Daily Kos

Progressive and partisan case against the Immigration bill

Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:54:28 PM PDT

I'm an immigrant.  I am a refugee. The immigration bill died, or so I thought, just a few days after my mother died.  I was relieved that I did not have to write this post.  Because I wanted the bill to die with my whole heart.

My mother and father were survivors of the Holocuast.

The personal history tells you why I care about this bill and why it's taken so long to do.

When Mameh kept getting worse all this last year, when the doctors thought she wasn't going to last much longer, they were told that this frail women had escaped from to Vilna ghetto and walked to her home shtetl to hide in a Polish farmer's fireplace for 2 years. The only house left standing when the war in Poland was over was my father's house, but even then the house was attacked by Polish partisans who killed those members of my family that hadn't died in the Ghetto or Treblinka.  My parents decided that Europe was just a killing field for Jews  and so they walked from Vilna to the Italian-Czech border to try to get to the boats taking Jews to Israel.  Patton stopped them, put them behind barb wire and when the war was over in the West shipped them off to Displaced Persons camps that were initially set up by the International Rescue Committee (the folks who run camps now in Darfur)  I was born there.

Both my parents had family in America ---cousins, aunts, uncles --- of course no parents or spouses because they died in what my parents called, not the Holocaust, but the Greise Mehumeh ( Great War)   Family sponsored them, got them an apt over a grocery store and got my fahter a job in a garment plant and my mom worked the night shift at the Girl Scout cookie factory.   Despite being refugees from the greatest horror in recorded history, it took 4 years for my parents to be allowed to emigrate to the Goldeneh Land----America.

4 years!!!!

Under this Immigration bill, almost none of the survivors of The Holocaust or indeed any future holocaust, would have ever been permitted into this country.  This so far has been very personal, but my reasons for thinking this is a bad bill, while motivated by the passion of my personal history, also gives me insight into why this bill is so counter to all the fundamental things that has allowed America to benefit from her immigrants and made it the golden land for immigrants.  America, unlike much of Europe has always done immigration well.  

There are 3 major flaws in this bill and I don't know why we as progressives think that these flaws do anything but harm progressive values and, I contend, will eventually redound to Democrat's detriment.

1. Family Reunification is the fundamental basis for the historical success of immigration. It helps immigrants personally and it make immigrant communities successful.  
Another personal note.  My parent's bought a farm in a New England town with a great school system.  I was the first in the family to go to college.  FAMILY HELPED US WITH MONEY, LABOR, ADVICE AND SUPPORT.  Without the family my parents would not have been successful.  It is the same for all present day immigrant communites.  

SUBSTITUTING THE POINT SYSTEM, WHICH IS MEANT TO FAVOR THE EMPLOYERS, NOT THE WORKFORCE, IMMIGRANT OR OTHERWISE, DESTROYS THAT FOUNDATION FOR CLIMBING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC LADDER.

http://www.nytimes.com/...

  1. Supposedly the reason we are standing by in silent agreement is the citizenship provision for the 12 million who are already here. But as Paul Krugman wrote the endless series of hoops are so long and so arduous that is a real question how many will actually be able to make it..... and with their families intact.  Far fewer than the pro forces would think.  

A political point for Democrats.  As this process drags on for those immigrants, their communities, and their family members who are already citizens, will become disheartened, angry and feel gipped.  I think that some of this will seep into anger toward the political party that was supposed to be on their side .  I don't think this bill is good for the Democratic party.    

3. There should be no track which does not lead to citizenship. The inability to become a citizen is corrosive of the democratic polity. It will turn these those guest workers into people who have no stake in this country....and all its attendent ills. Just l;ook at the non integration in Europe, esp Germany, and the social political ills that have arisien because immigrants were not allowed to become citizens.  

Trapper John at Daily Kos  on The Progressive Case Against the Immigration Bill
http://www.dailykos.com/...

Let me enlarge on the political point I made above. Democrats have benefitted enormously from immigration as these groups have become citizens, esp Hispanics.  This bill dries up those future adherents, especially since family reunification will become nigh impossible.  The anger will grow as it becomes evident that the citizenship track is so difficult and that the new bill favors the educated and the rich; the boost we as a party expect from immigration could easily not happen.

There's more but enough for now.

