Adam Serwer

Reporter

Adam Serwer is a reporter at Mother Jones. Formerly a staff writer at the American Prospect, he has written for the Washington Post, the Root, the Village Voice, and the New York Daily News.

Get my RSS | Follow @adamserwer

"Self-Deportation": It's a Real Thing, and It Isn't Pretty

—By Adam Serwer

| Mon Jan. 23, 2012 8:59 PM PST

Mitt Romney unveiled a novel solution for illegal immigration during Tuesday night's GOP debate, saying that he'd rely on "self-deportation" to reduce the number of unauthorized immigrants in the US.

Or at least it sounded novel. As my colleague Clara Jeffery notes, while "self-deportation" might sound like something you don't want your parents to catch you doing, it's actually an old euphemism for an immigration strategy of "attrition through enforcement." What "self-deportation"—the favored approach to immigration of the GOP's right-wing—actually means is making life so miserable for unauthorized immigrants that they "voluntarily" leave. Here's Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies (the anti-immigrant think tank that tried to mainstream the "terror baby" conspiracy theory) explaining the concept in 2005:

Among the other measures that would facilitate enforcement: hiring more U.S. Attorneys and judges in border areas, to allow for more prosecutions; passage of the CLEAR Act, which would enhance cooperation between federal immigration authorities and state and local police; and seizing the assets, however modest, of apprehended illegal aliens.

These and other enforcement measures would enable the government to detain more illegal aliens; additional measures would be needed to promote self-deportation. Unlike at the visa office or the border crossing, once aliens are inside the United States, there's no physical site to exercise control, no choke point at which to examine whether someone should be admitted. The solution is to create "virtual choke points"—events that are necessary for life in a modern society but are infrequent enough not to bog down everyone's daily business. Another analogy for this concept to firewalls in computer systems, that people could pass through only if their legal status is verified. The objective is not mainly to identify illegal aliens for arrest (though that will always be a possibility) but rather to make it as difficult as possible for illegal aliens to live a normal life here.

This is the right-wing's answer to the question of how you deport 11 million unauthorized immigrants: You don't. You force them to "deport themselves." Although immigration reform advocates would prefer a solution that involves a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants already here, Romney and his top immigration advisers believe they can remove millions of people through heavy-handed enforcement that makes life for unauthorized immigrants intolerable. This approach is notable for its complete lack of discretion and flexibility. Unauthorized immigrant parents with citizen children who need to go to school? Americans who are married to an undocumented immigrant who needs medical treatment? "Self-deportation" hits them all with the same mailed fist.

We can see how this concept has been applied in states like Arizona and Alabama, where local authorities have been empowered to act as enforcers of immigration law. Alabama takes the choke point theory even more seriously than Arizona—everything from enrolling in school to seeking health treatment has been turned into a so-called choke point. The moral, social, and economic consequences of the strategy are secondary to inflicting enough suffering on unauthorized immigrants in order to force them out of the country.

Kris Kobach, the Kansas ~~Attorney General~~ secretary of state who helped write both restrictive immigration laws and recently endorsed Romney, bragged about the impact of the Alabama law after it passed last year:

"There haven't been mass arrests. There aren't a bunch of court proceedings. People are simply removing themselves. It's self-deportation at no cost to the taxpayer. I'd say that’s a win."

Alabama's immigration law has actually been such a disaster that the state is trying to figure out a way to repeal parts of the law. But make no mistake, when Romney is discussing "self-deportation," he's talking about creating a United States where parents are afraid to register their kids for school or get them immunized because they might be asked for proof of citizenship. He's talking about the type of country where local police can demand your immigration status based on mere suspicion that you don't belong around here. "Self-deportation" is just a cleaner, less cruel-sounding way of endorsing harsh, coercive government polices in order to make life for unauthorized immigrants so unbearable that they have no choice but to find some way to leave. The human cost of such an approach, let alone what it might do to American society, is viewed as a price worth paying.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Romney's Double Game on Immigration

—By Adam Serwer

| Fri Jan. 20, 2012 2:58 PM PST

Mitt Romney at CPAC in Florida in 2011.

Mitt Romney has run two different campaigns when it comes to immigration. In South Carolina, he railed against comprehensive immigration reform, declaring that he has "one simple rule: no amnesty." He touted the endorsement of Kris Kobach, a Republican anti-immigrant hardliner who helped write restrictive immigration laws in Alabama and Arizona and wants to abolish birthright citizenship.

