Daily Kos editor - Immigration, back burner issue?

C-span Guest - Daily Kos editor

I was watching C-span this morning; a Daily Kos editor was one of the guests on "Washington Journal." The issue of immigration came up; the Kos editor stated that he didn't think that immigration was one of the more important issues to the Kos bloggers/guests.

I was surprised to hear the Kos editor's opinion on immigration, he idicated that it was more of a "back burner" political issue. I personally think the immigration issue is really important. I would like to know how others feel about the current bill that's being proposed. Would you be able to support the immigration reform bill?

By the way, good job Kos editor; overall, I thought you represented progressives well. I'm sorry I don't remember your name, maybe you or someone else from Kos can clarify this for me.

•  It was Kagro n/t

  by SusanG on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:45:04 PM PDT

  •  That's his name?

    It doesn't even sound familiar; bad memory. Tried to find it on site and didn't see it.

    by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:52:38 PM PDT

    •  Kagro X

      Check out the front page. He's been posting there this weekend (along with most other times as well).

      by PsiFighter37 on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:56:33 PM PDT

      •  OK, so it was right before my eyes

        Often, I like to read the "average Joe's" opinion; sue me:-)

        by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:03:13 PM PDT

•  I agree with Kagro.

  I would support the current bill, but I feel this topic is less important than several others facing our country. I would imagine many of the folks who blog here feel similarly, because it isn't discussed often beyond tracking bills, etc.

  by ablington on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:54:06 PM PDT

  •  I think it's an important issue because...

    ...it effects our economy in a significant way.

    by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:55:34 PM PDT

    •  The reasons it affects our economy

      ultimately have less to do with immigration policy and more to do with trade policies. Fix those, and the immigration problem will start to fix itself.

      by anastasia p on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:57:45 PM PDT

    •  sure does

      but the thing is there is huge infighting...even discussing the most basic facts gets major spamming and troll wars.

      I post on H-1B, L-1 and even here it's amazingly "spammed" (although I do believe we have more than a few AILA attorneys doing that but beside the point...

      so let the few "issue" bloggers hit the "recommended" for the big argument, but not as a "theme" of the site because it really will splinter the movement in my view.

      by BobOak on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:05:34 PM PDT

•  I completely agree it's back-burner

  If you had asked people 18 months ago to rank, say, 50 issues in order of importance, I think immigration would have been close to dead last. When it suddenly became a big issue last year, it wasn't because of any crisis but....well, actually, there WAS a crisis: the potential for the Republicans to lose their control of Congress. And since demonizing some group or another as the "other" had always worked so well for them in the past, they tried it again, jumping up and down and suddenly yelling about what a priority this was, as a confused country rubbed its eyes and went "huh?" Unfortunately they didn't think it through (sort of  like when they tried to use Terri Schiavo for political gain)) and it blew up in their faces, unfortunately leaving behind a bunch of people who think we need to solve this problem now. So now we're being asked to consider emergency or quick-fixes for a problem that is really systemic and chronic and needs to be approached in a much more long-term way, starting with making it viable for Mexicans to support their families in Mexico.

  by anastasia p on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:55:24 PM PDT

  •  the fact that the issue is now on the table...

    makes it an important issue. If a "corporate bill" is passed, the outcome could be terrible for immigrants and Americans alike.

    by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:59:23 PM PDT

    •  Yes but...

      it would be only a teensy little drop of terrible in a vast sea of terrible that would prove an enormous liability for Republicans and improve the chances of getting some Democrats elected next time who will tackle draining the toxic sea of outsourced jobs, falling wages, busted unions and unfair trade agreements. Fix those things and the immigration bill won't have much impact.

      by anastasia p on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:03:31 PM PDT

  •  Definitely back burner

    in the Pew Poll released on June 5 of this year it was well below Iraq and health care. I suspect it was as high as it was because of the intense publican interest, not because of Democratic interest in the issue.

                         

    by dougymi on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:26:11 PM PDT

    •  I think maybe 20 percent of folks rate it high

      It's like there's this highly vocal minority of folks who need somebody to blame.  Traditionally when the working man is getting the shaft they look around for a scapegoat.  It happened during the Great Depression too -- we basically shut the door overnight to immigrants and pressured those that were already here mightily to Americanize.

      Instead of pandering to this vocal minority we should be working to get a better deal for those left behind in this economy and those in fear of being left behind (pretty much everyone who isn't a trust fund baby).

      by akeitz on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:34:36 PM PDT

      •  The Blame goes to corporate greed

        Corporations are to blame in my opinion. They see Americans and immigrants alike as cheap labor. That's the bottom line.

        by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:38:14 PM PDT

        •  And that's why

          Immigration reform will do nothing to address that root problem. Corporations are indeed to blame. So let's go after them instead.

          by eugene on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:01:26 PM PDT

          •  Why "instead"...

