Mediaboss Marketing

MCLEAN, Va. (PRWEB) November 19, 2020

Laura Foote Reiff and Martha J. Schoonover, shareholders in global law firm Greenberg Traurig LLPs Northern Virginia office, were again listed in Washingtonian magazines 2020 Top Lawyers list. They are recognized in the magazine for their immigration work and will be featured in the Dec. 2020 issue.

According to the Washingtonian, this biennial list features approximately 650 attorneys across 17 practice areas. The list is compiled through research and nominations vetted by the publications editorial staff.

We are thrilled to once again have both Laura and Martha included in this distinguished list of top lawyers in Washingtonian Magazine, said Northern Virginia Co-managing Shareholder Michael Sklaire. This accolade is a testament to their commitment to excellence and top-notch service to clients, and we congratulate them on this well-deserved award.

Reiff Co-Chairs the Immigration & Compliance Practice and is the Co-Managing Shareholder of the Northern Virginia Office. She also Co-Chairs the firms Labor & Employment Practices International Employment, Immigration & Workforce Strategies group. Reiff focuses her practice on business immigration laws and regulations affecting U.S. and foreign companies, as well as related employment compliance and legislative issues. Reiffs practice also consists of managing business immigration matters and providing immigration counsel to address the visa and work authorization needs of U.S. and global personnel including professionals, managers and executives, treaty investors/ traders, essential workers, persons of extraordinary ability, corporate trainees, and students. She is an immigration policy advocacy expert and works on immigration reform policies.

Schoonover focuses her practice on business immigration matters and assists employers in obtaining temporary, nonimmigrant visas for business persons, managers and executives, treaty investors and traders, professionals (including researchers and scientists, engineers, computer professionals, and business professionals), exchange visitors, students, and crew members working on the Outer Continental Shelf. In addition, she assists in obtaining labor certifications and permanent resident status for professionals, researchers, multinational managers and executives and other priority workers and in obtaining and relinquishing U.S. citizenship. She represents companies facing U.S. government investigations or audits for immigration violations and prepares immigration and visa compliance programs for clients. She counsels employers on the employer sanctions and anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and represents employers being audited by the U.S. Government.

About Greenberg Traurigs Northern Virginia Office: Greenberg Traurigs clients rely on the more than 50 attorneys in the firms Northern Virginia office for multifaceted, broad-based legal services. Team members primary goal is to assist clients in addressing their legal needs, locally, regionally, or on a global scale. They work collaboratively with colleagues around the region, or across to Europe, the UK, Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East. And when a matter requires it, they do not hesitate to utilize the firms full slate of cross border resources. Clients come to the Northern Virginia office for their corporate and securities matters, real estate transactions, wealth management and tax planning, business immigration compliance, labor and employment issues, litigation cases, and government contract needs, among others. Clients have included the top decision makers at tech companies headquartered in the region, as well as government contractors, health care organizations, high net worth individuals, and developers. Most of the firms Northern Virginia attorneys are admitted to practice in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

About Greenberg Traurigs Womens Initiative: Greenberg Traurig is committed to its women lawyers success, which includes a firmwide womens affinity group encompassing recruiting, retention, and business development. The firm regularly collaborates with like-minded organizations to address these issues on a broader scale in a variety of industries and communities. Greenberg Traurig also takes thoughtful action to address issues such as maintaining a healthy work-life balance, breaking the glass ceiling, mentoring, creating and maintaining healthy lifestyles, and giving back to the community. Twitter: @GTLawWomen

About Greenberg Traurig: Greenberg Traurig, LLP (GT), has approximately 2200 attorneys in 40 locations in the United States, Latin America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. GT has been recognized for its philanthropic giving, diversity, and innovation, and is consistently among the largest firms in the U.S. on the Law360 400 and among the Top 20 on the Am Law Global 100. The firm is net carbon neutral with respect to its office energy usage and Mansfield Rule 3.0 Certified. Web: http://www.gtlaw.com

Share article on social media or email:

Read this article:
Greenberg Traurig's Laura Reiff and Martha Schoonover Included in Washingtonian Magazine's 2020 Top Lawyers List - PR Web

The incoming Biden administration has an opportunity to normalize immigration policy but may face opposition to some common-sense actions by Republican leaders who still fear Donald Trumps supporters, according to a bipartisan panel of presenters at the National Immigration Forum.

