If Anything, #DemDebate Shows “I’m for CIR” Doesn’t Cut It Any More.

More often than not, immigration coverage of a Democratic debate consists of tallying the number of seconds, if any, granted to the topic. But tonight’s debate was a refreshing change for audiences watching to see specifics and contrasts in the candidates’ stances.

In a seven minute exchange the Democratic candidates did not rely on the predictable foil of nativists in the other Party but illuminated the contours of how their positions are different amongst each other. For those worried that Martin O’Malley’s exit would mean an end to substance on the topic, tonight put those worries to bed.

Despite the moderator opening the question with a xenophobic premise attributing working class anxiety to immigration, Senator Sanders quickly affirmed expanding the President’s deferred action program and did what advocates have long been calling for, critiqued the current deportation practices of this administration.

For political watchers who remember President Obama’s promises as a candidate in 2008, the three million deportations that have occurred since prove that it is not in what a candidate projects will be their future action but what they do in relation to the present moment that signals their position on the topic. Earlier today, in a letter penned with Rep. Grijalva, Sanders did just that with his blasting of the newest version of federal deportation efforts that conscript local police into removals.

Meanwhile Secretary Clinton fell short on two fronts. First she — twice — defended her stance of sending unaccompanied children back to the violence they fled in order to “send a message.” Second, Clinton signaled she would inherit what is wrong with the establishment approach to immigration: justify the inhumanity of its practices as politically necessary and stigmatize those who are targeted as criminal.

In response to her rival explaining his guiding light is keeping families together, Clinton repeating the Obama refrain of “deporting criminals” rang hollow. More importantly, the position begs the question of how Clinton’s (or any candidates’) stance against mass incarceration and for criminal justice reform jives with a deportation program that relies on one’s contact with the system they’re saying is flawed as cause for their removal.

Most important from the night is the new terrain of proving oneself a champion or at least an ally on migrant rights within the Democratic Party. For politicians who long used Comprehensive Immigration Reform as a standard-bearer and reliable wedge issue, it was clear that expectations are now higher. It is not enough to say that you would call Republicans to see if they’ve finally let immigrants into their hearts. It’s now equally important to hear how a candidate will dismantle the unjust deportation machine expanded under this Administration whether that be welcoming refugees, expanding relief, or ending detention in its various forms.

Both camps have far to go to actually address the bleeding point issues of migrants in this country. But if tonight showed one thing, it’s that celebrity endorsements, a sprinkling of Spanish, and an empty pledge to omnibus legislation no longer cuts it to claim the title of anyone’s ally in the fight for migrant rights.