            I don't understand why we can't strongly enforce laws against illegals being in this country AND against the companies that are hiring them.

            I don't see this as an either/or situation.

            by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:07:55 PM PDT

•  In the overall scheme of things...

  It's a back-burner deal.

  Sure seems to whip up the Republican base, though. Now, you might ask me why immigration isn't the most important thing on the table, and before answering I would say that if one is an illegal immigrant, or a legal one, or someone trying to get a foreign spouse or family member into this country, then, for you, it's probably a BFD.

  But it also is one that tends to divide us as a group because we don't have a consensus opinion on it. In fact, it often leads to some nasty exchanges here. It's also a special interests kind of thing, that traditionally has framed the Democratic party. And if there's one thing we've learned, it's that achieving the kind of total government makeover that we need right now will require us to avoid becoming the usual rag-tag motley conglomeration of balkanized single-issue hot-button shouting voices. That's so 1980.

  We have a role to play in forming immigration policy, but right now that bill is toxic and likely to cost as many votes as it wins us. It's an albatross killing Bush at the moment and I'm enjoying the show. No need to jump in and grab a piece of that anvil.

  by The Raven on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:57:13 PM PDT

•  Speaking for me,

  it's a really complicated issue with no really great answers.  But it is important, and for precisely that reason I would rather see it put off a while rather than going through the meat grinder of the current government, where the senate will compromise it to death in exactly the wrong ways and then Bush will demand that the one good provision is taken out and 5 bad ones are added.

  So it's back burner because this is not the political moment at which it can be effectively addressed.

  by MissLaura on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:58:16 PM PDT

  •  Except

    The Democratic Party wants Latino voters, right? Believe me, the lack of interest in this issue by the major Democratic blogs has been noted and discussed a great deal in the latino blogosphere and not in flattering terms.

    by mariachi mama on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:15:12 PM PDT

    •  It should be a no-brainer for us...

      ...to be fully supportive of Latinos, in the streets as well as in the blogosphere. Not just because of the politics, but because it's the right thing to do.

      by eugene on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:16:53 PM PDT

      •  So you would support it regardless...

        of the fine print?

        by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:20:53 PM PDT

        •  Where did I say anything

          About this specific bill? I support an easy path to citizenship, I don't support a guest worker provision, and I think our main concern should be to prevent this issue from being used to expand the nascent American police state.

          by eugene on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:55:37 PM PDT

      •  But what does that mean?

        It's not clear to me what the best possible immigration policy would be.  It's clear to me that none of the proposals that have looked to have a chance of getting to a vote are that best possible policy.  

        Clearly I don't want to see a punitive policy.  I don't want to see families split up, people denied health care, or indeterminate detentions.  I don't want to see racism or nationalism enshrined in law.  I do want to see policies that prevent employers from using immigrants - legal, illegal, or temporary - as a form of cheap labor, and penalize employers not workers for violations.

        But beyond those basic principles, nothing about this is for me a no-brainer.

        by MissLaura on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:31:59 PM PDT

        •  What I said is a no-brainer

          Is support for the immigrants themselves. Too often they get either victimized or blamed for American economic problems, and that is simply not right.

          Of course, the real economic problems this nation faces will hardly be addressed through immigration reform. We need to pass the EFCA and block new trade agreements - and that's just the start.

          by eugene on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:57:07 PM PDT

      •  But what about the low income Americans

        that get screwed when immigration is unchecked?

        This is a seriously thorny issue and there are not any "no-brainer" answers, IMNSHO.

        by Pluto1618 on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:32:28 PM PDT

        •  They're not getting screwed

          Because of unchecked immigration. That's one talking point that needs to be chucked. As I argued in more detail below the real problem is with our policies towards jobs, taxes, and trade. Changing immigration law will do little to address those serious concerns.

          Second, these immigrants ARE low income Americans. Do not forget that.

          by eugene on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:54:41 PM PDT

          •  The bill is going forward whether you like it

            or not or are indifferent about it; you ought to be concerned about what's in the bill.

            by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:59:14 PM PDT

            •  I understand that.

              by eugene on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:59:56 PM PDT

            •  leftbird...

              I'm not so sure that the bill will go forward...The extremes from both sides have a pretty good chance of blocking its progress.

              by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:04:56 PM PDT

              •  At this point....

                that would be the best thing that could possibly happen. Does anyone really know what the final bill will look like?

                by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:09:29 PM PDT

          •  "These immigrants"...

            Eugene..are you speaking of legal immigrants or illegal immigrants.

            For much of the U.S. they is a strong distinction made between the two.

            by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:59:34 PM PDT

            •  Much of the US is wrong.

              There should be no distinction in law or in social practice. They're ALL Americans.

              by eugene on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:00:25 PM PDT

              •  I must respectfully disagree...

