Illegal Immigration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Sometimes the Earth Makes the Rest of the Universe Look Very Good

      by

      Gail Collins: Bret, we should talk a bit about the passing of Donald Trump’s first wife, Ivana. Any first thoughts?Bret Stephens: A sad moment. She represented immigrant striving, something her former husband should have learned to appreciate — but didn’t. Did you know her?Gail: No, my interactions with The Donald, as Ivana called him, didn’t begin until around the time of their divorce, when I was covering city government and he was trying to squeeze some deals out of the Council.However, I was working then for New York tabloids and I have very vivid memories of the huge headlines on the front page — we called it “the wood” — when he was wrecking their marriage by cavorting with Marla Maples.Bret: Ah, yes: “‘Best Sex I’ve Ever Had,’” if I recall the New York Post headline correctly. If Edith Wharton were alive today she’d write a novel about the period called “The Age of Relative Innocence.”Gail: I know I don’t need to tell you this, but nobody was encouraging all that over-the-top coverage of his sexual adventures more than the man himself. Legend had it that when he finally got Ivana to step away, he asked his press people whether he could get back on the wood if he dumped Marla, too.Bret: Do you think John Bolton ever says to himself, “I’m the Marla Maples of Donald Trump’s national security advisers”? No wonder the coups Bolton suggests he planned didn’t come off.But speaking of getting back on the wood, does some Machiavellian part of you sorta hope Trump runs for president again?Gail: Well, the totally self-regarding part is certainly rooting for it. If anyone else gets the nomination it’s possible we’d have a modestly normal campaign, which would be good for the country but very bad for my career of making fun of politicians.Bret: If anyone other than Trump wins the G.O.P. nomination, that person will likely be the next president.Gail: That’s certainly an underlying Democratic concern but we have to rise above it. Otherwise it’s like those jerks who try to help their candidate by underwriting the campaigns of the most terrible, hate-mongering person on the other side just to improve their chances.Can’t think of a possible Republican nominee that’d actually be worse, but that’s really your department. Any way we’d look back with nostalgia on the Trump era?Bret: Just imagine how nostalgic we’ll be under President Josh Hawley. Even now, there are plenty of middle-of-the-road voters who are looking back on the Trump years and saying to themselves, “Sure, it was crazy-town in the White House, but inflation was low, the stock market kept rising, gas was affordable, and Russia wasn’t invading its neighbors.” If Joe Biden doesn’t turn his administration’s fortunes around, Democrats are going to be facing a tsunami of voter fury.My advice to the president is to triangulate, triangulate, triangulate. What’s yours?Gail: I dunno — kidnap Joe Manchin, lock him in a tower and make it clear he’ll be forced to watch reruns of “My Mother the Car,” until he comes around on Biden’s priorities?Bret: I think we need an alternative plan, Gail ….Gail: Manchin is really sitting on the Democratic agenda, particularly when it comes to global warming. I know he’s in a very tight political situation in West Virginia, but he’s going to go down in history as the guy who helped make the planet a much worse place for future generations.Bret: As the great Tip O’Neill famously said, “All politics is local.” That sentence pretty much sums up everything Democrats got wrong in Congress over the last 18 months.Gail: As it stands, it looks like Biden’s best hope is to get passage of what some are now calling Build Back Manchin — which so far seems to be some modest reforms on drug pricing.Breaks my heart, but am I right in suspecting it makes you do a happy dance?Bret: Well, I’m glad Manchin stood his ground on spending, because inflation would be even worse today if he hadn’t. Now it’s time for Biden to tack right on policy issues like fracking, border security and crime; go hard on Republicans on guns and abortion; then come up with a plan to help Ukraine defeat the Russian army quickly, before Moscow can use energy to blackmail Western Europe in the dead of winter.Maybe Biden can start by having Bill Clinton stop by the White House to offer some pointers on regaining the trust of the moderate center. Or is there someone else he should be talking to?Gail: Well, um, he should talk with someone who disagrees with you about fracking.One critical problem for the economy is the shortage of workers, and that’s in part because many mothers can’t find any safe or affordable place to leave their kids while they’re working. If Biden wants to change the subject, he should get back to high-quality, affordable early childhood education.I know that’s not the direction you were hoping to travel, but couldn’t resist.Bret: If Biden proposed something modest but attainable in that vein he might score a legislative victory, just as he did with the bipartisan gun bill that Senators Chris Murphy and John Cornyn hashed out last month. We also need more immigrants to make up for the labor shortfalls. How about raising the annual refugee cap to 750,000 from the current 125,000 while doing more to curb illegal immigration? That would combine humanity and good economic sense with political savvy.Gail: Sounds good in theory but I’d want to know a lot more about how that curbing of illegal immigration was going to work. No question that we need an efficient border operation, a goal that has eluded every recent president. But nothing good is accomplished by spreading terror in immigrant communities around the country.Bret: Agree. And by opening the door much wider to legal migration, we also reduce incentives for illegal and sometimes fatal border crossings, which in turn eases the pressure on border security.Gail: Speaking of immigration … there’s an upcoming Republican Senate primary in Arizona where that seems to be a big issue. One of the leading Republican candidates, Blake Masters, once called for “unrestricted immigration” — back when he was a youthful libertarian.Bret: He should have stopped there.Gail: And also a guy who in his youth derided American entry into World War I.Bret: Or even there.Gail: And II.Bret: Oh dear.Gail: He’s certainly a walking reminder of how important it is to remind young people on a daily basis that anything you put on the web can come back to haunt you. But here in 2022 he’s the candidate who said the problem of gun violence was all about “Black people, frankly.” And I hardly need mention he’s been endorsed by Donald Trump.This is for the seat that currently belongs to a Democrat, Mark Kelly. So my two questions are: How would you want Arizona to go if it’s a Masters-Kelly contest, and any other nightmare party primaries you see on the horizon?Bret: I wish Arizona still produced intelligent and independent-minded Republicans in the mold of Barry Goldwater, Jon Kyl, John McCain and Jeff Flake. Now it’s just a freak show. I’ll root for Kelly, but it’s a shame that as a senator the formerly cool astronaut has been such a space cadet.Gail: I love the begrudging way you think.Bret: The other race I’m looking at is the one in Wyoming, where Liz Cheney is hoping enough Democrats and independents will vote in the Republican primary to help her defeat her primary rival. I hope she does. She represents my idea of what political courage looks like.Gail: Agreed, yet also very interested to see how her more liberal Democratic constituents work out this problem: Do you reward an elected official for showing extreme courage while voting against practically everything you’d want Congress to do?Bret: Before we go, Gail, I neglected to mention the one government agency whose budget I would immediately double: NASA. I spent some of last week geeking out over the images that the Webb telescope has been beaming back to earth from its cosmic perch. It’s a good reminder that this country is still capable of doing good and mighty things.Gail: Such a jaw-dropping reminder that as self-obsessed as we tend to get, we’re hardly the center of the universe.Bret: Very true. And you’ve reminded me of a few lines of verse from my all-time favorite poet, Gerard Manley Hopkins, the only writer who has ever tempted me to truly believe in God:Look at the stars! look, look up at the skies!O look at all the fire-folk sitting in the air!The bright boroughs, the circle-citadels there!Down in dim woods the diamond delves! the elves’-eyes!The grey lawns cold where gold, where quickgold lies!The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Las elecciones de Texas que reflejan el debate sobre migración en el Partido Demócrata

