Immigration activist who protested Obama/Biden's immigration policies benefitted greatly from DACA

[wyldwolf]

On Wednesday, while the 4,000-odd attendees of the annual Netroots Nation conference were still en route to their hotels, dozens of protesters marched across the center of city to Joe Biden's newly opened campaign headquarters. Members of Movimiento Cosecha occupied the lobby, some of them standing behind a banner (BIDEN: WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN 3 MILLION DEPORTATIONS) and some speaking through a bullhorn.

“We can't forget Obama's legacy,” said Florida-based immigrant rights activist Catalina Santiago, who was born in Mexico. “He promised the immigrant community papers, an ability to have a dignified life. Yet eight years later, he deported 3 million people, and Biden was complicit in that.” ( WW note: politifact tells a slightly different, less black & white version.)

No one griped about the wins Obama had gotten over eight years — Santiago, the Biden protester, received protections under the Obama administration's DACA program for young undocumented immigrants — but they were fixated on what they hadn't gotten.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/paloma/the-trailer/2019/07/14/the-trailer-the-democrats-who-don-t-miss-obama-or-biden/5d288ae71ad2e552a21d53ab/

[customerserviceguy]

1. The Trumpsters

will be glad to trot Santiago out as an example of, "Well, you can never satisfy them, at least not until they fully taken over."

[bigtree]

2. just today

...Trump insinuated immigrants shouldn't speak out against injustices and inequities because of U.S. beneficence toward them or something obscene like that.

"Why don't they go back and fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came?"

Reminds me of this article.

[wyldwolf]

5. which, of course, isn't a good comparison

Protesters, some of who benefitted from Obama's immigration policies, get mad at Biden because the SCOTUS and Paul Ryan block Obama's immigration bills from coming to the floor for a vote.

Puritopians routinely dismiss or ignore congress' role in making or impeding policy, believing presidents can simply "use the bully pulpit" in order to overcome constitutional or legislative obstacles. - excerpt from the definition of Puritopian.

[Cha]

11. Exactly.. trying to compare the article to

the fucking squatter is ridiculous.

[Cha]

10. This article has nothing to do with

the fucking Psycho.

[oasis]

3. I wonder who Santiago is backing for president. More importantly

I wonder who is backing💵Santiago💵.

[bigtree]

4. Meet Catalina Santiago -- a DACA resident fighting Donald Trump for her undocumented parents.

There's quiet crisis of conscience haunting Congress's precarious fight to pass a spending bill by the end of December. While Republicans have authorized $626 billion to fund defense efforts, Democrats are demanding that the bill also include legislation that enshrines the rights and protections of immigrants — above all, those living in the United States as DACA recipients. But with the deadline looming on December 22, it's unclear how moderate Democrats like Senators Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are weighing the potential political blowback of a holiday shutdown against the demands of grassroots organizations agitating for the more than 700,000 Dreamers whose futures have been plunged into uncertainty by the Trump administration.

It's a familiar story to Catalina Santiago of Homestead, Florida — a Miami suburb known for its agriculture industries. Santiago is a DACA immigrant who came to this country as a young girl when her parents left Mexico in search of work and a better life for their two kids. Santiagos' mom and dad are still undocumented, and they keep their family afloat through the grueling labor of picking ocra crops under the punishing Southern sun.

It'd be hard to estimate the extent to which President Trump's virulently anti-immigrant rhetoric has inflected our national discourse about the rights of the U.S.'s 11 million undocumented people and their attenuated status in our communities. Though federal courts have struck down his executive order seeking to deny funding to sanctuary cities, deportation rates have increased 38% under the new administration, with the biggest jump in arrests — a 156% leap from last year — impacting undocumented immigrants without criminal records.

But Catalina Santiago isn't giving up on the fight, for her own rights or those of her parents and the millions of laborers like them. If President Trump won the White House through his power to demonize undocumented people as law-breaking "bad hombres," Santiago is devoted to reframing the conversation by stressing their vital economic contributions. Last May, she joined forces with organizations like Movimiento Cosecha to stage a "Day Without Immigrants" — a nationwide strike empowering thousands of unauthorized workers to underscore the necessary, thankless, and often under-paid jobs they perform every day.