                I know of no country that does not claim the right to control its borders and place limits on who can become a citizen.

                by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:03:04 PM PDT

                •  Did you see me use the word citizen?

                  When we speak of "Americans" we should be speaking of everyone who lives within our borders. Citizenship is a special class of "American" that should be accessible to anybody so long as very basic conditions are met. That is how most Americans have seen the matter over the last 100+ years.

                  by eugene on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:33:43 PM PDT

                  •  Out of curiosity....

                    What do you envision these "very basic" requirements to be...and would you extend them to illegals who have already shown a disrespect for our laws?

                    by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:44:16 PM PDT

                  •  coulda shoulda woulda n/t

                    by burrow owl on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:02:17 PM PDT

                •  I guess so, but

                  given that most mexican american illegal immigrants have overwhelmingly native american ancestry, I guess I feel a bit silly insisting they're committing some sort of heinous crime...20,000 years has got to be enough for a visa, eh?

                  by decembersue on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:48:43 PM PDT

      •  I'm with Miss Laura

        in that "fully supportive of Latinos" isn't really a bill or a position. Latinos are on mulitple sides of various proposals. I'm fully against any bills that encourage arrests for 'driving/walking while brown' and require my darker haired friends to walk around with proof of citizenship.

        What we need is to enforce the rules for employers, with teeth, and stop trying to enforce the rules on individuals. I want to see us rework the rules so that good people can come into the country legally, can work legally, and cannot be exploited by people looking for cheap laborers.

        That's grand theory, more specific than what you wrote, but it's a long way from an actual concrete bill. It could be a good time to get something done, while the President is eager to make some worthwhile change, but there are a lot of ways our immigration situation could be worse, and I'm not inclined to rush in to support the wrong bill.

        by elfling on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:06:08 PM PDT

        •  I'd like to see a bill cracking down on employers

          But it would take some work to get it.  Corps justifiably want to make sure that they'll be able to adhere to the law w/o exposing themselves to liability.  At the moment, they're caught between civil rights lawsuits for national origin & race discrimination and illegal employment actions brought by the feds.

          by burrow owl on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:05:17 PM PDT

          •  Employer sanctions don't work

            The CRS stated so in 1986 and again in 1996. Employers just treat fines as the cost of doing business and factor it into their PNL forecasts. Anything more draconian, and they just start paying the workers off the books, which subjects them to more opportunities for exploitation.

            It's already the case that large corporations insulate themselves from liability by subcontracting work to more fly-by-night operations that are willing to assume the risk. Just look at Wal-Mart and the raids on their cleaning crews. Those weren't Wal-Mart employees.

            by Janus on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:12:31 PM PDT

            •  That's a case for higher fines, not no fines

              W/re/to shell corps and subcontracting, that's pretty interesting.  I still don't think it'd be too hard to figure out some legislative solution.  Off the top of my head, secondary liability could be introduced, or one could create a rebuttable presumption of an employer-employee relationship limited for the purposes of illegal employment.  

              by burrow owl on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:24:47 PM PDT

      •  Latinos?

        There is a 50-50 split among Hispanics by the polling....as in 50% do not support this entire thing.

        by BobOak on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:10:23 PM PDT

        •  You are twisting the facts...

          Many of the 50% of Hispanics who oppose this bill, oppose it because it is too anti-immigrant. They want an "amnesty" without the harsh penalties and anti-family provisions.

          A strong majority of Hispanic Americns (i.e. 70%) in polls consistantly support a path to citizenship for people here illegally now.

          by Sentido on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:21:27 PM PDT

  •  exactly

    Even within the major labor organizations, there is splintering right and left...

    the AFL-CIO has come out against the bill...period and so has the IPFTE.  

    the IPFTE is writing all Senators to vote no on cloture, that's how much they want this bill to die...

    Yet my understanding the SEIU is supposedly for it (if this is incorrect and they have released a position letter, I'd like to see it)...

    and I'm assuming that we (as in bloggers, Dems, Netroots) strongly support labor, this is even more reason to not "front page" it.

    Maybe guest worker Visas seemingly everyone hates them...(from H-1B, new F-4 to "Y" to H-2C and on down the list).

    by BobOak on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:09:42 PM PDT

    •  They came out against *this* bill

      but the SEIU and the AFL are united behind four key principals... they are jointly backing the Dreams Across America campaign which is collecting signatures for this petition:

      http://tools.dreamsacrossamericaonli...

      by Janus on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:14:37 PM PDT

      •  that's so lame

        I'm sorry but until they show the Dreams of Americans already here....this really disturbs me.