More than 1,000 people registered for the online event Leading the Way 2020 which began on Monday, Nov. 16, and was slated to run through Nov. 19.

Historically, Americans and even Republicans and conservative evangelicals have understood a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration and have thought children brought to the country illegally should have a path to citizenship, noted Robert P. Jones, president of the Public Religion Research Institute, and Tim Miller, writer at large for The Bulwark.

But the Trump administration and the policies advanced by senior advisor Stephen Miller blurred the lines between legal and illegal in a quest to end all immigration, the two said in a conversation moderated by Linda Chavez, senior fellow with the National Immigration Forum.

Trump succeeded in scrambling these distinctions between legal immigration and illegal immigration, Jones asserted. His rhetoric has cast them all in the same bucket. Thus the Trump immigration policy effectively became about admitting no one.

Thats despite years of polling that shows widespread support among Americans for legal refugee resettlement programs and for supporting so-called Dreamers brought to the U.S. by parents through no illegal action of their own.

There has always been more than 6 in 10 Americans for allowing a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally as the preferred policy solution, he said. That includes half of Republicans and a majority of white evangelicals.

Anything that has to do with keeping people out has support from white evangelicals and Republicans.

However, because the Trump administration has so blurred the lines on immigration, there is now support among white evangelicals for preventing almost all refugees from coming to the U.S., he explained. Anything that has to do with keeping people out has support from white evangelicals and Republicans.

Tim Miller, a former Republican pollster, agreed that there are several common-sense immigration policies that have broad enough support in the electorate to be adopted in bipartisan Congressional action. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders are not likely to allow that to happen, he said.

A lot of the Republican elected officials are still spooked by Donald Trumps success, Miller explained. The ones who might be likely to be persuadable on issues like this, they dont even know their own base right now; they dont understand how this happened. Their north star is, I know that my voters like the president.

Thus, jumping on board with Democrats for a deal on immigration wont happen, even though individual polling says it should, he concluded.

However, theres a lot of administrative stuff Joe Biden can do, he added. It is important to focus on holding this administration accountable, pressuring them to make sure they are rolling back and rolling forward some of these immigration rule-making decisions.

That sentiment was echoed by Lorella Praeli, president of the advocacy group Community Change, and Stuart Stevens, author and political strategist and former advisor to Mitt Romney. They spoke in a panel moderated by Juan Williams, political analyst for Fox News.

Even with the future of the Senate uncertain, we have to hold the line and push the boundaries of the possible in this moment, Praeli said. Coming out of what we have been experiencing in the Trump era, it is our job to ensure that the Biden administration and Congress act on immigration.

Doing so will be essential to the survival of the Republican Party, Stevens declared, noting the winds of demographic change will otherwise doom Republicans. Of all Americans 15 years and younger, the majority are nonwhite. If the Republican Party had any sense of trying to be a governing party for the future, it would embrace this change. Part of that would be embracing comprehensive immigration reform.

He added: I dont know what it takes for the Republican Party not only to do what is right but what is in its best interest. I would hope you could make a case to Republicans that they have to go down this road to survive. Fear is what will motivate Republicans.

For evidence, look at how marginalized Republicans have become in California amid increasing ethnic diversity, he said. And then look at how close Democrats came to taking Texas this year. If Texas goes Democratic, its over for winning a presidential election. You cant get there without Texas.

Sensible Republicans who invest in the future should want to cooperate on immigration legislation, Stevens said. This should be a win-win for both parties, the old-fashioned way of passing legislation.

For now, though, Trump and Trumpism appear to have killed such a possibility, he said. Weve never had a party like the Republican Party embrace hate the way Republicans have now.

Yet there could be hope, Stevens asserted.

Its a little bit difficult to imagine what the world is going to be like in a few months. But having a different president with a different view toward immigration and toward communities of color is going to be extraordinary, he predicted. The change here is going to be extraordinary and will carry on more than this bill or that bill. I hope it can usher in a new era and we can move past this.