      by

      La tensa elección de hoy en el estado refleja la división nacional que hay al interior del partido en torno a las cuestiones fronterizas.LAREDO, Texas — Apenas un mes después de que el presidente Joe Biden llegó a la Casa Blanca con la promesa de revertir las políticas del gobierno de Donald Trump con la intención de implementar una estrategia más compasiva en torno a la migración, Henry Cuellar, representante demócrata por el sur de Texas, comenzó encender las alarmas.Advirtió que la cantidad de migrantes que buscaban entrar al país aumentaría y al poco tiempo dio a conocer fotografías de niños que dormían bajo mantas de aluminio en un abarrotado centro de procesamiento de migrantes en su distrito, ubicado en la frontera de Estados Unidos con México.Ahora Cuellar, de 66 años, es uno de los críticos del gobierno más consistentes en el tema migratorio, ya que ha aparecido en Fox News y en ocasiones coincide con los republicanos, cuando dice que los inmigrantes llegan a raudales a Estados Unidos porque creen que “la frontera está abierta”.Sus críticas se han encontrado con la feroz resistencia de Jessica Cisneros, de 28 años, una abogada migratoria progresista que está tratando de desbancar a Cuellar en una segunda vuelta demócrata este martes.Al igual que otras contiendas de las elecciones primarias demócratas, esta batalla es una guerra subsidiaria por la dirección más amplia de un partido que se encuentra enfrentado por el ala moderada y el ala progresista. Sin embargo, este caso en específico encapsula las fuertes tensiones que la cuestión migratoria genera al interior del partido.En entrevistas con líderes y electores demócratas en el Distrito 28 del Congreso de Texas, que abarca desde Laredo hasta San Antonio, muchos dijeron sentirse sumamente frustrados tanto con los demócratas como con los republicanos que usan la frontera como trasfondo político, pero que no han logrado enmendar las leyes migratorias del país, combatir el narcotráfico ni mejorar las vías legales a la ciudadanía.Y a muchos les preocupa que los demócratas carezcan de un mensaje contundente y coherente para enfrentar a los republicanos, que parecen estar cada vez más decididos a hacer de una “invasión” de migrantes el tema principal de las elecciones intermedias.Cuellar suele estar en el centro del debate. Sus seguidores dicen que solo está tratando de equilibrar a las facciones demócratas opuestas en este tema, mientras que el Partido Republicano abandonó casi del todo el debate centrado en las políticas para enfocarse a los llamados contra la migración. Sin embargo, a Cuellar lo critican también los demócratas, a quienes les preocupa que suene demasiado republicano, ya que le interesa más la aplicación de la ley que ser compasivo.Maxine Rebeles, maestra y activista migratoria, en la sede de campaña de Jessica Cisneros en Laredo, Texas.Kaylee Greenlee para The New York Times“Le está abriendo la puerta a algo que puede ponerse muy muy feo muy muy rápido”, dijo Maxine Rebeles, una maestra de secundaria y activista migratoria de la coalición por los derechos de los migrantes No Border Wall en Laredo.Afuera de una casilla electoral abarrotada en una estación de bomberos de Laredo, donde una ligera brisa daba un respiro en un día abrasador, Cuellar rechazó las críticas de lo que él denominó la extrema izquierda. Afirmó que estaba a favor de las propuestas migratorias para ayudar a los trabajadores y las vías a la ciudadanía para aquellos que fueron traídos sin documentos a Estados Unidos en la infancia.No obstante, Cuellar, cuyo hermano es el alguacil del condado de Webb, afirmó que también estaba atento a las necesidades de los líderes comunitarios y las autoridades migratorias en su distrito, quienes habían dado a conocer su preocupación por la falta de recursos para procesar el mayor número de migrantes que llegaban al país.“Me manifiesto en contra de los republicanos que quieren una valla o un muro, manifiesto mi desacuerdo cuando dicen que es una invasión; no es una invasión”, dijo Cuellar mientras charlaba con sus simpatizantes. Sin embargo, agregó: “Estoy entre la espada y la pared, ya que no estoy a favor de ningún bando”.Cuellar, quien está librando la batalla política de su carrera, está siendo investigado por el FBI, aunque los funcionarios no han dado a conocer los detalles.Cuando se le preguntó sobre si los demócratas carecían de un mensaje migratorio cohesivo, estuvo de acuerdo. Dijo que lo que más le preocupaba era que los republicanos estaban llenando ese vacío con el mensaje de que los demócratas no actuaban con mano dura contra la delincuencia.Cuando se le hizo la misma pregunta, Cisneros criticó a los miembros del Congreso que no están en sintonía con el gobierno de Biden, incluyendo a Cuellar, de quien dijo que recurría al tipo de argumentos de derecha que habían motivado los tiroteos masivos de supremacistas blancos en Búfalo, Nueva York, y El Paso, Texas.El representante Henry Cuellar agradeció a un voluntario de la campaña afuera de un lugar de votación temprana en Laredo, Texas.Kaylee Greenlee para The New York Times“Henry Cuellar está recurriendo a estas líneas de ataques xenófobos que solo nos hacen el objeto de ataques”, dijo Cisneros, quien aseguró que su contrincante era “el demócrata favorito de Trump”. La candidata añadió que aportaría su propia experiencia profesional como abogada migratoria para configurar la política fronteriza.Durante años, los demócratas conservadores que representan a las comunidades fronterizas, incluido Cuéllar, han tratado de lograr un equilibrio: defender los beneficios de la inmigración para el comercio, los negocios y el tejido social de sus comunidades de mayoría latina, mientras hablaban con dureza sobre la necesidad de aumentar los fondos para la vigilancia y la aplicación de la ley a lo largo de la frontera sur.Pero ese equilibrio se ha desvanecido. Los intentos de aprobar leyes migratorias bipartidistas han fracasado durante décadas y el lenguaje y las políticas de mano dura contra la inmigración se han convertido en planteamientos centrales de los republicanos desde el ascenso del expresidente Trump.En este ciclo de mitad de mandato, los republicanos han invertido casi 70 millones de dólares en 325 anuncios únicos sobre seguridad fronteriza e inmigración, muchos de los cuales describen