        I'm sorry, but Americans 1st.  

        by BobOak on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:23:53 PM PDT

        •  Not a union guy after all

          Jeeze, Bob.  After all this time... I thought that you were a labor guy.

          by theran on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:28:58 PM PDT

          •  I am

            and I'll go with the real letters, legislation but I think this particular activity is very lame and I also think it's going to backfire for the reasons above.

            Trust me, I understand a lot of their positions on this, but that's the AFL-CIO...I have said I think the SEIU is slitting their own throats.

            Anyway, I just think this particular activity is very lame, that's all.

            Esp. when something similar was tried in 2003 for US workers and it got hardly any press support....so how come this gets such funding and effort when the US worker bus across America they barely had enough support for cheese sandwiches?

            Do you see Delphi workers taking a 10 dollar an hour pay decrease??  What's wrong with this picture?

            by BobOak on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:32:17 PM PDT

        •  I agree "Lame" is the appropriate word...

          Fuzzy language petition, no distinction in their citations between legal immigrations and illegals.

          Feel good rhetoric.

          by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:34:21 PM PDT

          •  Is there a distinction

            from Big Labor's point of view?

            by jxg on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 04:06:04 PM PDT

    •  SEIU

      made it pretty clear the first day the bill was introduced that while they were willing to work to improve the legislation they would not support it without substantial changes (which given the current situation seems highly unlikely)

      However, the package will require significant improvements before it becomes the real comprehensive, long-term immigration fix that the American public is waiting for. In order to end illegal immigration as we know it, restore order, unite families, and protect worker’s rights, we urge Senators to pay particular attention to the following defects.

      "Temporary is temporary" is a recipe for more illegal immigration and is out of line with U.S. values. All workers know that temporary workers depress wages and create a second class workforce that is disconnected from the U.S. mainstream and not equal. SEIU will not endorse a repeat of failed guest worker programs that chip away at long-established labor protections, drive down wages for all American workers, and add more chaos to our broken immigration system. Senators must fix this provision so that future immigrant workers will be able to get on a path to citizenship, and have the right to improve their wages and working conditions.

      • Touchback provisions that require immigrants to return to their home countries as a requirement to achieve legal status may dissuade many from coming out from the shadows and will create more chaos at the border and in our U.S. Consulates abroad.

      •Replacing the family-based sponsorship program with a point system to determine who can come to this country has the potential to become a disastrous social experiment. Establishing a class of workers who lack family and community roots will seriously undermine efforts to integrate new immigrants into the American way of life. Any point system that would deny entry to the workers our economy most depends upon is unworkable, and will fail to address the root causes of our current, broken system.

      SEIU is committed to working with Congress to fix these and other critical issues so that we can fix our broken immigration system once and for all. As this debate moves forward in the Senate and House, we urge lawmakers not to compromise on our nation’s values of opportunity, family, and fairness.

      Link

      I think almost everyone at this point has given up on getting a good bill out of the Senate and are hoping that something can be done in the House.

      To see were everyone comes out on this, we must watch this weeks amendment process to see exactly what secret deals have been worked out...then we'll know where everyone comes down on the final bill.  My money is on the fact that opposition will expodentially grow as much of the "wait and see" crowd realizes they've waited in vain. Already even AILA has announced they won't support the curret legislation as written...and when they've lost AILA on a "comprehensive bill" when it has been a cheif lobbyist for one for years..it's says how shallow support for this bill is.

      by Duke1676 on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:12:24 PM PDT

•  Immigration certainly is not as much a priority

  as ending the occupation in Iraq, true protection from threats to our own soil, and getting these thugs outs of the Whitehouse, in hands cuffs, A.S.A.P.  However, it needs to be addressed, soon, in a rational way.  Maybe that is impossible right now because of the rabid wingnuts.  I hear them call C-span all the time, completely racist and with their own crazy "solutions" to the "problem."  These are people, human beings with jobs and children who are being treated very inhumanely, and taking shit from all sides.  We need to do what is best for them, something reality based.  I hate to see a bill pass and get signed by Bush that just makes their lives more miserable.  The fines seem excessive, and cruel.  Most of these people are being punished for working their asses off for next to nothing.  After going through hell to get there.

  by godislove on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:02:47 PM PDT

•  I see the poll included good alternatives.

  I voted not important, enforce existing law, Simpson-Mazzoli Act, 1986.

  Seems like the best rule generally. As the ACLU says, the way to remove a bad law is to enforce it. We haven't even tried that.

  by ormondotvos on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:03:00 PM PDT

  •  Thank you

    I'm trying to be fair and get a real feel about how "Kos bloggers" in general, see the immigration issue.

    by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:09:31 PM PDT

•  It's not even backburner

  It's a diversionary issue. As many studies have proved, immigration is NOT the cause of the erosion of the middle- or working-class situation in the US. Instead it is flawed economic, tax, and trade policies that are ultimately responsible for this. Immigration politics is intended to take our focus away from these root causes.