Praeli agreed.

We know there is broad support for this issue. Its more about Donald Trump and the GOPs loyalty to him. The question of whether immigration will continue to be partisan or whether or not both political parties get to moving on it is really a question about the future of the GOP. Will Republicans come to their senses and (depart) from the anti-democratic leader they have embraced?

Praeli said she and her group also will not let Democratic Party leaders off the hook simply because they might face roadblocks from McConnell and other state and national Republicans loyal to Trumpism.

The question for Democrats is will there be less talk and more action. Will they use every lever?

Trump and Stephen Miller used every lever available to them to restrict immigration, so Democrats also should use the same force to roll back those restrictions, she said. Immigration is not just good politics but also good policy.

Immigration is not just good politics but also good policy.

Were going to cause some good trouble using all the tools available to us as organizers, Praeli said, alluding to a famous quote of Rep. John Lewis, who died earlier this year and was a Civil Rights icon.

Panelists noted several points at which the issues of race and immigration are now intertwined in the American political experience.

The negative attitude toward immigration is really a call for a negative attitude for anyone who is not white, Stevens said. Theres a direct link between Trumps Muslim ban and his call for building a wall.

This nonwhite bias has become so strong in Republican politics under Trump that even Asian Americans who have not been as directly targeted by Trump have fled the party, he added. Asian Americans got the message that if youre not white youre not welcome in the Republican Party.

Jones said Trumps 2016 campaign with its Make America Great Again slogan was linked to this endless anti-immigrant rhetoric. The appeal was less about economic anxiety and more about cultural anxiety, the changing demographics in the country. White Christians are shrinking as a percentage of the population. Immigration was seen to be an existential threat to white Anglo Saxon Protestants.

By 2020, that demographic threat remained, but immigration was not the winnable wedge issue it had been just four years earlier, Jones said. In 2020, African Americans were cast as the threat. What was happening in the home stretch of the election wasnt about immigration; it was about George Floyd. (Trump) just rejiggered his anti-immigrant language to be anti-Black. He slotted in a different villain.

In this years election, Republicans were 22 points less likely to say immigration was a critical issue in their vote, he noted. What did they put in its place? Crime. Whats crime about? Its the language of threats of African Americans and low-income housing.

Panelists were asked several times what could possibly move modern-day Republican leaders to act on immigration reform when answers were elusive even in days of more bipartisan cooperation.

You have to make immigration a referendum on decency.

Polling shows the underlying values conservative voters care about include compassion, pragmatism and keeping families together, Jones said. Thats why (Trumps) family separation policy was so unpopular. Three quarters of Americans oppose family separations.

Stevens suggested a similar idea. You have to make immigration a referendum on decency. This election was a referendum on decency. Suburban women were appalled by the image of children in cages and that we have made so many children orphans.

There also is an economic reality of Americas need for immigrants, Praeli said, noting large percentages of the immigrant community work in jobs deemed essential to the economy during the pandemic. You cant be essential and deportable.

Related articles:

Biden plans to restore refugee admissions, but rebuilding the system will take time

Faith-based groups unite to denounce Trumps further gutting of legal refugee resettlement

The true story of two immigrants seeking asylum in the U.S. and the pastor whos helping them

Read the original here:
Panelists debate how to 'normalize' immigration after ill effects of Trumpism - Baptist News Global

For more than a year, the Trump administration has attempted to carry out a brazen, undemocratic power grab. But it has nothing to do with the election.

Beneath the din of Trumps lies about voter fraud and refusal to concede, his administration has engaged in a subtler and likely far more consequential effort to manipulate the electoral playing field to the Republican Partys advantage. At its core is the pivotal (if mundane) once-a-decade task of using census data to reapportion seats in the US House of Representatives.

In a memorandum published on July 21, 2020 a year after the Supreme Court struck down Trumps effort to depress census participation by including a citizenship question on the questionnaire the president claimed he had the authority to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census population counts used to allocate House seats.

Trumps move, currently awaiting review before a Supreme Court whose ranks now include three of his appointees, would not only redistribute seats (and Electoral College votes) away from densely populated states, it would also likely result in the misallocation of federal resources during a historic pandemic and economic crisis.