condiciones distópicas en la frontera sur del país y varios utilizan el término “invasión”, según la empresa de seguimiento de anuncios AdImpact.Los demócratas, por el contrario, solo han gastado ocho millones de dólares en 46 anuncios sobre inmigración, y uno de ellos de Cuellar atacaba a Cisneros por sus políticas de inmigración progresistas que, según él, reducirían los puestos de trabajo de los agentes fronterizos y conducirían a “fronteras abiertas”.Jessica Cisneros, la contrincante de Cuellar, dijo que aportaría su experiencia como abogada especializada en inmigración a la hora de diseñar la política fronteriza.Kaylee Greenlee para The New York TimesAl principio, los demócratas parecían inclinarse a la izquierda en respuesta a la dura postura del gobierno Trump en materia de inmigración. Durante las primarias presidenciales de 2020, la mayoría de los candidatos respaldaron una política de despenalización de los cruces fronterizos. Pero desde entonces, algunos en el partido y en las organizaciones proinmigrantes han criticado lo que ven como un retroceso en el tema mientras los republicanos redoblan la apuesta.Marisa Franco, que formó parte del comité de inmigración de un grupo de trabajo de unidad demócrata formado por el presidente Biden y el senador por Vermont Bernie Sanders, califica la postura del partido sobre la inmigración de “capitulación”.“Los republicanos están proponiendo soluciones, y en lugar de contrarrestar sus horribles soluciones, los demócratas no hablan de ello o legitiman por defecto el punto de vista de que la inmigración y los inmigrantes son malos”, dijo Franco, directora ejecutiva de Mijente, un grupo progresista de defensa de los latinos. “Ante cosas realmente desagradables, se escabullen y huyen”.Un ejemplo particularmente evidente de las divisiones demócratas es el Título 42, la política de la era de la pandemia promulgada por el gobierno Trump que rechaza rápidamente a casi todos los migrantes que buscan asilo en la frontera.El gobierno de Biden había mantenido esta política durante más de un año, pero trató de suspenderla a principios de este año, cuando se suavizaron otras restricciones por la pandemia. Esa decisión desencadenó una oleada de demandas y un desfile de demócratas que intentaban distanciarse del presidente. El viernes pasado, un juez federal mantuvo la política.Las críticas al intento del gobierno Biden de suspender el Título 42 han venido de miembros demócratas del Congreso que se enfrentan a duras luchas por la reelección en todo el país, entre ellos Cuellar y los senadores Catherine Cortez Masto por Nevada, Raphael Warnock por Georgia y Maggie Hassan por Nuevo Hampshire.Y los senadores Kyrsten Sinema y Mark Kelly, por Arizona, ambos demócratas, han criticado repetidamente el plan del gobierno de Biden para levantar la política y presentaron el mes pasado un proyecto de ley para impedirla sin un plan detallado para detener el esperado aumento de migrantes en la frontera.La inacción podría resultar costosa este año electoral: algunas organizaciones que ayudaron a ganar estados decisivos para los demócratas en 2018 y 2020 no tienen planes de tocar puertas o llamar a los votantes esta temporada de mitad de periodo, porque están enojados con la postura del partido sobre la inmigración.Entre ellos está Lucha, un grupo de defensa en Arizona ampliamente acreditado por ayudar a asegurar las victorias de Sinema y Kelly, los primeros senadores demócratas que representan al estado en décadas.“Para ese increíble esfuerzo y esa increíble participación, hemos obtenido resultados muy mínimos”, dijo Tomas Robles, su codirector ejecutivo. “Los demócratas están cayendo en la misma trampa: hay una falta de voluntad política y de coraje”.En Laredo, una ciudad de unos 261.000 habitantes en la que las tiendas y los parques del centro parecen casi fundirse con la frontera, la lucha migratoria del país es personal. Los miembros de la coalición apartidista No Border Wall no reparan en señalar que han rechazado con éxito cuatro intentos por parte de gobiernos demócratas y republicanos de construir un muro en la región.Pero los demócratas de Laredo, unidos en su batalla contra el muro, están divididos en su apoyo a Cuéllar y Cisneros y cómo debe abordarse la migración. Cuellar sigue el camino emprendido por el gobierno de Obama, que se basó en una agresiva estrategia de aplicación de la ley en la frontera con el fin de atraer el apoyo de los republicanos a una vía de acceso a la ciudadanía para millones de migrantes que viven en el país sin residencia legal.Sus partidarios tienden a suscribir la misma filosofía, o al menos a aceptarla. “Es mucho más conservador de lo que yo preferiría”, dijo Melissa R. Cigarroa, presidenta de la junta directiva del Centro de Estudios Internacionales de Río Grande. “Pero no deja de trabajar por la comunidad”.Pero los partidarios de Cisneros argumentan que el énfasis en la seguridad fronteriza no ha ayudado a crear vías legales hacia la ciudadanía. También, argumentan, hace poco para contrarrestar un enfoque de “nosotros contra ellos” impulsado por los republicanos que ha puesto a los solicitantes de asilo y a los migrantes en peligro. “Cisneros viene de ese lado, de ayudar a las familias”, dijo Juan Livas, activista de inmigración y cofundador de la Alianza de Inmigrantes de Laredo.Agentes de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza y miembros de la Guardia Nacional de Texas están estacionados de forma intermitente a lo largo del río Grande, que fluye entre Estados Unidos y México, en Laredo, TexasKaylee Greenlee para The New York TimesLos cismas reflejan la división nacional entre los demócratas, mientras que los republicanos se han mantenido en gran medida unidos a favor de políticas duras destinadas a limitar la inmigración.“Es muy decepcionante, desmoralizante e incluso exasperante”, dijo el representante demócrata de Illinois, Jesús García, quien ha promovido proyectos de ley de reforma migratoria. “Dijimos que si ganábamos la mayoría en ambas cámaras se produciría la reforma migratoria”.Eso no ha sucedido, dijo, y el partido, en cambio, ha asumido una postura defensiva. “Es un cálculo político, y creo que es un error”, dijo.Azi Paybarah More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      In Texas, a Proxy Fight Over Democrats’ Stance on Immigration