  The right-wing also pushes the immigration issue to divide working Americans, to pit them against each other so as to weaken the emergent Democratic coalition.

  However, because so many bigots are out there trying to push this, we do have to play some defense. But we need to do so without giving in to the right's effort to divide and conquer.

  by eugene on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:05:27 PM PDT

  •  Thank you. It's a red herring.

    Eugene, you hit the nail on the head.  Suddenly folks are upset about the brown folks waiting on the corner for work.  The new immigrants are a convenient target but the real reason folks are scared and upset is deep down inside they know that try as hard as they might their piece of the American Dream is slipping through their fingers.

    The deck is stacked against the ordinary folk.  These days your career prospects and financial health have much to do with the family you were born into.  If you're lucky enough to be born into a rich family you can go to expensive private schools, college and graduate school without worrying about student debt.  If your family is rich they might also be "connected" thus your dad's golfing buddy gets you that summer internship that leads to the right law school etc., etc., etc....

    Those of us who aren't from rich families, have connected relatives and maybe are introverted by nature (not one of the cool kids in school) find themselves on the outside looking in, wondering what the hell happened to that mythical American Dream of  a true meritocracy.

    by akeitz on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:30:02 PM PDT

    •  Standing on the corner,

      throwing trash on the ground, harassing people, etc.

      To be sure, there's bona fide bigotry out there, but there are also some legitimate complaints.  And the answer is probably to normalize worker spots and strictly enforce quality of life laws.

      by burrow owl on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:08:28 PM PDT

      •  If they're not bigots they'll want to normalize

        But the bigots in Herdon, VA not only objected to the workers gathering at the local 7-11 but they objected strenuously when private charities wished to set up some trailers on the back parking lot of the local police station to allow for a formal hall for the workers and employers to hook up.

        We really should provide formal spots for day laborer and employers to hook up -- it will lessen the chances of abuse and of the laborers being a traffic/neighborhood nuisance -- almost hit a guy a month a go who darted out into the middle of the street at twilight to run for the bus.

        by akeitz on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 05:26:24 PM PDT

•  Here in LA it is a big issue

  and one with no good solutions. I hear peopole talking about it everywhere I go. And have seen otherwise normal appearing people go off on huge obscene rants about it public.

  My fear is that this is the one wedge issue the repubs can use to split our base.

  by DaleA on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:06:00 PM PDT

  •  So people are talking about it

    Of course they are, because their fear has been stoked. It's the same way that white people once talked about black people taking their jobs (heck, some conservative white men STILL claim this). The corporatists who in fact are keeping us all down successfully get us to focus our fear and dislike on an "other" who is equally oppressed. Of course you hear "obscene rants." People prone to "obscene rants'" are those most likely to hear something in passing on a corporate-controlled network and go off, blaming that brown person or black person or Spanish-speaking person for the job they lost, not the fact that jobs for everyone were cut to make more profit for shateholders or an even more outrageous salary for the head honcho.

    The idea that this is a wedge issue Republicans can use to split OUR base when their base has been shattered by a fissure the size of Grand Canyon as a result of their introduction of this issue blowing up in their face is one of the purest and most misguided examples of despair-babyism I've seen here yet. Republicans, not Democrats, are much more likely to fear foreigners and non-English speakers and are also much less likely to have a real understanding of why jobs are being lost and wages are going down. They have been fed a steady diet of stranger-hate for 40 years; it's what the modern Republican party is built on. Plus this issue is driving Latinos, the largest growing voter block and one previously split, out of the Republican party in droves.

    There is no downside for Democrats here if only because the issue is about 100 times more toxic for the GOP.

    by anastasia p on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:13:52 PM PDT

    •  AP article in local paper today----on how

      immigration has supplanted Iraq as top issue discussed (ranted about) on TV and radio talk shows.
       Rush and the boys are giving their best effort to stoke the fires, and I agree that there are many people who are stoked.
       This is a very popular subject for the LTEs in our paper---I would guess it is perhaps the most written about issue.
       I'm aware of all the contributing factors, but I think it is wise to also be aware of the real anxiety out there, not just among the rt. wing fringe but the middle of the road voters as well.

      by dotster on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:41:46 PM PDT

•  Since Immigration Judges...

  ... are also a part of the politicization of all agencies in the Bush Government, I would say it is at least part of a front burner issue; and that would be the abject failure of this Administration to follow the Rule of Law.

  When every agency is seemingly infected by this pathogen that BushCo has used to destroy this "Grand Experiment"; when considering all that, sure, immigration is a back burner.

  But when you have hundreds of burners working; all of them are important and all need to be attended.

  by justiceputnam on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:13:58 PM PDT

•  It's a BFD for me...