"We're trying to change the narrative, because right now the debate is whether or not we're wanted as immigrants," Santiago says. "We want the debate to be whether or not we're needed." By urging voters to confront the unseen value of the work performed by undocumented laborers, Santiago's continued advocacy aims to highlight the urgent (though invisiblized) ways undocumented workforces support industries ranging from agriculture to hospitality and construction.

read/watch: https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/daca-undocumented-immigrants-america-uprising-farmworkers

[wyldwolf]

6. which doesn't answer Oasis's questions.

[bigtree]

7. oh, yes it does.

...she's still fighting for her undocumented parents.

The nonsense about who is paying her of who she supports for president is clearly not the most important issue here or the most relevant. She's obviously not supporting Trump.

I'll leave it at that.

[wyldwolf]

8. Oh no it doesn't. Quote the lines where the questions are answered.

[emmaverybo]

9. That is the question. nt

[Applegate]

31. Must be Putin.

If one really wondered who is backing Santiago, I suppose one could do a little research. But it's easier to just cast aspersions.

[oasis]

33. "Research" often involves the asking of questions.

Thanks for suggesting Putin, I never considered him, but Im going to run down a few more clues before I close the books on this.

Cheers.

[oldsoftie]

12. Last line says it all. Never mind what WAS done, it only matters what WASNT. Idiots.

[bigtree]

13. reminds me of folks pressing for civil rights

...the Civil Rights Act didn't erase all vestiges and effects of Jim Crow, not in the immediate aftermath of passage, nor did it completely protect the rights of black Americans. The struggle continued for decades afterward, in housing, education, criminal justice, and other accommodations. That's not ingratitude, it's necessity.

In this case the target of the op's ire is fighting for the rights of her undocumented parents who were not granted protection under DACA and were (and still are) subject to jailing and deportation.

[wyldwolf]

14. my earlier reply stands

Activists routinely dismiss or ignore congress' role in making or impeding policy, (or the occasional block by SCOTUS) believing presidents can simply "use the bully pulpit" in order to overcome constitutional or legislative obstacles.

The protester is protesting the wrong person.

[oldsoftie]

16. i agree with your assessment. nt

[bigtree]

17. that happens, especially in campaigns

...and it's not just activists who cast a wide net of blame for whatever their interest is.

In this case, this individual's motives are clear, so it's wrong to single out her political motivations and make that the issue, as if every activist and advocate needs to prove loyalty, or in this case, fealty to the politicians who may be responsible for some beneficence from our government. In this case, it's her mother and father's (and now her own) basic human rights at stake, not some absolutely tangential effect on some politician's political future.

And she wasn't alone in demanding more from the Obama administration. My own governor waged several fights with the administration and carried those very same interests into his presidential campaign.

Always, always, the reality on the ground for these individuals is much more important than defending political turf. The response should be, 'of course, we didn't accomplish enough for these individuals and families in crisis.' Not enough was accomplished to protect these people fleeing hardship and danger in their countries from what's occurring today.

And let's talk about what some candidates are saying about their special abilities to make McConnell do more than wag his ass at them. Those politicians should be telling us how they'd do better for these folks than trusting republicans to feel shame enough to act in their behalf.

[wyldwolf]

18. No, in a certain corner of the left, it's a daily thing

They reserve their greatest disdain for Democratic presidents, whom they relentlessly attack for not meeting a set of ideological goal posts that are constantly adjusted to ensure that the president will be deemed a disappointment, "not progressive enough" or "just like a Republican" no matter what policy achievements are made.

Progressives prefer left-wing legislators who sit quietly between symbolic speeches, but never once pass or in any way tangibly affect a bill that actually does anything. But a legislator who fights actual battles, and causes legislation to be passed that moves the country in some tangibly leftward direction, will not be rewarded for it - they will be tarred with the difference between that legislation and a perfectly ideal conception of what it should be, as if that ideal were a real thing and the bill they passed were a movement to the right for not living up to it.

This is an illustration of the quixotic, monkish, fantasy-based solipsism in American left-wing politics.