      by

      LAREDO, Texas — Just a month after President Biden took office, pledging to roll back Trump-era policies in an attempt to take a more humane approach to immigration, Representative Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from South Texas, began to sound an alarm.He warned that the number of migrants seeking to enter the country would rise, and soon released photos of children sleeping under tinfoil blankets at a crowded migrant processing facility in his district at the edge of the U.S.-Mexico border.Now Mr. Cuellar, 68, has become one of the administration’s most consistent critics on immigration, appearing on Fox News and at times echoing Republicans, saying immigrants are pouring into the United States because they believe “that the border is open.”His criticism has been met with fierce resistance from Jessica Cisneros, 28, a progressive immigration lawyer who is trying to unseat him in a Democratic runoff on Tuesday. Like other Democratic primary contests, their race is a proxy battle for the broader direction of a party that is being tugged between moderate and progressive wings. But in particular, it encapsulates the acute tensions within the party on immigration.In interviews with Democratic leaders and voters in Texas’ 28th Congressional District, which stretches from Laredo to San Antonio, many expressed a deep frustration with both national Democrats and Republicans who use the border as a political backdrop but have failed to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, combat the drug trade or improve legal pathways to citizenship.And many worried that Democrats lack a forceful and coherent message when facing Republicans who have appeared increasingly intent on portraying a migrant “invasion,” making it a marquee issue of the midterm elections.Mr. Cuellar is often at the center of the debate. His supporters say he is simply trying to balance competing Democratic factions on the issue, as the G.O.P. has largely abandoned policy-centered debate in favor of anti-immigrant appeals. But he is criticized just as much by Democrats concerned he sounds too much like a Republican, focused on enforcement rather than a humanitarian approach.Maxine Rebeles, a middle-school teacher and immigration activist, at Jessica Cisneros’s campaign office in Laredo.Kaylee Greenlee for The New York Times“He is opening the door to something that can get really, really ugly, really, really quick,” said Maxine Rebeles, a middle-school teacher and immigrant activist with the No Border Wall immigrant rights coalition based in Laredo.Outside a bustling polling station at a Laredo firehouse, where a light breeze provided respite on a sweltering day, Mr. Cuellar rejected the criticism from what he called the far left. He said he favored immigration proposals to help workers, and pathways to citizenship for people who were brought to the country illegally at a young age.But Mr. Cuellar, whose brother is the Webb County sheriff, said he also was attuned to the needs of community leaders and immigration officials in his district who have voiced concerns about the lack of resources to process increases in arriving migrants. “I speak against the Republicans who want a fence or a wall, I speak against them when they call this an invasion — it’s not an invasion,” Mr. Cuellar said in between bantering with supporters. But, he added, “I am in the middle — speaking against both sides.”Mr. Cuellar, who is in the political fight of his career, remains part of an open F.B.I. investigation, though officials have not released any details.Asked whether Democrats were lacking a cohesive message on immigration, Mr. Cuellar agreed. He said he was most worried that Republicans were filling that vacuum by painting Democrats as soft on crime.Asked the same question, Ms. Cisneros took a shot at members of Congress out of step with the Biden administration, like Mr. Cuellar, who she said was playing into the kind of right-wing talking points that had fueled white supremacist mass shootings in Buffalo and El Paso.Representative Henry Cuellar thanked a campaign volunteer outside an early voting location in Laredo, Texas.Kaylee Greenlee for The New York Times“Henry Cuellar is pivoting to these xenophobic lines of attacks that just create a target on our backs,” said Ms. Cisneros, who called Mr. Cuellar “Trump’s favorite Democrat.” She added that she would bring her own professional experience as an immigration lawyer to bear when shaping border policy.For years, conservative Democrats who represent border communities, like Mr. Cuellar, have sought to strike a balance: espousing the benefits of immigration for trade, business and the social fabric of their predominantly Latino communities, while talking tough on the need to increase funds for surveillance and law enforcement along the southern border.But that balance has slipped out of reach. Attempts to pass bipartisan immigration laws have failed for decades, and harsh anti-immigration language and policies have become central Republican approaches since the rise of former President Donald J. Trump.Republicans in this midterm cycle have poured nearly $70 million into 325 unique ads on border security and immigration, many painting dystopian conditions at the nation’s southern border and several using language of “invasion,” according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact.Democrats, by contrast, have spent only $8 million on 46 ads on immigration — and one from Mr. Cuellar attacked Ms. Cisneros for progressive immigration policies he claimed would cut border enforcement officers’ jobs and lead to “open borders.”Jessica Cisneros, Mr. Cuellar’s opponent, said she would bring her experience as an immigration lawyer to bear when shaping border policy.Kaylee Greenlee for The New York TimesDemocrats at first seemed to move to the left in response to the Trump administration’s harsh stance on immigration issues. During the 2020 presidential primary, most candidates backed a policy of decriminalizing border crossings. But since then, some in the party and in pro-immigrant organizations have criticized what they see as backtracking on the issue as Republicans double down.Marisa Franco, who served on the immigration committee of a Democratic unity task force formed by President Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, calls the party’s stance on immigration “capitulation.”“Republicans are putting out solutions — and instead of countering their horrible solutions, Democrats are either not talking about it or they’re by default legitimizing the point of view that immigration and immigrants are bad,” said Ms. Franco, the executive director of Mijente, a liberal Latino advocacy group. “In the face of really nasty stuff, they’re ducking and running.”Understand the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6Why are these midterms so important? More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      G.O.P. Concocts Threat: Voter Fraud by Undocumented Immigrants