Elsewhere, however, Romney struck a different tone. He told a Republican audience in Florida that he wasn't sure whether a legislative proposal that would allow undocumented immigrants in the United States to remain in the country constituted amnesty. "There are some who get involved in whether it is technically amnesty or not, and I’m not really trying to define what is technically amnesty, I'll let the lawyers do that." Romney's against "amnesty," he just isn't quite sure what it is.

I'm not talking about Romney's 2012 primary campaign. I'm talking about his 2008 campaign.

The above examples come straight from the 2008 McCain campaign's opposition research tome, unearthed by Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski, but Romney's basically running the same double game in South Carolina and Florida this year. Back then, he was in the midst of a delicate balancing act, trying to avoid excoriating President George W. Bush's immigration reform efforts while still hitting McCain, a key supporter of those efforts, from the right. This year he's trying to avoid alienating too many Latino voters, while still jabbing the relatively more moderate Newt Gingrich. As in 2008, Romney is using an endorsement from Kobach, formerly the head of the Kansas Republican Party and now Kansas Secretary of State, to prove his commitment to restrictive immigration policies.

Bloomberg Businessweek's Julie Hirschfeld Davis reports:

In Florida, Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney is airing campaign commercials in Spanish telling Hispanics he's "one of us." In South Carolina, he is touting the endorsement of Kris Kobach, an anti-immigration activist who helped spearhead state laws that have sparked anger among Latinos.

What's remarkable is not just that Romney is enaging in virtually the same kind of doubletalk on immigration that he did in 2008—in the same states—it's that he thinks it's going to work.

The idea seems to be that Romney can campaign one way in English in South Carolina, and then sound like an immigration moderate in Spanish while campaigning in Florida. Perhaps the assumption is that the presumed Spanish-speaking audience for Romney's Florida ads won't have access to his harsher remarks on immigration.

That would be a deeply silly assumption. A recent study from Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism showed that the Spanish-language media thrived even through the recession, with the Univision network growing its audience and Spanish-language newspapers losing less of their readerships than their English-language counterparts. Bottom line: Romney's Spanish language ads aren't going to blot out his record on immigration any more than Obama will be able to hide those one million deportations.

There's another reason why Latino voters, particularly in Florida, aren't likely to be moved by Romney's ads. Rival Newt Gingrich, who has struck a more moderate tone than Romney on immigration, has started running Spanish-language radio ad accusing Romney of being a "government liberal" and "anti-immigrant candidate." Gingrich's ad also reminds voters in Miami of the last time Romney was running for president, when he accidentally appropriated a pro-Castro slogan ("Fatherland or Death, we will prevail") at political rally. Awkward.

Romney Explains How Obamacare Isn't Socialism

—By Adam Serwer

| Fri Jan. 20, 2012 8:13 AM PST

Mitt Romney found himself defending his record on health care reform in Massachusetts during Thursday night's debate, as former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum hammered the GOP front-runner for putting in place a "government-run health care system that was the basis of "Obamacare."

It was an awkward moment for Romney, who just minutes earlier had promised to "stuff it down [President Barack Obama's] throat and point out it is capitalism and freedom that makes America strong." "We'll make it work in the way that's designed to have health care act like a market, a consumer market," Romney said, "as opposed to have it run like Amtrak and the Post Office." When pressed, Romney pointed out that Massachusetts residents were still purchasing private health insurance:

First of all, the system in my state is not a government-run system. Ninety-eight — 92 percent of the people had their own insurance before the system was put in place, and nothing changed for them. They still had the same private insurance. And the 8 percent of the uninsured, they bought private insurance, not government insurance. And the people in the state still favor the plan three to one.

Romney's right. Massachusetts doesn't have a "government-run" health insurance system. It has a government-regulated health insurance market in which individuals are compelled to buy their own insurance. That's exactly what the Affordable Care Act has, too. If Obamacare is socialism, then so is Romneycare. And if Romneycare is the distilled essence of free market capitalism, then Obamacare is, too.

This was one of the many moments in last night's debate when rhetoric about "free market capitalism" clashed with what the Republicans on stage were actually saying. Santorum called for special tax breaks for manufacturers while attacking Obama for supposedly wanting to put more people on food stamps. Gingrich and Romney waxed rhapsodic about the New Deal—at least the part of it that provided veterans with government assistance in buying homes and finding jobs. These sorts of efforts are, for some reason, exempt from Republican dogma that government assistance of any kind turns people into state-dependent zombies, shuffling towards their next handout.

To the Republican candidates, manipulating the tax code for the benefit of corporations is "free market capitalism." Manipulating it to provide everyone with health insurance coverage is "socialism," which is so precious to Republicans that they only want veterans to have it. Republican rhetoric aside, this election is not some sort of great philosophical battle between socialism and free market capitalism. It's about for whom, and to what extent, government rigs the game.

