Immigration And The Overton Window
The Trump administration’s zero-tolerance immigration policy implemented in April saw the separation of over 2,300 children from their parents. Under the policy, all adults that were caught crossing into the United States were to be criminally prosecuted and sent to a federal jail. Unable to remain with their parents in jail, migrant children were detained.
After pictures of the separated children and audio of border agents’ conversations went viral, the policy was met with nationwide backlash. In a survey by Quinnipiac University, 66 percent of respondents opposed the zero-tolerance policy.
[su_pullquote]Seemingly overnight, “Abolish ICE” has moved from Twitter hashtag to serious campaign material.[/su_pullquote]Trump’s stance on immigration is nothing new: he used tough rhetoric on his campaign trail and popularized terms like “chain migration.” Yet, while Republicans continue to push for hardline immigration policy, some Democrats have moved further left on the issue. Seemingly overnight, “Abolish ICE” has moved from Twitter hashtag to serious campaign material.
Established in 2003 during the Bush Administration, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a relatively new law enforcement agency in the Department of Homeland Security. Most recently, it has been the agency responsible for operating the child detention centers. As the agency has become synonymous with family separations, it is easy to understand why abolition of the agency has been gaining steam among the left.
The model of the Overton window has found new life during the Trump presidency. According to Joseph P. Overton, the Overton window is the range of ideas that are tolerated in public discourse. Overton argued that extreme views can slowly shift the window of discourse in either direction and thus make radical ideas seem more conventional.[su_pullquote]Overton argued that extreme views can slowly shift the window of discourse in either direction and thus make radical ideas seem more conventional.[/su_pullquote]
According to Joseph Lehman, a colleague of Overton, politicians do not shift the window themselves, but detect its location and move with it. In this way, the Overton window operates as a political feedback loop. For instance, during his campaign, Trump discovered that his base’s window on immigration was much further to the right than many would have expected. As a result, he amped up his stances to include Muslim travel bans and wall-building, which, in turn, informed public discourse.
[su_pullquote align=”right”]While Trump’s administration pushes the immigration window to the right, some Democrats have simultaneously pushed the window to the left.[/su_pullquote]One might argue that Trump’s family separation policy and immigration rhetoric generally would help shift the entire Overton window to the right, thus making Democratic policy more moderate. In reality, the window has widened. While Trump’s administration pushes the immigration window to the right, some Democrats have simultaneously pushed the window to the left.
On the last weekend of June, nationwide immigration protests saw thousands brandishing signs to abolish ICE and condemn the family separation policy. Just a few days prior, the newest face of the Democratic Party, Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, unseated 10-term incumbent Joseph Crowley to win the Democratic nomination for the New York District 14 House seat. Among her progressive campaign policy is her plan to—you guessed it—abolish ICE.
Ocasio-Cortez’s promise is a far-cry from past Democratic policy that was fairly moderate on immigration. Barack Obama was labeled “deporter-in-chief” because over 2 million immigrants were deported during his administration—more than any other president in American history. While leftist discourse signals a shifting stance on migration, it is unclear whether mirroring the Republicans’ radical views is the best strategy for Democrats who face an uphill battle in the 2018 midterm elections.
Ocasio-Cortez won her New York district by running to the left of Crowley on many issues. Other progressive Democrats also fared well against their establishment competitors who were generally more moderate on issues like immigration. For instance, Ben Jealous, endorsed by Bernie Sanders, won the Democratic primary for Maryland governor by 11 points over Rushern Baker who was endorsed by establishment Democrats.
While these results are indicative of a larger trend in shifting liberal ideology, they occurred in areas that are solidly Democratic. In 2016, Ocasio-Cortez’s district and Maryland voted for Clinton by nearly 60 and 25 points, respectively. In these cases, a very liberal stance on immigration proved beneficial. In more competitive congressional districts, Democrats might be better off adopting less extreme stances on immigration. In truth, establishment Democrats won far more primaries than did progressives this June.
As the Democratic Party continues to grapple with mild infighting and an expanding Overton window, its best strategy might be the simplest: to sit back and watch a Republican-controlled government divide its supporters on immigration issues. According to Quinnipiac, just 55 percent of Republicans supported the zero-tolerance immigration policy and a poll by Ipsos found that 51 percent of Republicans supported giving legal status to DREAMers.
Compare those numbers to Democratic supporters, in which 91 percent opposed the zero-tolerance policy, and 81 percent supported legal status for DREAMers. While immigration continues to drive a wedge into Republicans, it seems to have a unifying effect for Democrats – and perhaps that’s all the party will need heading into a potentially pivotal midterm election.
Garrett Cunningham ‘19 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at cunningham.garrett@wustl.edu.