      by

      COLUMBUS, Ohio — Six years after former President Donald J. Trump paved his way to the White House on nativist and xenophobic appeals to white voters, the 2,000-mile dividing line between Mexico and the United States has once again become a fixation of the Republican Party.But the resurgence of the issue on the right has come with a new twist: Republican leaders and candidates are increasingly claiming without basis that unauthorized immigrants are gaining access to the ballot box.Voter fraud is exceptionally rare, and allegations that widespread numbers of undocumented immigrants are voting have been repeatedly discredited. Yet that fabricated message — capitalizing on a concocted threat to advance Mr. Trump’s broader lie of stolen elections — is now finding receptive audiences in more than a dozen states across the country, including several far from the U.S.-Mexico border.In Macomb County, Mich., where Republicans are fiercely split between those who want to investigate the 2020 election and those who want to move on, many voters at the county G.O.P. convention this month said they feared that immigrants were entering the country illegally, not just to steal jobs but also to steal votes by casting fraudulent ballots for Democrats.“I don’t want them coming into red states and turning them blue,” said Mark Checkeroski, a former chief engineer of a hospital — though data from the 2020 election showed that many places with larger immigrant populations instead took a turn to the right.Tough talk on illegal immigration and border security has long been a staple of American politics. Both Republicans and Democrats — especially the G.O.P. in recent years — have historically played into bigoted tropes that conflate illegal immigration and crime and that portray Latinos and Asian Americans as perpetual foreigners in their own country or, worse, an economic threat.But the leap from unsecure borders to unsecure elections is newer. And it is not difficult to see why some voters are making it.In Ohio, where Republicans vying in a heated Senate primary are discussing immigration in apocalyptic terms and running ads showing shadowy black-and-white surveillance video or washed-out images of border crossings, Mr. Trump whipped up fears of “open borders and horrible elections” at a rally on Saturday, calling for stricter voter ID laws and proof of citizenship at the ballot box.The campaign commercials and promos for right-wing documentaries that played on huge television screens before Mr. Trump’s speech seemed to alternate between lies that the 2020 election was stolen from him and overblown claims blaming unauthorized immigrants for crime. Speakers in one trailer for a film by Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative author and filmmaker Mr. Trump pardoned for making illegal campaign contributions, denounced “voter trafficking,” compared the work of what appeared to be voter outreach groups to the “Mexican mafia” and referred to people conveying mail-in ballots to drop boxes as “mules.”It is legal in some states for third parties, like family members or community groups, to drop off completed ballots — a practice that became vital for many during the pandemic.Yet the messages seemed tailor-made for rally attendees like Alicia Cline, 40, who said she believed that Democrats in power were using the border crisis to gin up votes. “The last election was already stolen,” said Ms. Cline, a horticulturist from Columbus. “The establishment is, I think, using the people that are rushing over the borders in order to support themselves and get more votes for themselves.”Alicia, left, and Cindi Cline at former President Donald Trump’s “Save America” rally last week in Delaware, Ohio.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesThe latest fear-mongering about immigrants supposedly stealing votes is just one line of attack among many, as Republicans have made immigration a focal point in the midterms and Republican governors face off with the Biden administration over what they paint as dire conditions at the border.Last week, governors from 26 states unveiled “a border strike force” to share intelligence and combat drug trafficking as the Biden administration has said it plans to lift a Trump-era rule that has allowed federal immigration officials to turn away or immediately deport asylum seekers and migrants.A Guide to the 2022 Midterm ElectionsMidterms Begin: The 2022 election season is underway. See the full primary calendar and a detailed state-by-state breakdown.In the Senate: Democrats have a razor-thin margin that could be upended with a single loss. Here are the four incumbents most at risk.In the House: Republicans and Democrats are seeking to gain an edge through redistricting and gerrymandering, though this year’s map is poised to be surprisingly fairGovernors’ Races: Georgia’s contest will be at the center of the political universe, but there are several important races across the country.Key Issues: Inflation, the pandemic, abortion and voting rights are expected to be among this election cycle’s defining topics.And in Washington Thursday, Republicans on Capitol Hill previewed their midterm plan of attack on the administration’s immigration policies, trying to make the homeland security secretary, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, accept blame for a historic spike in migration across the border.Jane Timken, a U.S. Senate candidate and former chairwoman of the Ohio Republican Party, said the border with Mexico loomed large for Ohioans because many saw the state’s drug and crime problems as emanating from there. “Almost every state is now a border state,” she said.Some G.O.P. strategists warn that the focus on immigration could backfire and haunt the party as the nation grows more diverse. But political scientists and historians say Republicans’ harnessing of the unease stirred by demographic shifts and a two-year-old pandemic could mobilize their most ardent voters.“When we feel so much anxiety, that is the moment when xenophobic, anti-immigrant sentiment can flourish,” said Geraldo L. Cadava, a historian of Latinos in the United States and associate professor at Northwestern University.Few races nationwide capture the dynamics of the issue like the G.O.P. Senate primary in Ohio. Contenders there are taking after Mr. Trump, who, in 2016, tried to blame illegal immigration and Mexican drug cartels for the deadly opioid crisis.An ad for Ms. Timken opens with grainy footage over ominous music, showing hooded men carrying packages presumed to be filled with drugs across the border, until Ms. Timken appears in broad daylight along the rusty steel slats of the border wall in McAllen, Texas.An advertisement released by Jane Timken, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Ohio, showed her at the Mexican border wall encouraging border security and raising fears of drug cartels.Jane Timken for U.S. SenateMs. Timken said she understood the state needed immigrant workers, citing her Irish immigrant parents, but said people still must cross the border legally. And Mike Gibbons, a financier at the top of several Ohio polls, said insisting on law and order was not xenophobic. “You don’t hate immigrants if you tell that immigrant they have to come here under the law,” he said.But across this state in the nation’s industrial belt, anti-immigrant sentiment tends to run as deep as the scars of the drug epidemic.Anger and resentment toward foreigners started building as manufacturing companies closed factories and shipped jobs overseas. The opioid crisis added to the devastation as pharmaceutical companies and unscrupulous doctors profited from pain medications.But with the shuttering of “pain clinics,” federal and local law enforcement officials say, Mexican criminal organizations have stepped in. In Ohio, the groups move large amounts of meth and fentanyl, often in counterfeit pills, along Route 71, which crosses the state through Columbus. Statewide overdose rates remain among the nation’s highest.An ad for suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid addiction, hanging on a building. For the past three years, Ohio has remained among the 10 states with highest rates of drug overdoses, according to federal data.Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesJ.D. Vance, the “Hillbilly Elegy” author whom Mr. Trump endorsed, goes right at those scars, telling voters in one ad that he nearly lost his mother, an addict, to “the poison coming across our border.”Republicans like Mr. Vance argue that they are being unfairly attacked for raising legitimate concerns, pointing to enormous drug seizures and a rise in border apprehensions that, last June, reached a 20-year high.Ohio immigrant-rights lawyers and advocates say Republicans are wrongly framing a public health emergency as a national security problem and contributing to bias against Latinos and immigrants regardless of their citizenship.The G.O.P. critique, they say, is also detached from reality: Many if not most immigrants who reach Ohio have been processed by federal immigration agencies. Many are asylum seekers and refugees, and an increasing number arrive on work visas.Angela Plummer, executive director of the nonprofit Community Refugee and Immigration Services, called Republican Senate candidates’ characterizations of immigrants a disturbing flashback to Mr. Trump’s 2015 campaign rhetoric. “It is good to have politicians with different immigration platforms, but not ones that stray into racism and hurtful, harmful accusations.”In the same campaign ad, Mr. Vance goes on to say that Mr. Biden’s immigration policy also meant “more Democrat voters pouring into this country” — explicitly asserting that unauthorized immigrants are crossing over and gaining access to the ballot to support the left.Mr. Trump himself made that false claim in 2017, asserting without evidence that between three million and five million unauthorized immigrants had voted for Hillary Clinton. But the idea that immigrants, and Latinos specifically, are illegally entering the country to vote Democratic has been a fringe right-wing trope for years, said Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant and co-founder of the Lincoln Project.The difference is that purveyors of the idea have become much more “brazen and overt,” he said. “It is all part of this sense of an invasion and a lost America and that Democrats are trying to steal elections.”Rhetoric on immigration started heating up last year amid an influx of asylum seekers and migrants from Haiti, Guatemala and Honduras. In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott and local officials described illegal immigration as an “invasion” as Mr. Abbott unveiled plans to finish Mr. Trump’s border wall.It has only intensified with the midterm campaign season. Since January, Republican candidates in 18 states have run ads mentioning the border and slamming illegal immigration, including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, according to AdImpact, which tracks ad spending. In the same period in 2018, that number was only six, and most of the ads ran in Texas.At least one ad warns of an “invasion,” and others carry echoes of the “great replacement” trope, a racist conspiracy theory falsely contending that elites are using Black and brown immigrants to replace white people in the United States.In Alabama, a re-election ad for Gov. Kay Ivey shows a photo of Latinos at a border crossing wearing white T-shirts with the Biden campaign logo and the words, “Please let us in.” If Mr. Biden continues “shipping” unauthorized migrants into the United States, Americans could soon be forced to learn Spanish, Ms. Ivey says, adding: “No way, José.”An Ivey spokeswoman dismissed as “absurd” suggestions that the ad played into fears of replacement or perpetuated bias against Latinos or immigrants.Heavy-handed anti-immigrant appeals haven’t always worked. Mr. Trump’s attempts to stir fears over caravans of Central American immigrants making their way north largely failed as a strategy for Republicans in the 2018 midterms.But Democrats then had a punching bag in Mr. Trump’s policy of separating migrant families at the border, which sparked international outcry. This cycle, Democrats themselves are sharply divided on immigration, leaving them either on defense or avoiding the subject altogether.Republicans like the Ohio Republican Senate candidate J.D. Vance argue liberals are calling conservatives racist for raising legitimate concerns about drug seizures.Brian Kaiser for The New York TimesThat said, some Republican voters continue to press candidates for more than just new reasons to fear immigration, and the subjects of those fears can turn out to be far less sinister than the faceless migrants depicted in grainy campaign ads.At a campaign stop at a brewery in Hilliard, Ohio, Bryan Mandzak, 53, a factory manager, asked Mr. Vance how he planned to address what he called a broken immigration system that provided workers few paths to legal status. He said he himself had seen “vanloads of Hispanics” arriving at a hotel in Marysville, about 20 miles northwest of Hilliard, but explained that they had been brought in to run an automotive plant that was hurting for employees.As it happened, white vans were indeed picking up Hispanic workers at the hotel in Marysville, for factory shifts ending at 2 a.m. But the workers were mostly American-born citizens like Moises Garza, who said he had applied on Facebook, moved from Texas and was enjoying decent pay, transportation and free lodgings.In between bites of syrupy waffles a few hours after a Friday-night shift assembling tires, Mr. Garza, who is originally from upstate New York, said he wasn’t following the Senate race and shrugged off being mistaken for an immigrant.He had two days to rest up and explore Columbus. On Monday, he would be back at work. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      French Lessons for the Biden Administration