[bigtree]

19. it's not that immigrant rights is a 'left' thing

...it's that more folks identifying their politics as liberal or progressive actively support the issues and concerns of these undocumented individuals and families than do 'moderate' Democrats, for instance.

I seriously doubt these families in crisis are sitting around discussing the intricacies of political dogma. I'm sure accusing those who dare to stand up and speak out of 'quixotic, monkish, fantasy-based solipsism' will shape them right up.

[wyldwolf]

20. It's totally a left / right issue

And if people were being politically smart, they'd be storming the headquarters of McConnel or disrupting Trump rallies. But no, they can't do that.

Here's a great example of the quixotic, monkish, fantasy-based solipsism of "progressives."

Let's say that only 40% of the people have healthcare. The left says 100% of the people should have healthcare. Every once in a while, left-wing politicians introduce legislation (that never leaves committee) providing healthcare to 100% of the people. The fact that these bills never pass does not register with them or their base - the mere symbolic act of advocating them is considered an achievement in itself, sufficient and perfect, because the reality that no one is actually getting healthcare because of them is considered immaterial. None of these politicians are penalized by their base for doing nothing to actually create healthcare for real people - in fact, they're rewarded for "standing firm" in the face of reality.

Now suppose a pragmatic liberal politician gets a bill passed that increases the percentage of people with healthcare from 50% to 80%, and this is the first time in, say, thirty years that anyone has significantly increased the proportion of people with healthcare. Any remotely sane progressive would be over the Moon at this accomplishment, doubling the provision of healthcare to the American people, right? But in the negative psychology of the American left, that's not what just happened: That bill did not just double healthcare, it cut it from 100% down to 80%. And thus the liberal politician who just saved millions of lives is not a liberal at all, but some kind of Republican Lite or corrupt Betrayer who "sold out" the remaining 20% in some kind of smoke-filled backroom deal with cigar-smoking Mayflower descendents.

Same thing here. Obama/Biden did more for immigration than any in modern times in spite of a hostile congress and SCOTUS. But they're being punished for by so-called "activists" because the couldn't wave a magic wand to overcome legislative and constitutional blocks. Such infantile behavior deserves to be mocked.

Eleanor Roosevelt responded to these types in a letter to members of the DNC in 1935, in response to heavy criticism that her husband was getting from the left:

"The ups and downs in peoples’ feelings, particularly on the liberal side, are an old, old story. The liberals always get discouraged when they do not see the measures they are interested in go through immediately. Considering the time we have had to work in the past for almost every slight improvement, I should think they might get over it, but they never do."

[bigtree]

22. again, a little far afield of what this woman is advocating for

...that's what I'm focused on.

you: "these types" and so forth.

Ugh.

[wyldwolf]

23. Nope, she and those applauding her are a perfect case study for what I wrote.

And you really have no response to it.

you: "these types" and so forth.

Ugh

.

I know, right! So easy to put your fingers in your ear.

[bigtree]

29. FDR was bold and progressive, but he left a lot of people out in the cold on Social Security:

from wiki:

____ Most women and minorities were excluded from its benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.

Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.

These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population.

Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security. At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”


Eleanor:

"I should think they might get over it..."

[wyldwolf]

42. uh, yeah, that's the point

We realize "progressives" downplay the importance / necessity of legislative and constitutional manuevering to get bills passed, and you just proved the entire point I was making upthread.

[bigtree]

44. but you're castigating these folks for advocating for the rest of their rights

...and casting all sorts of aspersions on them because they pointed out Obama administration deported record numbers.

This is less of a political act for them than it is for their critics. No can argue that their lives are not still at risk and that the dangers to their lives and livelihoods are not still escalating. Yet, you're expecting them to give fealty to those record deportations, because they received timely, but ultimately inadequate protection.

Her DACA status is at risk, and it did not even cover her parents, so why should she stop advocating for what she believes? It's more than fair for her to express her doubts about a politician who failed to adequately protect her and her family, for whatever reason.

Clucking tongues and throwing mud at them for pointing out the truth about those record deportations (and the continued risk and dangers her parents still face) is a political response in defense of some politician. It's crass, presidential politics and amazingly removed from the actual issue of her (and her family's) undocumented status.

