Jesse Jackson suggests that if Congress can spend money securing the border, it can spend money on Chicago:
“If we can find $4 billion for those children — and we should — we can find $2 billion for Chicago. There are more children involved, and more have been killed, and more have been shot,” said Jackson.
Emanuel, Obama’s former chief of staff, disagreed with Jackson blaming the president.
“I slightly disagree with the reverend,” Emanuel said. “I wouldn’t put this at the president’s door. I put this at the door of Washington, D.C. This has been a long time that they have stopped investing in our children, and they need to invest in our kids.”
It’s no surprise that Jesse Jackson doesn’t consider there to be an either/or component to federal spending. In the real world, though, there always is — even if the point at which we are expected to set our priorities is much further away from sanity than conservatives might like. Going forward, I wonder to what extent this question is going to highlight cleavages in the Democratic party’s coalition. By and large, the Left has a built a winning team by gluing together a series of interest group, two of which seem to be set against each other in the immigration debate. African-Americans are consistently the group that is most vocally opposed to reform; Hispanics consistently the most in favor. Glib as it is, “it’s time for some nation building at home” carries quite the appeal. If the federal government starts to throw money at dealing with foreign citizens rather than at those already here, at what point do black voters start to rebel — not by becoming Republicans, naturally, but by, say, staying at home in the midterms?