      by

      You probably breathed a deep sigh of relief when you heard that Emmanuel Macron trounced Marine Le Pen by a 17-point margin in Sunday’s French presidential election. A Le Pen victory would have been a boon to Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban and Steve Bannon and a disaster for NATO, Europe and France.The center held, thank God — because Macron governed from the center. He was hated by the far left and the far right and never entirely pleased those closer to the center. But he also became the first president to be re-elected in France in 20 years.There’s a lesson in that for the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress, especially when it comes to immigration.It has become an article of progressive faith in recent years that efforts to control immigration are presumptively racist.A border wall is “a monument to white supremacy,” according to a piece published in Bloomberg. The “remain in Mexico” policy is “racist, cruel and inhumane,” according to the Justice Action Center. An essay published by the Brookings Institution calls U.S. immigration policy “a classic, unappreciated example of structural racism.”It wasn’t long ago that Bernie Sanders was an avowed restrictionist on the view that immigration depresses working-class wages. Did that position make him a racist? The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, where I once worked, used to make the case for open borders with Mexico. Were we left-wing progressives? People of good will should be able to take different and nuanced views on immigration — and change their minds about it — without being tagged as morally deficient.But that’s no longer how it works in progressive circles. The results are policy choices that are bad for the country and worse for Democrats and are an unbidden gift to the far right.The issue is now acute with the Biden administration simultaneously seeking to end the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy in a case before the Supreme Court while accepting a recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to let the use of Title 42, which allowed border authorities to expel illegal immigrants as a public health measure, expire on May 23.There’s not much doubt as to what will happen if the administration gets its way: An already straining southern border will burst. In fiscal year 2020 there were 646,822 “enforcement actions” at the border. In 2021 the number was a little shy of two million. Without the authority of Title 42, under which 62 percent of expulsions took place in 2021, the number of migrants being released in the United States will increase drastically. You don’t have to be opposed to immigration as a general matter to have serious doubts about the administration’s course.Is there a practical and available legal alternative to regulating immigration through Title 42 enforcement? Where is the logic of ending Title 42 even as the administration seeks to extend mask mandates because the pandemic is far from over? Given housing shortages, how much capacity is there to absorb the next wave of migrants? Even if an overwhelming majority of migrants are merely seeking a better life, what system is there to find those with less honorable intentions?More to the point: What does the administration’s utter failure at effective control of the border say about its commitment to enforcing the rule of law?To raise such questions should be an invitation to propose balanced and practical immigration legislation and try to win over moderate Republicans. Instead it tends to invite cheap accusations of racism, along with policy paralysis in the White House. As Politico reported last week, some think the administration’s secret policy is to call for an end to Title 42 to satisfy progressives while crossing fingers that the courts continue it — which a federal judge did on Monday, at least temporarily.Leading from behind Trump-appointed judges is probably not what Americans elected Joe Biden to do.Which brings us back to the example of France. When Jean-Marie Le Pen made his first presidential bid on an anti-immigration platform in 1974, he took 0.75 percent of the ballot in the first round — fewer than 200,000 votes. When his daughter Marine ran on a similar platform this year, she took 41.5 percent in the second round, or more than 13 million. The Le Pens are thoroughgoing bigots.But decades of pretending that only bigots had worries about immigration only made their brand of politics stronger.As president, Macron tacked right on immigration — not to weaken France’s historic position as an open society, friendly to newcomers, but rather to save it. He has cracked down on some asylum seekers, demanded that immigrants learn French and get jobs and taken a hard line against Islamic separatism. But he’s also tried to make France a more welcoming place for legal immigration. The left thinks of him as Le Pen lite, the right as a feckless impostor. Maybe he’s both. Then again, he also saved France for the free world.Democrats could stand to brush up on their French.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      American Voters Haven’t Been Afraid Like This in a Long Time