This effort to demonize this necessary activism does NOTHING to challenge the threatening status quo. It seeks to downplay the very real jeopardy that the Obama administration was UNABLE to remove from these folks' lives. It makes all of the defense of the Obama administration's efforts into a political cudgel against those with the courage to stand up and speak out for the things that weren't accomplished.

I'm surprised and dismayed at the focus of this article and promotion of it here in defense of an effort that NO ONE can say was adequate to protect these people now at increased risk of deportation and family separation. DACA was not legislated and it's more than understandable for those still in crisis (with increasing risks) to not have confidence in those politicians who had not achieved permanent solutions for them in the past.

[wyldwolf]

45. A major fallacy in that statement.

"These folks" don't currently have the rights they're seeking (or the ones you obviously think they do.)

At the end of the day, they're attacking the very person/people they NEED to help them attain these rights. That's very counterproductive and stupid.

This effort to demonize this necessary activism does NOTHING to challenge the threatening status quo.

The status quo is Republicans and SCOTUS blocking the necessary legislation. It isn't surprising some people have a problem wrapping their heads around that.

I'm surprised and dismayed at the focus of this article and promotion of it here in defense of an effort that NO ONE can say was adequate to protect these people now at increased risk of deportation and family separation.

I would say I'm surprised "progressives" fail to see the SCOTUS and Republican obstructionism that ties hands of the very people who have tried and are still trying to help. But I'm not. Par for the course on the activist left.

[bigtree]

46. you say their statement is an 'attack'

...I think pointing out that the Obama/Biden administration processed record deportations is just a statement of fact. It's not an attack, it's a declaration of disagreement with those policies that led to those deportations.

It's not a mere political issue for these activists, it's a very real and present threat to their lives and livelihoods.

And the fact that those identifying their politics with the 'left' of our party actively and forcefully advocate for the rights of these individuals and families shouldn't be a point of contention for anyone actually concerned with that lack of protection offered undocumented persons. This is where these folks find the most support. Dragging the 'left' for advocating for these families and individuals in crisis is what their political opponents regularly do, not those of us actually defending immigrants.


They've been attacking the Trump administration well before the presidential cycle even started, and you can find myriad instances where they've called out Trump and his threatening policies and pronouncements.

[wyldwolf]

47. and it is

And they are attacking the very people who want to help them while NOT attacking the ones who don't.

[bigtree]

48. I posted an account of this woman's activism against Trump

...well before the presidential election cycle, so it's false to say they're not attacking republicans and the WH.

[wyldwolf]

50. oh good for her. But she's attacking those who would help her, very counterproductive

[treestar]

55. +1 Amazing quote from ER

They are still doing it!

[treestar]

54. Demanding more of Obama on this was absurd

DACA was challenged in courts. DAPA was also and it was held that Obama could not start that program. Only Congress can change the law. As long as it is not changed, the people who are undocumented will stay that way and they remain deportable. Obama went on prosecutorial discretion. Not enforcing a law.

[treestar]

53. That isn't the same

Instead of chiding Biden, they should push Congress. That's where immigration law reform would come from.

[Cha]

15. I wonder if they even acknowledged what

the Obama Admin had done for them?

[wyldwolf]

49. read the exchange above with Bigtree.

This is the major schism with the left wing and the rest of the party. Obama/Biden is being punished for actually doing things to move immigration policy in a leftward direction. SOME fail to grasp the legislative and constitutional roadblocks that have to be overcome.

[oasis]

21. People reaching for the moon better wake up and smell the coffee.

If Trump is re-elected they get ZERO.

[bigtree]

24. they might just think another candidate than the one you choose

...would make a better opponent to Trump.

I really don't think advocating for more than what was accomplished under Obama, under a republican-controlled Congress for the bulk of his terms, is unreasonable or threatens to 're-elect Trump.'

[wyldwolf]

25. So you're saying they're purposely protesting the wrong target

... in order to drag him down and elevate another candidate.

Back to an earlier question you avoided: What candidate are they advocating for?