  To me, getting a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are here now is very important. In my personal ranking, only ending the Iraq war (and stopping Iran) is more important and marriage equality is about the same.

  This is because the current harsh laws are affecting people I care about. I also think that the issues involved-- human needs, understanding and defending the vulnerable are the very values that make me a politically active progressive.

  I understand that not all people feel this way.

  But, I do want to express frustration-- and many people who share my perspective on the issue have been saying they feel frustrated.

  A progressive majority is strongest when people with similar needs; homosexuals, racial minorities, religious minorities and immigrants... form a coalition.

  If you don't believe that these issues are related, just look at the who is opposing progressives on each of these issues. The rhetoric of the right is constant be it immigration or affirmative action or "sanctity of marriage".

  I support most progressive issues and I am willing to work for candidates who support all of them.

  I believe that building Coalitions -- where progressives work for compassionate just solutions on all these issues together even when they are not personally effected, makes us stronger, not weaker.

  The indifference on immigration (not even considering the anti-immigrant rhetoric from the left) is alienating people who should be considered core parts of a progressive coalition.

  by Sentido on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:14:04 PM PDT

•  Becoming a class warfare issue

  in my opinion. That's why it's an important issue to me. Stagnant wages for all (exemption: the top 1%)

  by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:18:13 PM PDT

•  Immigration SHOULD be a backburner

  until we have enough votes for a pro-labor immigration bill. Just let it simmer with new ideas and facts.

  If BlueStateLiberal's diary last night about the battle between the AFL-CIO and SEIU/UNITE-HERE over this immigration bill is true, it's not something Democrats need to mess with. Don't have an immigration bill whiche unites labor and divides Republicans, then we don't have the right bill.

  At the moment, it's not a hot topic generally. Thankfully that means we're seeing some really quality work (better than during the May Day Protest outburst, IMHO). I'm not sure that 107 diarys/week is really an obscure topic, but there isn't much passion or demand for action right now.

  by opendna on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:18:23 PM PDT

  •  the ungoing disagreements

    between the unions over immigration reform strategy are also reflected in the immigration rights movement as a whole. BUT the assertions in that particular diary about the AFL-CIO's "secret" opposition to reform were a little overstated.

    There are political and stategic reasons Reid allowed the 2nd Dorgan amendment to hit the floor and it had more to do with with stopping the endless assualt of pioson pill amendments coming from the right-wing. Between Cornyn, Coleman and Sessions the attack was relentless.  Reid intentionally forced the bill to be taken off the floor because Bush could not get his house in order and his whips had lost control of the debate.

    Obviously, the bill is now coming back because leadership believes they've got it under control.

    That being said...the bill still stinks and should fail...and if it does, it will not be because of AFL-CIO influence trying to kill all reform...since SEIU opposses the current bill also...but because it is the wrong bill at the wrong time.  

    by Duke1676 on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:33:59 PM PDT

•  I think it is a big issue, but ONLY

  because it is dividing the repubs.

  The current debate doesn't have much to do with or solve any of the real problems or address the real issues much.

  All this iteration is about is "HOW bad are Brown People, and HOW should we punish them.

  by buhdydharma on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:20:05 PM PDT

•  Unfortunately...

  the burners just aren't big enough. Even the back burners are full right now.

  by blueteam on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:20:37 PM PDT

•  Bernie Sanders doesn't like current proposal

  He thinks it will undermine American workers and lead to exploitation immigrants.

  http://www.wcax.com/...

  by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:35:02 PM PDT

  •  Sanders is God

    and I wish people would pay strong attention to him...he is just not "bought" period...he has stuck to his guns and if there is anyone guaranteed to be for working America in the Senate...it is Sanders.

    He is right of course but I wish people would realize his position is a strong wake up call to what is really going on here.

    by BobOak on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:13:10 PM PDT

•  Ex-City Councilwoman faces deportation

  http://news.yahoo.com/...

  by ActivistGuy on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:45:01 PM PDT

  •  What?

    You can become a city council member and not be a citizen?

    by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:49:30 PM PDT

    •  She thought she was

      Now she's facing deportation for illegal voting.

      by ActivistGuy on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:01:01 PM PDT

      •  That's too bad

        I'm surprised that she wouldn't know her own history though. Maybe her parents weren't upfront with her.

        by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:07:12 PM PDT

        •  Doesn't pass the smell test

          Wouldn't she have a SS card or something?  Or try to get a replacement?  

          by burrow owl on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:17:50 PM PDT

          •  You don't understand how broken the system is

            Setting aside people who knowingly come here undocumented, people are deported from this country all the time for good faith mistakes in paperwork that nobody notices until years after the fact.

            Watch Janina being deported for making a paperwork mistake in 1994:
            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            Then there's Drew Jung, whose university professor parents were deported even though the university's very experienced lawyers handled all of their paperwork:
            http://dreamsacrossamericaonline.org...