If Trump and the GOP are successful in court refashioning the peoples house to disadvantage electoral majorities and buttress their own power it will receive far less attention than the spectacle of the elections. Stealthy power grabs targeted at taken-for-granted democratic institutions typically do. And that, among other things, is what makes them so dangerous.

In a country rife with counter-majoritarian political institutions, the House of Representatives, apportioned based on total state population, stands as a potential democratic counterweight. Yet that hasnt stopped political coalitions facing electoral irrelevance from rewriting the rules to entrench their power.

Following the 1920 census, which portended a dramatic shift in power toward urban population centers like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit, a legislative coalition of rural Democrats and Republicans simply blocked the process for an entire decade, locking in rural control of an increasingly urban America.

Members of the rural coalition were motivated by a raw desire to maintain power: historian Charles Eagless analysis of roll-call votes taken throughout the 1920s reveals that the greatest source of opposition came from members of congressional delegations likely to lose seats as a result of reapportionment.

Reapportionment foes also drew strength from a set of nativist arguments. As William Vaile, a GOP congressman from Colorado, complained, the post-1920 apportionment legislation would increase the weight of districts of largely foreign make-up such that [a]lien elements will control the election of their Congressmen.

Those who represented recently arrived immigrants saw the power play for what it was. Meyer Jacobstein, a member of New Yorks congressional delegation, argued that [w]henever reapportionment is faced with a shifting population, you get injustice because people who have authority never willingly relinquish it.

The 1920 reapportionment fiasco ended in an awkward, brokered compromise. As stipulated in a 1929 law called the Permanent Apportionment Act, House seats would be automatically reapportioned after every decennial census. In exchange, reapportionment opponents received a concession: congressional districts were no longer required to be compact, contiguous, and roughly equal in population mandates that had been in nearly every apportionment bill since 1842. Abandoning these criteria created a new opportunity for rural interests in the form of legislative malapportionment.

For the next thirty years, rurally dominated (and also malapportioned) state legislatures designed congressional districts to cabin the power of population centers. The population of Georgias Fifth Congressional District following the 1960 Census was 823,680; its Ninth Congressional District contained only 272,154 people. This persisted until 1964, when the Supreme Court essentially reinstated the redistricting criteria Congress had abandoned in 1929.

While the case put an end to intrastate malapportionment, malapportionment among states remains a problem in the House, largely because the number of representatives has not grown since 1910, when Congress fixed its size at 435 members. As Jeffrey Ladewig and Matthew Jasinski point out, this sets the House apart from lower chambers in peer countries (see below), whose seats tend to expand in proportion to their population.

After the 2000 Census, the interstate population discrepancy between two House districts ran as high as 410,012, twenty-one times greater than the intrastate malapportionment the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in precedents such as White v. Weiser (1973).

And the problem runs deeper still.

By the late 1970s, only a decade after the legislative reapportionment revolution, nativist organizations began developing a renewed theory of apportionment. Organizations like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and its legal arm, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), argued that the one person, one vote standard articulated in the Supreme Courts Wesberry v. Sanders decision required excluding illegal aliens from population figures used in congressional and state-level redistricting.

Despite repeated dismissals of apportionment cases, FAIRs nativist arguments continued to percolate through the courts between the 1980s and 2000s. FAIR-style claims re-emerged most prominently in Evenwel v. Abbott (2016), where two Texans contended that including undocumented immigrants in state redistricting counts violated the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause because it diluted the power of their votes.

The nativist argument is at the heart of the Trump administrations efforts to exclude undocumented immigrants from congressional apportionment counts for the first time in American history.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that it was constitutional for Texas to use total population figures in redistricting, but left the constitutionality of nativist reapportionment schemes unresolved. Justice Clarence Thomas went even further, announcing in a concurring opinion that there is no constitutional basis for the one-person, one-vote principle.