Romney Gets Booed For Holding Back His Tax Returns

—By Adam Serwer

| Thu Jan. 19, 2012 8:18 PM PST

2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has faced some tough questions about his taxes since telling reporters on Tuesday that he pays "close to 15 percent" of his income to the IRS—a lower rate than many Americans who don't have the GOP front-runner's fortune, which is estimated to be as high as a quarter-billion dollars. If the booing at Thursday night's debate is any indication, Romney remains vulnerable on the tax issue, even among Republican primary voters.

"[Why shouldn't] the people of South Carolina, before the election see last year's return?" CNN's John King asked the ex-governor.

"Because I want to make sure that I beat President Obama, and every time we release things, drip by drip, the Democrats come out with another array of attacks," Romney responded. "If I'm the nominee, I'll put these out at one time, so we'll have one discussion of all of this."

When King pointed out that Mitt's father George Romney released twelve years of tax returns when running for president and asked Mitt if he would follow his father's example, the candidate chuckled awkwardly before saying, "Maybe, I don't know how many returns I'll release."

At that point, Romney had to pause for parts of the South Carolina audience to stop heckling and booing him. Then he recovered with what's likely to be a common refrain in the general election if the ex-governor wins the nomination. "I'm not going to apologize for being successful," Romney said, and the audience cheered.

The Obama administration offered a tax proposal last year that would have made the wealthy pay a larger share of their income. The proposal was dubbed "The Buffet Rule," after wealthy investor Warren Buffett, who said that some of his employees pay lower tax rates than he does. At the time, Democrats salivated at the possiblity that Romney might also be paying a lower effective tax rate than people who don't own more than one house, even as he's proposing even larger tax cuts for the well-off. With most Americans still struggling financially, voters might not be as receptive to a super-wealthy politician asking them to bear a larger share of the tax burden so that he and other wealthy Americans can pay less.

There's also the possibility that there's some sort of major scandal lurking in Romney's financial history that could sink his chances in the general election.

Newt Gingrich, who released his tax returns Thursday evening, wasn't shy about raising the possibility.

"If there's anything in there thats going to help us lose the election, we should know before he wins the nomination," Gingrich said. "If there's nothing in there, why not release it?"

Debate Night: Showdown in South Carolina

With just one more day of campaigning before South Carolina voters head to the polls, the remaining GOP candidates faced off in another—perhaps final—debate.

—By Nick Baumann, Siddhartha Mahanta, Adam Serwer, and Tim Murphy

| Thu Jan. 19, 2012 6:00 PM PST

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney holds a campaign rally at Winthorp University in Rock Hill, South Carolina, January 18, 2012. Dennis Van Tine/UPPA/Zuma

Thursday night, with the crucial South Carolina primary looming on Saturday, the four remaining major candidates for the Republican presidential nomination (Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman dropped out this week) gathered in Charleston for what could be the final GOP primary debate. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who fought ex-Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum to a tie in Iowa and won handily in New Hampshire, could conceivably lock up the nomination if he wins big in South Carolina. If that happens, it won't be because Romney will have a big lead in the delegate race—he won't—but because a third consecutive first-place finish will make it difficult for the other candidates to continue to raise money. That's why Romney hasn't yet agreed to attend the two GOP debates scheduled for next week—he may not need to.

On the other hand, Newt Gingrich has been surging in the Palmetto State polls, and could conceivably win on Saturday despite reports that emerged on Thursday that he sought an "open marriage" with his second wife, Marianne. And Ron Paul and Santorum are still in the race, too.

Here's a rundown of all the action from Thursday night's debate. Jump to all the best tweets on the debate, as they unfolded in real-time, from the MoJo crew and other political junkies.

Jeff Siner/Charlotte Observer/Zuma

Romney Gets Booed For Holding Back His Tax Returns

—By Adam Serwer

"[Why shouldn't] the people of South Carolina, before the election see last year's return?" CNN's John King asked the ex-governor.

There's also the possibility that there's some sort of major scandal lurking in Romney's financial history that could sink his chances in the general election.

Newt Gingrich, who released his tax returns Thursday evening, wasn't shy about raising the possibility.

"If there’s anything in there thats going to help us lose the election we should know before he wins the nomination," Gingrich said. "If there’s nothing in there why not release it?"

Santorum's Dubious Medicaid Horror Story

Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia

—By Tim Murphy

At Thursday's GOP presidential debate in Charleston, Rick Santorum pulled out what he thought was the perfect anecdote for bureaucratic overreach. As he explained it, he'd talked to a state health official in Iowa and been informed that the state had actually been fined by the federal government because it didn't cover enough people under Medicaid. It was an example of well-intentioned big government gone bad and passing the burden onto a cash-strapped state. But was it true?