      by

      In a rare convergence, America’s voters are not merely unhappy with their political leadership, but awash in fears about economic security, border security, international security and even physical security. Without a U-turn by the Biden administration, this fear will generate a wave election like those in 1994 and 2010, setting off a chain reaction that could flip the House and the Senate to Republican control in November, and ultimately the presidency in 2024.Take the economy, so often the harbinger of election results. From late 2017 until the pandemic, a majority of Americans believed that the economy was strong, and from 2014 until the pandemic at least a plurality believed their personal economic situation was improving. Covid-19 cut sharply into that feeling of well-being; this was initially seen as temporary, though, and trillions of dollars flowed into keeping people afloat. But then near-double-digit inflation hit consumers for the first time in 40 years; 60 percent of voters now see the economy as weak and 48 percent say their financial situation is worsening, according to a Harris Poll conducted April 20-21. Many Americans under 60 have relatively little experience with anything but comparatively low fuel costs, negligible interest rates and stable prices. Virtually overnight these assumptions have been shaken. Only 35 percent approve of President Biden’s handling of inflation.These economic blows are just one element in a cascading set of problems all hitting at the same time. It combines the nuclear anxieties of the 1950s and ’60s with the inflation threat of the ’70s, the crime wave of the ’80s and ’90s and the tensions over illegal immigration in the 2000s and beyond. This electorate is not experiencing a malaise, as President Jimmy Carter was once apocryphally said to have proclaimed, but has instead formed into a deep national fissure ready to blow like a geyser in the next election if leadership does not move to relieve the pressure.The return of fear about crime is especially worrisome for Democrats, who spent years trying to take over Republican ground on the issue. In 1991, the homicide rate was 9.71 per hundred thousand. Mr. Biden, when he was a senator, penned the key federal bipartisan anti-crime bill widely credited then with reducing violence in America, but under criticism today by those who argue it led to inequitable rates of incarceration, particularly in communities of color. The homicide rate would decline to a low of 4.44 per 100,000 in 2014. Worries about walking the streets and riding the subway were less acute among new generations, and yet today those same streets and mass transit are once again hobbled by fear; even the head of the New York-area Metropolitan Transportation Authority argued that fear of crime and homelessness were behind a 36 percent drop in ridership between December 2021 and January 2022.Immigration was used effectively by President Donald Trump as a wedge issue to win working class voters. According to the April Harris poll, under Mr. Biden, 59 percent of voters believe that we have “effectively” open borders and, looking back, many even support some of Mr. Trump’s immigration policies. Mr. Biden receives only 38 percent approval for his immigration policy, a troublingly low rating for a Democrat (President Barack Obama was at 29 percent approval on immigration policy before the 2010 midterm wipeout).Migrants seeking asylum in the U.S., standing near the border fence while waiting to be processed after crossing the border from Mexico at Yuma, Arizona.Go Nakamura/ReutersNational security had become less salient for most Americans compared to the years of the Cold War and after 9/11. Foreign policy was barely discussed in the limited presidential debates of 2020. Today, fear of a great power conflict and nuclear weapons has emerged in ways not seen since the Cold War. With the invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin, fresh ballistic missile tests, and Mr. Putin’s explicit reference to the use of nuclear weapons and “unpredictable” consequences of opposing him, fear of nuclear weapons has been thrust front and center, as a recent focus group of Americans by Times Opinion found as well. Fear of nuclear weapons now ranks second in issues that worry voters, behind the effects of inflation.To combat the drag that fear has on the electorate — what I call a “fear index” — Mr. Biden will have to move in some big and bold ways. Faced with runaway spending in the 1990s, President Bill Clinton proposed a balanced budget, a policy still favored by 80 percent of the electorate, according to April’s Harris poll, but he did it in a way that still managed to finance entitlements like Social Security. Pushing a big, seven-year policy plan like that would mean finding budget cuts elsewhere to pay for a permanent child tax credit, rather than raising taxes, and deficit spending, which would most likely cause costs to fall on the average American through inflation. Balancing the budget would change the conversation about the economy and show Americans that Mr. Biden was serious about getting our fiscal house in order.Continuing to let gas prices surge will hurt Democrats on the ballot in the fall; the party needs a new, tempered energy policy that includes a more gradual transition to alternative fuels and an appreciation of energy independence. In the presidential debates, Mr. Biden promised a “transition” to “renewable energy over time,” though noting he would not attempt to ban fracking. But in his first flurry of executive orders, Biden gave the public the impression he was far more aggressive in favoring climate change policies, though he has since angered activists by reversing a promise to prevent new drilling on public lands. He will need to shift to an “all of the above” energy approach and green-light the Keystone pipeline, which is currently favored by nearly 80 percent of the electorate, according to the Harris Poll.The Biden administration is also losing in swing areas on immigration, as evidenced by the nine Senate Democrats and the House’s bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus that have expressed reservations about its plan to lift Title 42, the Trump administration’s Covid-era policy of intercepting and returning migrants without due process. The answer is to keep in place the Covid-related border restrictions and revive trying to find a real compromise with at least 10 Republican senators on immigration that would adopt tougher barrier and enforcement measures to close the border, but also open up legal immigration and a path to citizenship for at least DACA recipients.With rising crime as an issue, the favorable rating of the Department of Justice has sunk to just 51 percent under Merrick Garland, according to the Harris Poll. Mr. Biden needs to shake up his top law-enforcement officials and back legislation that combines police reform with funding for hundreds of thousands of new community police officers, greater federal involvement in stopping violent crime syndicates and gangs, and wider discretion for judges to take violent criminals off the streets. The administration needs to consider interceding on behalf of victims in circumstances in which district attorneys are not prosecuting violent criminals to the full extent of the law, especially when they waive “enhancements” for gang-related crimes. One of our first campaign ads in 1996 established President Clinton as both against assault-weapons and for more cops and crime-fighting measures; he kept that message up during his re-election bid, and Republicans never effectively stoked fears about crime.Finally, Mr. Biden cannot let Mr. Putin win in Ukraine, and needs to continue to send whatever weapons are necessary, including jets, to prevent such a victory. The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan precipitated a decline in his administration’s approval rates. Ukraine’s loss would compound the view among some voters that he is too weak.According to reports, Mr. Biden now says he is running for re-election in 2024. But he is facing limited enthusiasm in his own party for a second run and loses even to Mr. Trump in hypothetical matchups, according to the Harris Poll. Sticking to the high-priced Build Back Better legislation or variants of it on the basis of narrow party-line votes has not been successful.People are afraid of being walloped financially, being injured or menaced by criminals, being in a country without strong borders or Covid protections for immigrants, and being under threat of nuclear weapons. If Mr. Biden and Democratic leaders cannot effectively address these fears, the wave election will hit them in November, and the president will then face a sobering choice of either passing the baton to another candidate in 2024 or finding the bold leadership necessary to reconcile his drive for more progressive policies with the realities of economics, politics and a more dangerous world.Mark Penn was a pollster and adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton from 1995 to 2008. He is chairman of the Harris Poll and C.E.O. of Stagwell Inc.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Inside Le Pen Territory as France Votes in a Runoff Election

