A hot topic in this election cycle is illegal immigration and how to reform the laws surrounding it. On June 15, 2012 DACA was established with support from President Obama.
DACA stands for Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and establishes guidelines and procedures for how people who came to the US as immigrants as children should be treated in terms of citizenship and deportation. Some of the guidelines for whether or not a person may request DACA are it they "were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, came to the United States before reaching [their] 16th birthday [and] have not been convicted of a felony." While on the surface the country seems to be divided over this issue, a recent
CNN-ORC poll shows that this is not the case. When asked
"Thinking about the way the U.S. government deals with the issue of illegal immigration, which
of the following policy goals should be the government’s top priority: (RANDOM ORDER)," the results were as follows:
These results show that a majority (with a 15% margin) believes that the government should do what it can to help illegal immigrants who are productive members to society become legal citizens. Another question from this poll asks
: "Do you think the government should attempt to deport all people currently living in the country
illegally or should the government not attempt to do that," with the overwhelming majority (66% of people surveyed) saying that the government should not. These two questions and their subsequent responses show that a majority of Americans feel positively about illegal immigrants living in our country and one day gaining legal status.
The reason I am discussing this today is because Hillary Clinton's campaign is being helped by "a group of undocumented immigrants [that] is
knocking on doors in Northern Virginia" and in other places trying to mobilize voters on their behalf. They are doing this because they are "
kind of in limbo, unsure about whether their status would be renewed under a President Trump and concerned that their family members could be deported.” In an earlier campaign this strategy was actually proven to be successful in helping to "stir up anti-Trump sentiments in Prince William County." I find that what this group, called CASA, is doing is very interesting in terms of what we learned in Johnson's writings about voter rational and the costs and benefits associated with voting. He concludes that "it is the rational voter who stays home and refuses to vote and the irrational one who votes,"but what would he say about someone who can't vote but is spending their time convincing others to vote for candidate who's policies are more favorable to them? I feel as though the whole thing is turned on its head as I question, "is it rational for the members of CASA to spend their time incurring large 'costs' with uncertain 'benefits' (especially since they will not receive the benefit of voting)?" Costs referring to time and gas spent going door to door, etc. Johnson outlines several benefits with one of the biggest being the feeling of having made a difference and voicing ones opinion, but is this what is happening here? In terms of the elements of his equation, I feel like B is non existent and P is not their vote but rather their outreach and V1 and V2 being the biggest determine factors for the members of CASA. I feel as though the uncertainty of how the people with whom CASA members speak to will end up voting and the uncertainty of whether or not Clinton will actually continue the DACA initiative more than outweigh the cost, and I wonder if Johnson would agree with me. I feel as though perhaps CASA would be more efficient if they created a special interest group or worked on a larger scale than door to door knocking. In any event, on November 8th (or is it the 28th?) we will see if they are successful.
No comments:
Post a Comment