            We have dozens of similar stories, and these were all put together on a few weeks notice.

            by Janus on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:23:16 PM PDT

            •  Unless someone mistakenly gave her

              proof of citizenship, I'm not sympathetic.  

              by burrow owl on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:28:26 PM PDT

              •  I read some of the news reports on her...

                She may not be deported after all.

                If her parents were naturalized prior to her turning 18 some attorneys say that she's "in".

                More to watch on this one.

                by Morgan Sandlin on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:37:53 PM PDT

          •  I knew an INS recruit who had the same problem.

            Her parents brought her from Mexico as an infant and raised her thinking she was born in the US. She had an SS card and her parents had green cards, but they never bothered to put her papers in order.

            She was sitting in an naturalization law class at the Federal Law Enforcement Academy when they came in and arrested her.

            Pretty messed up.

            by opendna on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:53:53 PM PDT

•  If it's not an important issue for progressives..

  ...and it's an extremely important issue for conservatives; does that mean we'll settle for whatever they put on the table? This scenario does have me concerned.

  Progressives; No voice when it comes to immigration?

  by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:45:42 PM PDT

  •  You and I

    are thinking along the same lines - tonight's History for Kossacks is about walls and, by extension, immigration.

    by Unitary Moonbat on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:52:43 PM PDT

  •  We have a voice

    And we've exercised it before. I do think more can be said by us on this, in order to stop the bigots and haters from getting their way.

    I think there's a certain shyness for most of us. Some form of amnesty or an easier path to citizenship is the clear progressive path, but few seem willing to embrace that, god only knows why. We also need to focus more on unionization strategies than we have - what's more progressive than helping workers organize to improve their condition?

    by eugene on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:58:58 PM PDT

•  perhaps

  the FP'ers need to check the tags once in a while to see what the left side of the page is talking about.

  If you go to msot popular tags you'll find "immigration" right in the middle of the top of the hot tags at number 39. With 2172 diaries on the subject it's right ahead of "corruption", "Healthcare", "Katrina", "economy", "9-11", "NSA", "Alberto Gonzales", and "religion".

  So although the powers that be at KOS might deem immigration a back burner issue...obviously those on the left side of the screen think it's important enough to warrent a large amount of discussion.

  by Duke1676 on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:56:03 PM PDT

  •  This is a standard Dem line

    They wish it to be a back burner issue because they would have a take a stand the right might not like otherwise.  This is no different than what they do with marriage equality and abortion rights.

    by theran on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:58:33 PM PDT

•  Democratic candidates will be forced....

  to take a stance on immigration if it is not considered a back burner issue for progressives

  by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:15:47 PM PDT

•  I think it's front-burner

  And about 50% in the poll think it's front-burner.  It's interesting that there are a lot of responses to this diary and most of them claim that this is a back-burner issue. There are many liberals who wish this was a back-burner.

  Actually, this issue divides rank-and-file liberals more than it does rank-and-file conservatives.

  Choosing Sides on Immigration
  The new options are more painful because today's immigrants, legal or otherwise, are mostly good, hard-working people and potential union members. But the law of labor supply and demand states -- and history confirms -- that wages and union power fall in times of high immigration.

  The issue causes political vertigo as diversity liberals and cheap-labor Republicans combine to oppose cultural conservatives and poor blacks. In recent decades, organized labor's official stance has moved toward the open-borders position.
  ...
  This is an unattractive chore, but the American people have to choose sides. It's either continued massive immigration or providing relief to their downwardly mobile workers. They can't have both.

  As Thom Hartmann says ...
  "Politically, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a jobs issue, as working Americans keep telling pollsters over and over again."

  The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations does a poll every year on what Americans believe should be important foreign-policy goals.

  Every year, the top concern is "protecting the jobs of American workers".

  Public Opinion - CCFR - click under "Public Opinion Survey 2006 - Report (PDF) "
  Protecting the jobs of American workers is the top-ranking foreign policy goal, considered very important by more Americans than any other.

  by Quequeg on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:15:55 PM PDT

•  Amnesty is wrong for America

  Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against Mexicans. I have no problem with having a guest worker program.  However, the current "Grand Immigration Reform" is the last thing that the citizens of this country need. It is wrong and must be stopped.

  If we are to have immigration reform, before we can even start we must gain effective control of our borders. Then we must issue a law stating that all Illegal Imigrants must leave the country with in 90 days. (It is wrong and  Un-American to reward people who are breaking our laws by putting them at the front of the line.) Any Illegal Immigrants found in the U.S. by any law enforcement agency must be barred from ever participating in the Guest worker program or any "Path to citizenship".