The table of contents in IRLIs amicus brief in Trump v. New York spells it out in two blunt sentences:

A. Only Members Of Our National Political Community Should Be Represented In Our National Government.

B. Illegal Aliens Are Not Members Of Our National Political Community.

Supplementing the nativist logic is an emboldened theory of the imperial executive branch, which holds that the president may, via memo, evade statutory and constitutional requirements that apportionment be based on the tabulation of total population of each state.

While neither the administration nor its supporters can cite a single historical example to support their argument that the president can fix House apportionment on a whim, the ghost of Evenwel haunts the briefs. And at any rate, a court stacked with Trump appointees will likely be more open to alternative theories of reapportionment than the one that decided Evenwel.

The material effects of making undocumented immigrants vanish in the congressional count are hard to overstate. States with larger populations of undocumented immigrants would lose as much as 6 percent of their apportionment populations, while more homogenous states like Montana, West Virginia, and Maine would be safe. Texas would lose a congressional seat. California and New Jersey might too, and Arizona, Florida, New York, and Illinois would also be in danger.

Those losses would be mirrored in the Electoral College, further biasing presidential contests. And a fall-off in representation would mean a corresponding decline in federal dollars. Typically, an extra congressional seat translates to as much as $100 per capita in additional federal funding. As George Washington University researcher Andrew Reamer notes, because apportionment numbers are used as official tabulations in statutory formulas, the effects on funding could be far more dramatic:

Equally disturbing is what it would mean to open the door to the idea that Congress (or state legislatures) can redistrict on the basis of a principle other than total population. If undocumented immigrants can be excluded, there would be little stopping right-wing legal theorists from articulating other redistricting criteria. The result would make current partisan gerrymanders in states like Wisconsin look quaint by comparison.

The future of the 2020 apportionment controversy is not clear. While the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the case later this month, the Census Bureau has indicated that it may not be able to comply with the Trump memorandum by the apportionment deadline of December 31.

Even if Trump does send his numbers to Congress, the House of Representatives could still refuse to accept them, which would likely set off a chain reaction of litigation that could take some time to resolve.

But whatever the outcome, this episode reveals that Trumps refusal to concede the election, however audacious, is consistent with a far more potent, and more powerful, strand of counter-majoritarianism with deep historical roots in the Republican Party. It is a strategy whose success derives in part from being unspectacular, buried in briefs, barely perceptible even to seasoned political observers.

And it is the kind of ideology that cannot be fought with defensive legal argumentation alone. It requires a good offense: a vision for reconstructing American political institutions that gives the majority the most important number in a democracy a voice.

See the rest here:
Trump Is Attempting a Brazen, Anti-Democratic Power Grab. And It Has Nothing to Do With the Election - Jacobin magazine

As Bidens Jan. 20 inauguration inches closer, this lack of preparation within the conservative movement has some of its top members worried they are unwittingly damaging their joint legacy with the president and creating an opening for the next administration to swiftly pursue a radical agenda. Meanwhile, Trump shows no signs of relenting in his quest to baselessly claim he won the recent election.

Republicans cant afford to get stuck in the denial stage of grief, said Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, one of only a handful of GOP lawmakers who have congratulated Biden on his victory. Sasse even broke Trumps unspoken rule by saying he would crawl over broken glass before allowing the Senate to confirm some of the names being floated for Cabinet positions in Bidens administration.

Weve got some big fights ahead, and itd be prudent for Republicans to be focused on the governance challenges facing our center-right nation, Sasse said.

Several prominent conservatives, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation, said they should be readying a legal response to Bidens promise to sign a series of executive orders on his first day in office that would undo some of Trumps key policies on immigration, foreign policy and deregulation. And they are frustrated by the lack of pressure Biden has faced to fill his Cabinet with moderate voices who might balance out progressive influences elsewhere in his administration.

As Trump declines to travel to Georgia instead criticizing the states recount efforts in a series of tweets conservatives have also become increasingly concerned that the Democratic candidates competing in a pair of Senate runoff races there will glide to victory if Republicans fail to communicate, due to fears of upsetting Trump, what Biden and a Democratic Senate could accomplish.

The winning narrative in Georgia would be that Republicans need the Senate to counter Joe Biden and [Vice President-elect] Kamala Harris when theyre in office, said one prominent elected Republican. The problem is you cant make that case effectively when youve got the president telling some of his voters, Dont worry, Joe Biden is not going to be president.