As it happens, ABC's Huma Khan looked into this when Santorum first brought it up earlier in January:

First, there is no "Department of Public Welfare" in Iowa, as Santorum stated. It’s the Department of Human Services that disburses Medicaid grants.

Second, it is unclear to what "fine" Santorum was referring. Iowa, like other states, receives federal reimbursement for the money it disburses in Medicaid fees. There is no quota system or target that the state has to meet in order to be eligible for federal money. The amount of money that each state receives is dependent on its economy.

"The formula is based on how well that state is doing economically and since Iowa is improving its economic status, we are soon to lose a couple percentage points," said Roger Munns, a spokesman for the Iowa Department of Human Services. "This is not a punishment. This is a recognition that Iowa’s economy is improving relative to other states."

So: Not exactly the nightmare scenario Santorum warned us of. But it could be worse; when Michele Bachmann wanted an anonymous expert to back up her allegation that under Obamacare, IRS agents would be forced to approve every medical procedure, she claimed to have heard it first-hand from a seven-foot-tall doctor.

Romney Says "I Didn't Inherit Money From My Parents." Really?

Mitt Romney/Flickr

—By Nick Baumann

At Thursday night's Republican primary debate on CNN, Mitt Romney told the audience he "didn't inherit money from my parents." Romney's dad, George Romney, was the CEO of the American Motors Company and governor of Michigan during the 1960s, so it's hard to believe he didn't have money to bequeath his son Mitt. As it happens, the younger Romney explained what happened to his inheritance in more detail in an interview with Reuters in December [emphasis added]:

"What I got from my parents when they passed away I gave away to charity and to my kids. And so what I’ve earned has been earned through my education, my values, living in the greatest country in the world, through some luck and through hard work," he said.

Passing your inheritance on to your children is not the same as not inheriting money at all. And it actually makes me a bit curious: a common estate-tax reduction strategy known as a dynasty trust relies on skipping generations. Did Romney pass on his inheritance to his kids for tax reasons? It's hard to know without seeing his tax returns—and that's another reason why he should release them.

Romney Hits Obama on Solyndra, But Bain Got Government Subsidies, Too

—By Siddhartha Mahanta

At Thursday night's CNN debate, Mitt Romney attacked the Obama administration's loan guarantees for the now-bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra as a prime instance of the government picking winners and losers in business, and losing big. But Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, frequently received similar help from state governments, including subsidies and tax breaks. The subsidy-tracking folks over at Good Jobs First compiled a vast database on just how much states have bailed out companies that were bought and—in a number of cases—gutted by Bain Capital. Some of the highlights:

Sealy. A year after the 1997 buyout of this leading mattress company by Bain and other private equity firms, Sealy received $600,000 from state and local authorities in North Carolina to move its corporate offices, a research center and a manufacturing plant from Ohio (Greensboro News & Record, March 31, 1998). In 2004 Bain and its partners sold Sealy to another private equity group.

GS Industries. In 1996 American Iron Reduction LLC, a joint venture of GS Industries (which had been taken private by Bain in 1993) and Birmingham Steel, sought some $20 million in tax breaks in connection with its plan to build a plant in Louisiana’s St. James Parish (Baton Rouge Advocate, April 6, 1996). As the United Steelworkers union noted recently, GS Industries later applied for a federal loan guarantee, but before the deal could be implemented the company went bankrupt.

AMC Entertainment. After being promised more than $40 million in subsidies, this movie chain (bought in 2004 by Bain and other private equity firms) agreed to move its headquarters from downtown Kansas City, Missouri to a nearby suburb across the state line in Kansas. The deal was criticized as an egregious case of taxpayer-financed sprawl. [Even though Romney left Bain in 1999, he's continued reaping millions in lightly taxed investment income since then.]

As for the office supply store Staples, a supposed success Romney frequently touts? In 1996, the company chose to move its distribution center to Maryland in exchange for a healthy $4.2 million subsidy deal.

Romney says that President Obama's record of aiding private enterprise proves the president doesn't have a clue about how capitalism works—that, in the Obama's view, capitalism necessarily relies on the generosity of government largesse. But if we're to judge Romney's understanding of capitalism based on how he ran the show at Bain, it's tough to see how business success doesn't often rely on government help.

10:05 ET: That's a wrap folks. Read from the bottom up for all over our live-tweet coverage of the South Carolina showdown.