[bigtree]

26. they obviously disagree with your analysis, 'purposely' assigning blame where they feel it belongs

...she's obviously anti-Trump, so the inquisition about who she supports is irrelevant to her cause.

Read a bit and listen to her. It's a mistake to demonize this woman because she doesn't favor one Democrat over the other.

People are going to advocate for candidates other than your own. 'Dragging them down' as you complain in your reply is a melodramatic way of describing standard political opposition.

You do know DACA recipients can't vote, right?

[wyldwolf]

43. then they're misguided.

Protesting the one(s) who want to expand immigration rights and not the ones who want them eliminated.

Boneheaded move.

[treestar]

56. seems to be just protesting rather than

advocating for any other candidate.

[oasis]

27. Santiago needs to chill and stop trying to publicly embarrass

our best chance. Her best bet would be to come out in the open and back the candidate of her choice.

[bigtree]

28. "our best chance"

...funny, I didn't hear Kamala's name (our best chance) in their protests.

[Cha]

34. I hate that anyone had to get deported

but it was the law and the Obama Admin helped with DACA..

No one griped about the wins Obama had gotten over eight years — Santiago, the Biden protester, received protections under the Obama administration's DACA program for young undocumented immigrants — but they were fixated on what they hadn't gotten.

Yes, oasis.. they're only giving cover for trump now.. I guess that's what they want.. trying to shame Joe Biden who is leading in the Polls against trump and imo has the best chance in the Electoral College against the monster who puts babies, children, and adults in cages with Deplorable conditions.

[oasis]

36. I have sympathy for all in the DACA program and their relatives.

Last edited Mon Jul 15, 2019, 08:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Misguided individuals who stalk and protest Joe on DACA issues need to do a bit of soul searching before continuing on their present course of action.

Screwing things up for everyone is not going to win them the support they seek.

[treestar]

57. +1

the mental disconnect is astonishing. Pumpkin Spice Pol Pot ended DACA, or tried to.

[DBoon]

30. Someone on Medicare can protest the poor state of the American halth care system

even though they personally benefit from a government healthcare program.

So why shouldn't someone who benefits from a reasonable Immigrant policy protest against other injustices in the immigration system?

[oasis]

37. Protesters are "barking up the wrong tree" in this case. nt

[wyldwolf]

40. but who should they protest? those who want to expand coverage or those who don't?

[treestar]

58. focusing on the system

rather than blaming Obama and Biden for it would be better. The laws are the laws that were passed and signed into law. They can be changed by Congress. Obama would have signed a real DREAM Act, but Congress would not pass it. So he tried DACA, which got some challenge from the right as beyond the Executive's powers. It's ridiculous not to go against Republicans on this.

[ucrdem]

32. "Florida-based activist"

That just about wraps it up, doesn't it?

[Cha]

35. I don't get it?

I wonder who they are supporting?

[ucrdem]

38. Florida is ground zero for GOP astroturf and assorted dirty tricks

going back to the infamous 2000 election and the fake grassroots activism that supposedly opposed the recount . . .

Morning Cha!

A GOP Dirty Trickster Has Second Thoughts

The capstone of Stone’s career, at least in terms of results, was the “Brooks Brothers riot” of the 2000 election recount. This was when a Stone-led squad of pro-Bush protestors stormed the Miami-Dade County election board, stopping the recount and advancing then-Governor George W. Bush one step closer to the White House. Though he is quick to rebut GOP operatives who seek to minimize his role in the recount, Stone lately has been having second thoughts about what happened in Florida.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-gop-dirty-trickster-has-second-thoughts

[Cha]

39. Oh thank you..

but this group could be supporting someone in the Dem field?

Whoever they're supporting it seems to me like they're giving trump cover when the Obama Admin tried to help with the DACA program.

Good Morning, ucr!

[ucrdem]

41. That could be too.

Florida is lousy with GOP operatives and they will play every angle including backing Joe's rivals but I hope this isn't that.

[Applegate]

51. If you have some evidence that this is some GOP operation, present it.

Otherwise, you're just smearing people whose activism isn't perfectly aligned with yours.