happen to have one from 2008 -cf., link in the third essay) and a strategic plan that corrects mistakes made since 2004. Of course, it also requires to change the narrative that has helped many people rationalize a Trump vote, especially among suburban voters.

Factors like the poor job made by Mayorkas at the border, the shortsightedness of some immigration activists with access to Mayorkas as well as of Democrats like Ron Klain, the fact that Trump’s support among Hispanics grew in the last two presidential elections (in 4% just in 2020), the depressed economy in border districts (due to the fact that the border is closed to traffic though Trump Republicans are actively pushing that discontent towards released immigrants) may lead to a growing number of Democrats dropping immigration or using it as a bargaining chip, especially if those traditional Republicans retire and they are left to negotiate with Trump Republicans only. Many find that Biden’s hesitance to increase the number of refugees this fiscal year results from that trend. But if we let 2022 pass to give support only to the terrible ideas that have “institutional support,” then we’ll have to start from zero in 2023 and with a more adverse public opinion towards immigrants. If this poll is not a warning sign (NPR/Marist Poll: Biden Gets High Marks On COVID-19. It's Not The Case On Immigration), nothing is. That's why we need to make this proposal part of the public debate in order to gain momentum and implement it with 2022 in mind. If so, even if it doesn't meet all its goals in 2022 but gets close, it will have a much better chance in 2024.

Therefore, I would like to request your help with access and visibility for this project on immigration that can succeed where all the others have failed. Trying to send the far right back to the fringe of electoral politics has been, so far, a failed endeavor because those efforts have ignored two key facts: Immigration is their main motivation and gerrymandering and closed primaries, the source of their power. Yes, immigration is at the top of their hatreds (Consider that immigration is the only issue on which his base didn’t allow Trump to spin or break promises. When he just insinuated an immigration deal, his base rebelled, Ann Coulter attacked him viciously and Trump didn’t dare to attack her back.) And gerrymandering and closed primaries allow them to invoke the ghost of primary challenges to any Republican who is not submissive enough even before Eric Cantor, when they abandoned the immigration reform bills of 2006 and 2013. Remember that Eric Cantor, the number 2 Republican in the House, was primaried not because he was a “tax and spender” or a “job-killing regulator” but because he tried to save part of the 2013 attempt at immigration reform with a piecemeal approach.

I'd also like your support to open doors for a project in entertainment on immigration and totalitarianism, which incarnates the narrative I am proposing. It’s my pilot Gatito Inmeegrante (https://gatitoinmeegrante.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/screenplay-fables-04-gatito-inmeegrante-scenes-second-draft.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1mgu8t-VRI2xGvRidl2KYPRQKGPRrlaWGXK3FGiq6PpwZ657rLounjaSY). Please, read it and try to prove me wrong about its potential. In exchange, I offer to volunteer to correct the mistakes made so far and, so you can have an idea of what I have to give and its potential in terms of social marketing.

Hopefully we will be able to talk and I will answer any question you may have,

Thanks,

Alfredo Bravo de Rueda

240-454-4287

To read the pilot directly: https://gatitoinmeegrante.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/screenplay-fables-04-gatito-inmeegrante-scenes-second-draft.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2JSVANWwhgL6Pm28qFZXH0JvXsezGa3GCRDjgPJtKmzYcIZ1Y3ydd4A-k

APPENDIX

1. With respect to retiring no-Trump Republicans:

(https://nowthisnews.com/politics/five-republican-senators-including-toomey-blunt-portman-are-retiring)

2. With respect to using budget reconciliation rules (from a letter no newspapers wanted to publish me):

I have learned some are proposing using reconciliation rules to legalize 5 million undocumented immigrants. This is a terrible idea because:

a. You can't create visas via budget reconciliation. Republicans (especially because they are led by Trump) will challenge this bad idea, the Supreme Court will severe it from the stimulus package and this will be another wasted opportunity that will energize Trump’s followers.

This could've had a chance with the Warren or the Burger Courts, maybe with the Rehnquist Court, but definitely not with the Roberts Court, especially after 3 justices nominated by Trump were added to it. If I were Stephen Miller, I’d sue with a timing leading to get a Supreme Court decision by late 2022 in order to send a message in the mid-terms.

b. It's immoral because it leaves behind more than 5 million undocumented immigrants while giving a false impression of having accomplished immigration reform. This means, they are leaving them to the mercy of Trump's hordes.

And you know what could enhance the chances of replicating the 2014 Cochran-McDaniel experience? Offering Republicans the bill I designed in 2008 with the conservative objections in mind. Different from the Cornyn-Kyl of 2005, which was not reconcilable with the Kennedy-McCain (or the Biden bill), mine is. That would help those Republicans save face. And a Republican like Carlos Gutierrez could convince Senators like Burr and Toomey (or others) to stay one more term not for the sake of immigration reform but in order to deprive the far right of its main motivation.

3. List of 13 potential no-Trump Republicans to whom the 2014 replication of the Cochran-McDaniel experience could be directed (https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00168) IF we can get Carlos Gutierrez (the most visible Republican name still committed to immigration reform) or an equivalent Republican personality on board. That would imply showing that we can provide votes in those primaries as Cochran got from Democratic organizations in Mississippi. And because immigration should be of interest for Republicans interested in rescuing their party from Trump as well as for other liberal organizations (for instance, the Cuisine Union in Nevada, which, like Unite Here, did the work in the field for Biden his campaign didn’t support), we don’t have to be limited to pro-immigrant organizations for our field effort.

In conclusion, even though this is an uphill battle, it’s doable as long as we don’t persist on what so far has consistently failed.

And though the final list should be the result of an agreement with the Republican personality that creates a bridge for this project inside the Republican Party, I made a provisional list for the Senate following three criterion: Republicans who voted for the 2013 Schumer bill, Republicans who voted to impeach Trump and Republicans who are retiring because they don’t expect to survive primary challenges (alphabetically by state):

Shelby (R-AL) Retiring traditional Republican

Murkowski (R-AK) Still in the Senate. Voted to allow impeachment trial to proceed. Lost the last Republican primaries in Alaska and ran as independent.

Rubio (R-FL) Still in the Senate, has supported immigration reform in the past though, as Graham, has recently been seeking Trump’s endorsement.

Collins (R-ME) Still in the Senate. Voted to allow impeachment trial to proceed.

Blunt (R-MO) Retiring traditional Republican

Burr (R-NC), who voted to impeach Trump, are retiring in 2022 though.

Hoeven (R-ND) Still in the Senate; the other is Kevin Cramer (R-ND), a maybe though more interested in skilled immigrants.

Sasse (R-NE) voted to allow impeachment procedures to proceed though. If not interested on immigration, he might be interested in supporting us to expel the Trump’s far right from their party.

Portman (R-OH) Retiring traditional Republican

Toomey (R-PA) voted to allow impeachment procedures to proceed though. If not interested on immigration (He voted No on the Schumer bill), he might be interested in supporting us to expel the Trump’s far right from their party. Toomey is retiring in 2022.

Graham (R-SC) Still in the Senate; Tim Scott is the other one. Graham maybe; Scott supports Trump’s immigration policies. His public disagreement with Trump on the Afghanistan withdrawal shows that Graham’s loyalty to Trump has limits and Graham has consistently supported immigration reform in the past.

Romney (R-UT) maybe, voted to allow impeachment trial to proceed.