  Then we grant guest worker visa’s through proper channels to anyone who wants it provided that they pass a background check for both the U.S. and Mexico. Anyone who has ever been arrested for a violent crime, crime of  fraud or felony either here or in their native country  can not be eligible for this program.

  Employers must properly document that any guest worker be paid at least $1 less than the average pay of American employees and then have a guest worker tax of $2 an hour. This will make it more expensive to hire a guest worker than a new American worker. The biggest piece of propeganda used by the administration is "They do the jobs Americans won’t do". When in truth They do the work Americans won’t do for SLAVE WAGES. If we do not include this or something similar in any Immigration legislation, all we are doing is lowering the wages of the American working class. And these people can not afford to live on less money than they do now.

  If these issues are not addressed the legislation will destroy the working man, because with new legal status immigrants are not going to want to continue to do these jobs either.

  by Americans for a Brighter Democratic Future on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:18:50 PM PDT

  •  I'd rather see complete "Amnesty" for...

    those who are already here than the current guest worker program that's proposed right now. The current bill offered is bad for Americans and immigrants. If Americans and immigrants we're on the same level playing field, employers would have to judge the employee on his merits, rather than who is the cheapest hire.

    The current bill goes like this; If an "American won't do the job," the job will be offered to guest workers. An Endless supply of workers available = stagnant wages.

    by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:39:40 PM PDT

    •  If you saw Bernie Sanders the

      other day apparently the new types of jobs that Americans "won't do" includes teachers and lifeguards!
      This follows construction (which several of my relatives have done) house painters (which my cousin, Danny, did for awhile) and hotel maids (my Aunt Lucy comes to mind).

      by blindyone on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:48:46 PM PDT

      •  Americans "won't do" social service jobs

        either---fluent Spanish now required in increasing number of areas.

        by dotster on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 04:10:48 PM PDT

  •  Yeah right...

    I love these these posts that promote the worst of both sides of the issue.

    This threat to American workers is to fact competiion from workers with no rights. Workers with no rights are vulnerable and easy to exploit.

    There are two ways to ensure that there are workers with no rights.

    1. Make people who want to come legally come as Guest workers without a path to citizenship. Yes, guest workers are temporary and can be exploited.

    Your solution is even better since you force them by law to accept artificially low wages. As an American worker, I would prefer you forced them to be paid more than I am (since this would drive up wages).

    2. Dont give people working here now any rights. People who have rights can ask for a higher salary and can change jobs if they don't get one. Of course citizens have even more rights.

    As an American worker, it is in my interest to insist that if people are going to work here, they should be given full rights, and allowed to become citizens.

    You have managed to pick the worst of both worlds in a near perfect plan to create a low-paid underclass that will hurt American workers.

    Then you offer this plan to counter-act the destructive parts of your other plans.

    A law that says that all "illegal" immigrants must leave in 90 days. What a great idea... I bet that will solve the problem right away.

    They are working here now (and Americans are hiring them). Another law... yeah that is just what we need.

    Of course the only real consequence of your new law is to push people even more into the shadows with even less rights (and less hope of citizenship).

    I don't understand how you folks who are so bent on a permanent low-wage underclass can claim to be in favor of the American worker.

    by Sentido on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:46:54 PM PDT

    •  Head in the sand syndrome

      It is a current event and the poll is fair, there's something there for everyone. Would you rather not discuss the issue at all?

      by leftbird on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:58:38 PM PDT

  •  The Republicans will give you what you want n/t

    by theran on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:52:18 PM PDT

•  I believe, and many who are concerned about

  working class, and even middle class Americans believe, that this type of corporate-pushed immigration bill is not progressive. If you are going to take on the corporations when is it going to start? Why do you want to hand Bush a legislative victory right now? I am not concerned about being called a bigot. I do not support massive deportations and I do support a path to citizenship for well established undocumented workers. I do not support a "Berlin Wall" on our southern border but I do think that the US has a right to have a border and to control it. I choose American workers over foreign workers and I am not ashamed to say it. I also would like to see economic development and fair political practices in the rest of the Americas. How can we influence that by our trade choices and our purchasing choices here as consumers? I am happy to see Bernie Sanders come out against this bill and its deleterious effects on American workers.

  by blindyone on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:29:17 PM PDT

•  The reason it's backburner is that we don't agree

  about what should be done.  And it's divisive.  And when we talk about it it leads to huge flame wars.  IMO the flame wars are just a notch below those on I/P.

  Look, e.g., at the comments here.  I'm personally for a complete and total amnesty for everybody who is now in the country.  Others differ strongly with that, some want all 15 million undocumented workers deported asap, and there are lots of positions between these two extremes.  I don't want to debate it  now in the comments to this story.  I'm just pointing out that it's a wedge issue and that we're not developing a consensus about it.

  by davidseth on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:45:53 PM PDT

  •  Wedge issue doesn't equal backburner issue