Some conservative activists have found ways to toe the line amid threats of ostracization if they legitimize Biden as the next Oval Office occupant. In statements and internal communications, they nod to the presidents ability to challenge the outcome of the 2020 election, even as they encourage their own donors and activist networks to begin thinking about a Democratic administration.

Were preparing for all outcomes, because you have to, said Rachel Bovard, senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute. We support President Trump pursuing all his legal avenues because thats his right, but to be prudent we also need to talk about what a Biden presidency, even a Democratic-controlled Senate, means for the country.

We dont want to be caught flat-footed in a situation where we are confronted with a Biden administration, she added.

RJ Hauman, who serves as government relations director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports stricter immigration policies, said groups like his have an obligation to conservative voters to keep them informed about Bidens policy agenda.

Hauman noted Biden has vowed to reinstate the program that allows so-called Dreamers, or undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children, to remain in the U.S. with legal protection. And Biden, he added, has also pledged to overturn Trumps travel and immigration restrictions on Muslim-majority countries, end Trump-era restrictions on asylum and place a 100-day freeze on deportations while developing new guidance on arrestable offenses.

Educating the public and preparing to fight things like the America Last immigration plan that is set to begin on Day 1 of a Biden administration doesnt undercut pending litigation or efforts to ensure that all votes are counted, Hauman said. If transition folks are quietly crafting ways to grant amnesty and open our borders, people need to know.

Its a weird moment in the pandemic: Theres promising news about vaccines and at-home testing and a nationwide surge in cases thats only expected to get worse in the coming weeks. POLITICOs Adam Cancryn and Dan Diamond break down the state of the Covid crisis and whats next with the holidays just around the corner. Plus, the nations largest public school system shuts down in-person learning. And Republicans denounce Trumps latest firing.

Part of the problem for conservatives who want to talk about Biden is that theyve been relegated to Twitter and other platforms that have become increasingly unpopular with the GOP base if they wish to do so. Far-right media outfits like Breitbart and Newsmax have been almost singularly focused on the president's legal campaign to overturn the election, while cable news giant Fox News, which affirmed Biden as president-elect, has seen a decline in its popularity in conservative circles.

All of conservative media is about the recounts [and] the fraud allegations, said a high-level employee at one conservative media outlet. Trump is basically the assignment editor for the conservative press.

Another conservative activist claimed they couldnt place an op-ed about Bidens social policies after an outlet they periodically write for declined to print the phrase a Biden administration.

You definitely have a grassroots conservative movement thats completely unwilling to discuss anything related to a Biden administration, said the conservative nonprofit employee. Ive gotten flack for appearing on Fox News programs.

POLITICO NEWSLETTERS

Tracking the appointments, the people, and the power centers of the next administration.

In addition to conservative organizations, the fear of challenging Trump on the election has engrossed the House and Senate GOP caucuses, too. As of this week, only nine Republican senators and 11 House members have recognized Biden as president-elect or publicly acknowledged the likelihood that he will be sworn in as president in two months.

Several Republican governors have also withheld congratulations to Biden while the Trump campaign pursues a growing number of legal challenges in Michigan, Georgia and Pennsylvania, and demands a recount in Wisconsin, where current vote totals show the president losing by about 20,000 votes. Election officials and legal experts say the efforts are highly unlikely to succeed or have any significant effect on the results.

Without being able to openly plot against Biden or poach administration officials, several conservatives have been preparing discreetly and with limited insight into when theyll be allowed to speak out against the new administration without jeopardizing their careers or losing donors and grassroots support.

Its easy to prepare internally, but its hard to publicly point to whats going to happen Day 1 because if we do, we look like traitors to the president, said one official at a Washington-based conservative think tank. In reality, were trying to preserve his legacy and stop radical policies that are quietly in the works.

Daniel Lippman contributed to this story.