No game-changer in this debate. If Newt surging, it could continue. Mitt didn't screw up. Santorum was strong. Paul was Paul.
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

On abortion:

Shorter Ron Paul: A woman's body is like a house, and abortion is like burgling that house. #wombwithaview
— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) January 20, 2012

Shorter GOP candidates: We're so anti-choice, we'd cut funding for coat hangers.
— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) January 20, 2012

Oh my goodness, a clash of memes. Big government is bad. But big government should outlaw abortion. #cnndebate
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

Here's an article about what life was like "before the age of abortion":bit.ly/9x6pr5
— Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) January 20, 2012

On immigration:

We're going to outsource guest worker program to Visa or American Express? #puns #thinkaboutit
— Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) January 20, 2012

I love Newt's local draft-board idea. No opportunity for abuse & favortism there. Sounds like Cuba's neighborhood watch program. #cnndebate
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

SOPA, etc.

Weird. Santorum doesn't like the idea of "anything goes" on the Internet. I'll google his name and figure out why
— daveweigel (@daveweigel) January 20, 2012

Here's how Newt Gingrich saved porn in the Communications Decency Act: bit.ly/uJyhP6
— Tim Murphy (@timothypmurphy) January 20, 2012

Foreign affairs, anyone?

Hey @JohnKingCNN: Can you ask them about the Euro? #CNNdebate
— Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) January 20, 2012

Romney fields the dreaded tax-returns question:

Romney, you're putting off tax returns until April so you can make sure they're up to snuff. Care to share last year's? #CNNdebate
— Gov. Buddy Roemer (@BuddyRoemer) January 20, 2012

Wait, Romney just got booed? Did he compliment a gay soldier or say something from science? #cnndebate
— James Poniewozik (@poniewozik) January 20, 2012

King: Why won't you release your tax returns like your father? Mitt: Chuckles, "Maybe." Gets booed.
— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) January 20, 2012

FACT: this was once one of @MittRomney's houses. aol.it/vJRGh4 #RealStreets #CNNdebate
— Greg Greene (@ggreeneva) January 20, 2012

Mitt describes himself as "living in the real streets of America." #Romneyraps #STREETZ
— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) January 20, 2012

Romney has a Perry-esque moment, his mouth open but nothing coming out.

Romney was buffering for a minute there.
— Ben Dimiero (@bendimiero) January 20, 2012

Santorum and Gingrich go at it.

Santorum with a surprisingly accurate summation of Newt.
— Charles Homans (@chashomans) January 20, 2012

"Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich," Santorum says. Fact-o-meter: True!
— Tim Murphy (@timothypmurphy) January 20, 2012

The Ron Paul sideshow:

When Rob Paul is talking, it's A) a great time to catch up on email; B) take bathroom break; C) order pizza; D) all the above? #CNNdebate
— Mark Follman (@markfollman) January 20, 2012

#RonPaulFact: in Appalachia in the 60s, everyone had great health care.
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

Ron Paul: in the 60s with no govt in health care, there was nobody "out in the streets" who went without medical care.//Truly demented
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

"Footsie"?

Romney shook after Santorum accuses him and Gingrich of "playing footsie" with the left.
— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) January 20, 2012

Not really surprising that Santorum disapproves of footsie. It's not the missionary position.
— NickBaumann (@NickBaumann) January 20, 2012

Newt loves kids!

#Gingrich: Being on parents' insurance in your mid-20's is like still living at home. Seems unaware one might have job but no insurance.
— Amy Davidson (@tnyCloseRead) January 20, 2012

This Newt argument about kids under 26 is the kind of argument you make if you're not expecting anyone under 26 to vote for you.
— Tim Murphy (@timothypmurphy) January 20, 2012

A grab bag of early highlights:

Why does Romney think South Carolina GOP primary voters care about non-discrimation on preexisting conditions?
— NickBaumann (@NickBaumann) January 20, 2012

Q for Romney: if free enterprise always works, how do you explain subprime crisis and 2008 crash? #cnndebate
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

It took Santorum and Romney each about 2 nanoseconds to mention their respective wives. Newt neglected to do that in his opening. Hmmm
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

The thing is, some of Newt's other denials about affairs—"Mother Jones smeared me"—did turn out to be 100% true.
— Tim Murphy (@timothypmurphy) January 20, 2012

CNN's John King opened the debate by asking Gingrich about the "open marriage" allegations. Gingrich said the allegations were false but slammed King and the media in general for bringing it up in the first place. But the New York Daily News' Josh Greenman has a point:

Mr. Gingrich, do you in retrospect believe the media should not have pursued the Bill Clinton 'improprieties' when he ran for President?
— Josh Greenman (@joshgreenman) January 20, 2012