      by

      Whatever happens in the runoff election on Sunday, France has changed, and the winner may face a turbulent season.ST. RÉMY-SUR-AVRE, France — Eternal France, its villages gathered around church spires, its fields etched in a bright patchwork of green and rapeseed yellow, unfolds as if to offer reassurance in troubled times that some things do not change. But the presidential election on Sunday, an earthquake whatever its outcome, suggests otherwise.France has changed. It has eviscerated the center-left and center-right parties that were the chief vehicles of its postwar politics. It has split into three blocs: the hard left, an amorphous center gathered around President Emmanuel Macron, and the extreme right of Marine Le Pen.Above all, with Ms. Le Pen likely to get some 45 percent of the vote, it has buried a tenacious taboo. In a country that for four wartime years lived under the racist Nazi-puppet Vichy government, no xenophobic, nationalist leader would be allowed into the political mainstream, let alone be able to claim the highest office in the land.Unlikely to win, but well within the zone of a potential surprise, Ms. Le Pen has shattered all of that. She is no outlier. She is the new French normal. If Mr. Macron does edge to victory, as polls suggest, he will face a restive, fractured country, where hatred of him is not uncommon. The old nostrum that France is ungovernable may be tested again.In St. Rémy-sur-Avre, Ms. Le Pen took 37.2 percent of the vote in the first round of the election, pushing Mr. Macron into a distant second with 23.6 percent.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesSt. Rémy-sur-Avre, a small town of some 4,000 inhabitants about 60 miles west of Paris, is Le Pen territory. In the Maryland cafe, named for a cigarette brand that is no more, the prevailing view is that something has to give in a France that has lost its way under a president too privileged and remote to know anything of the burden of struggle.Customers buy lottery tickets, or bet on the harness racing on television, in the hope of unlikely relief from hardship. A kir, white wine with a little black current liqueur, is a popular morning drink. The streets are deserted; most stores have disappeared, crushed by the hypermarkets out on the highway. In this town, Ms. Le Pen took 37.2 percent of the vote in the first round of the election on April 10, pushing Mr. Macron into a distant second with 23.6 percent.Jean-Michel Gérard, 66, one of the kir drinkers, worked in the meat business from age 15, as a butcher, in slaughterhouses, or as a trucker hauling beef carcasses. But he had to stop at 60, when his knees gave out from regularly carrying several tons of meat a day on his back, the record being a single 465-pound rear of a bull.“Now we have a generation of slackers,” he said. “When I was young, if you did not work, you did not eat.”The old France of solidarity and fraternity had disappeared, he lamented, gone like the horse butchers where he started work and replaced by a new France of individualism, jealousy and indulgence.The old France of solidarity and fraternity has disappeared and been replaced by a new France of individualism, jealousy and indulgence, said Jean-Michel Gérard, who worked in the meat industry until a few years ago.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York TimesHe voted for the left until François Mitterrand, the former Socialist president, imposed limits on work hours, and then switched his allegiance to the far-right National Front party, now Ms. Le Pen’s National Rally. What infuriated him, he said, was foreigners collecting social benefits and handouts without working.“We didn’t want to work less, we wanted to work more to earn more. What’s the use of free time without money?” he asked. “If foreigners work, they have their place. If not, no.”Mr. Gérard gazed out at the church. That jogged a memory. The other day, he said, he saw a young man from the Maghreb urinating on the church wall. He shouted at the man, who looked about 17. “What would you do if I urinated on a mosque?”The fraught relationship between France and Islam — in the country with the largest Muslim population in Western Europe and a recent history of terrorist attacks — has been one of the themes of the election campaign. Mr. Macron has called Ms. Le Pen’s program racist for wanting to make head scarves illegal on the grounds that they constitute a threatening “Islamist uniform” — on the face of it, an extraordinary claim, given that an overwhelming majority of Muslims in France just want to live peacefully.Muslims attending Friday Prayer this week at a mosque in an eastern suburb of Paris. The fraught relationship between France and Islam has been one of the themes of the election campaign.Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times“If women are wearing them just for their religion, OK,” Mr. Gérard said, “but I think in general it’s a provocation.”Maryvonne Duché, another firm supporter of Ms. Le Pen, was seated at a table close by. She started work at 14 as a sales clerk, before spending 34 years on the production line at a nearby Philips electronics factory, which closed 12 years ago.“Apart from two pregnancies, I worked nonstop from age 14 to 60, and now I have a pension of 1,160 euros a month,” she said — or about $1,250. “It’s pathetic, with almost half going in rent, but Macron doesn’t care.”And Ms. Le Pen? “I don’t love her, but I will vote for her to get rid of Macron.”The view of Mr. Macron in this town was of near-universal disdain: a man with no respect for French people, removed from reality, so cerebral he has no idea of “real life,” insensitive to the everyday problems of many people, from a class that has “never changed a kid’s diaper,” in Mr. Gérard’s words.Ms. Le Pen, by contrast, is seen as someone who will protect people from the disruptive onslaught of the modern world.What to Know About France’s Presidential ElectionCard 1 of 4Heading to a runoff. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Say, ‘Let Them Eat Hate’

      by

      So Donald Trump has endorsed J.D. Vance in the race for Ohio’s Republican Senate nomination. Will Trump’s nod tip the balance? I have no idea, and frankly I don’t care.Ohio’s G.O.P. primary has, after all, been a race to the bottom, with candidates seemingly competing to see who can be crasser, who can do the most to dumb down the debate. Vance insists that “what’s happening in Ukraine has nothing to do with our national security” and that we should focus instead on the threat from immigrants crossing our southern border. Josh Mandel, who has been leading in the polls, says that Ohio should be a “pro-God, pro-family, pro-Bitcoin state.” And so on. Any of these candidates would be a terrible senator, and it’s anyone’s guess who’d be worst.But the thing about Vance is that while these days he gives cynical opportunism a bad name, he didn’t always seem that way. In fact, not that long ago he seemed to offer some intellectual and maybe even moral heft. His 2016 memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” drew widespread and respectful attention, because it offered a personal take on a real and important problem: The unraveling of society in Appalachia and more broadly for a significant segment of the white working class.Yet neither Vance nor, as far as I can tell, any other notable figure in the Republican Party is advocating any real policies to address this problem. They’re happy to exploit white working-class resentment; but when it comes to doing anything to improve their supporters’ lives, their implicit slogan is, “Let them eat hate.”Let’s talk for a minute about the reality Vance was writing about back when many took him seriously.I still encounter people who imagine that social dysfunction is mainly a problem involving nonwhite residents of big cities. But that picture is decades out of date. The social problems that have festered in 21st-century America — notably large numbers of prime-age males not working and widespread “deaths of despair” from drugs, suicide and alcohol — have if anything fallen most heavily on rural and small-town whites, especially in parts of the heartland that have been left behind as a knowledge-centered economy increasingly favors high-education metropolitan areas.What can be done? Progressives want to see more social spending, especially on families with children; this would do a lot to improve people’s lives, although it’s less clear whether it would help revive declining communities.Back in 2016 Trump offered a different answer: protectionist trade policies that, he claimed, would revive industrial employment. The arithmetic on this claim never worked, and in practice Trump’s trade wars appear to have reduced the number of U.S. manufacturing jobs. But back then Trump was at least pretending to address a real issue.At this point, however, neither Trump nor any other important Republican is willing to go even that far. I’d say that G.O.P. campaigning in 2022 is all culture war, all the time, except that this would be giving Republicans too much credit. They aren’t fighting a real culture war, a conflict between rival views of what our society should look like; they’re riling up the base against phantasms, threats that don’t even exist.This isn’t hyperbole. I’m not just talking about things like the panic over critical race theory, although this has come to mean just about any mention of the role that slavery and discrimination have played in U.S. history. Florida is even rejecting many math textbooks, claiming that they include prohibited topics.That’s bad. But we’re seeing a growing focus on even more bizarre conspiracy theories, with frantic attacks on woke Disney, etc. And roughly half of self-identified Republicans believe that “top Democrats are involved in elite child sex-trafficking rings.”What people may not realize is that Vance’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is almost as detached from reality as QAnon-type theories about Democratic pedophiles. I mean, yes, undocumented immigrants do exist. But the idea that they pose a major threat to public order is a fantasy; indeed, the evidence suggests that they’re considerably more law-abiding than native-born Americans.And making the alleged insecurity of the southern border your signature campaign issue is especially bizarre if you’re running for office in Ohio, where immigrants make up only 4.8 percent of the population — around a third of the national average. (Almost 38 percent of the population of New York City, and 45 percent of its work force, is immigrant. It’s not exactly a dystopian hellhole.)But look, none of this is a mystery. Republicans are following an old playbook, one that would have been completely familiar to, say, czarist-era instigators of pogroms. When the people are suffering, you don’t try to solve their problems; instead, you distract them by giving them someone to hate.And history tells us that this tactic often works.As I said, I have no idea whether Trump’s endorsement of Vance will matter. What I do know is that the G.O.P. as a whole has turned to hate-based politics. And if you aren’t afraid, you aren’t paying attention.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More