See the original post:
Traitors to the president: Conservatives fear public preparation for Biden term - POLITICO

Fabio Rojas, Opinion contributor Published 6:00 a.m. ET Nov. 6, 2020 | Updated 4:04 p.m. ET Nov. 7, 2020

Do protests ever enact real change? Yes. But not all movements are created equal. Here's the ingredients of a successful movement. USA TODAY

Activists should stay focused on what the government does, not who gets elected.

The era ofPresident Donald Trump appears to benearly over and people will soon move on.

Within the Republican Party, there will be a long discussion about whether the party will represent big-government nationalism or try to reclaim its roots as a party of business and limited government.

Similarly, Democrats will need to think about whether they will pursue the progressive vision of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez orthe more centrist tradition embodied by Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris.

Activists, on the left and right, should take the transition to a new president, and a new balance of government, as a time to reflect on the role that activism has in American society.

We live in an era of polarized activism. When you see a protest, you are likely looking at an assembly of mostly Democrats or Republicans. You rarely see a crowd of people who represent the breadth of American society.

Protesters raise signs outside the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, in the early morning of July 26, 2020.(Photo: Trevor Hughes, Trevor Hughes-USA TODAY NETWORK)

The extremely partisan makeup of protests is well documented. Tea Party protesters in the 2010s were mainly Republicans, and people who participated in the March for Science in the late 2010s were mainly Democrats.

As a researcher who specializes in activism, I studied the anti-Iraq War movement and found that almost all protesters were self-identified Democrats or members of very left third parties. It is challenging to find any form of civic participation or activism today that is not so heavily partisan.

This is a bad thing. Of course, some forms of politics will almost certainly be heavily partisan by their nature. But there are many issues that deserve to be pulled out of the rigid left-right axis that constrains so much of our politics. Sometimes, we need to realize that positive social change will need a broader coalition where people need to leave their voter registration card by the door.

How should activists improve? First, activists should adopt a new mantra: policies, not presidents. Stay focused on what the government does, not who gets elected or even what elected leaders say. For example, we saw an increase of activists attention paid to immigration during the Trump era because President Trump made it clear that he intends to reduce immigration.

However, increasesin deportation and detention occurred during the Obama and Bush administrations as well. We needed vigorous and strident pro-immigration activism during those presidencies as much as during Trumps. Its about the issue, not which team gets elected.

Second, activists should make bridge building a priority. It may not work for every issue, but activist leaders should take the initiative to identify issues where it makes sense to reach out to the other side.

Anti-war politics during the Bush and Obama years provides another example. Whatever the merits of starting the Iraq War, it was clear by the late 2000s that there needed to be a bipartisan conversation about bringing that conflict to a close.

Activists could have played a role in that conversation by maintaining constant pressure on the Obama administration to completely withdraw troops. Instead, the antiwar movement backed off, Obama allowed troops to stay in Iraq, escalated troop levels in Afghanistan, and intervened in Syria.

Today, we see the pernicious effects of partisanship appearing once again in the discussion of police misconduct. The Black Lives Matter movement has focused on an issue that should be of great concern to all Americans. Every year, approximately 1,000 U.S. residents die at the hands of the police, many are from Black and brown communities, and misconduct often goes unpunished.

One might expect a broad bipartisan conversation about how to improve policing. Sadly, most discussion has become highly partisan. Recent research on Black Lives Matter protests suggests that the movement is strongly aligned with the Democratic Party as most participants self-identify with that party.

Similarly, conservative activists have chosen to focus on the most sensational aspects of Black Lives Matter rather than engage in a dialogue about why it has been so hard to reform police. We need to be better.

If we can reorient the culture of activism to focus on policy over partisanship and bridge building, well get the activism that America needs. When a protest gathers outside the White House, the president will no longer be able to write it off as a motley crew of angry partisans.

Instead, the protest will send a clear message: America needs to talk about this. Not just some of us, but all of us.

Fabio Rojas is the Virginia L. Robertsprofessor of sociology at Indiana University-Bloomington and a senior fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies. He is the author of "From Black Power to Black Studies: How a Radical Social Movement Became an Academic Discipline."

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/11/06/activists-police-immigration-reform-must-look-beyond-partisanship-column/6171924002/

Read the original post:
Why activists for police, immigration reform need to focus on policies, not presidents - USA TODAY