Tags: Immigration, holocaust, family (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 45 comments

  •  This bill has nothing to do with immigration (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    importer, BobOak, andydoubtless, mango, lynmar

    It's a bill for legalized indentured servitude. Nothing more.

    It legalizes slavery.

    Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:54:32 PM PDT

    •  Bernie Sanders is a major opponent of the bill (5+ / 0-)

      I dare anyone to call him a racist.

      Let em eat jellybeans, Let em eat cake, Let em eat shit, cause they can't make it here anymore-James McMurtry

      by Mr Stagger Lee on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:58:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He opposes it for the same reason I do (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        BobOak, esquimaux, lynmar

        It is designed for nothing more than the promotion of cheap labor at the expense of the common working person.

        Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities.

        - Albert Einstein

        by Walt starr on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 01:00:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Very true! (0+ / 0-)

          and add the defeat of the Free Choice bill, a dark day for working people.  Nothing against immigrants but let us get the corporations out of this.

          Let em eat jellybeans, Let em eat cake, Let em eat shit, cause they can't make it here anymore-James McMurtry

          by Mr Stagger Lee on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 01:04:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Ted Kennedy (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Sentido

        Kennedy supports this bill..I dare anyone to say he supports legalizing slavery.

        •  He's been involved in every immigration bill (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          lynmar

          since 1965.  He has been on the Immigration subcommittee all that time.  

          If he's such a great guy, why do we keep doing the same insane things every 21 years just like clockwork?

          •  again (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Sentido

            Kennedy voted against the 86 bill that was pushed by the Reagan administration, so i dont kno what you are talking about.

            Again, i dare you to suggest Kennedy supports slavery.

            You never even read the bill, but because the AFL-CIO tell you the guest worker is slavery, you beleive them.

            Do you know that UNITE-HERE and SEIU supports this bill??...Why, because they clealry understand this is it...If this bill falters,it won't come back for the next 10-20 years and what will happen next is mass deportation.

            The AFL-CIO main aim is to knock out the legalization program, but they are doing so by hidding behind the guest worker program.....If this bill passes, it legalizes a lot of UNITE-HERE and SEIU workers and this could make those 2 unions stronger then the AFLI-CIO....This is why there is a huge war between the AFL-CIO and UNITE-HERE/SEIU.

            •  Kennedy's vote was a throw-away in 86..... (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              lynmar

              The fix was in to push that amnesty bill thru for the same reasons they are pushing this bill.  The corporations want it.

            •  You have no idea what you're talking about (0+ / 0-)

              Your statement that the AFL-CIO opposes legalization is libelous.  The fact is that the AFL is standing up for all workers, both citizens and immigrants, by opposing a bad bill.  

              And really -- enough with the scaremongering.  "If this bill falters,it won't come back for the next 10-20 years and what will happen next is mass deportation?"  Horseshit.  If this fails, we get a better bill in January 2009.  If this succeeds, we're stuck with a godawful cheap-labor guest worker plan for 20 years.

              •  This is Maria19Rodriguez (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                BobOak, philimus

                Aka BlueStateLiberal, aka sopranoitalia, aka immigrant2008, aka God only knows who else, who has spent over a year here calling everyone who had the temarity to disagree with her on the subject of illegal immigration 'racist scumbags' or variations thereof.

                The scaremongering and the "you're an idiot if you disagree with me", "you're a Lou Dobbs Democrat if you disagree with me", "you need to join the Republican Party if you disagree with me", etc., is just par for the course.

                If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                by superscalar on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:46:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I wonder if the AFL CIO (0+ / 0-)

                is the one who has been pushing the idea of waiting till February 2009. If the bill were worse or the same in February 2009, would people then say wait till the year 2011. Sununu in Maine, and Allard in Colorado are the only places where a Democratic defeat of a Republican will change the vote to a pro-immigrant stance. Smith, Collins, Coleman, Domenici, Warner, Stevens, Hagel could all lose to a Democrat, but the pro-immigrant vote will not increase, because Smith, Collins, Coleman, Domenici, Warner, Stevens, Hagel all vote pro-immigrant. Check the votes from last year if you'd like. The time is now. Nativist groups will attack a future Democratic president as an "Amnesty President". They will say this over and over. This will hurt a future Democratic president in other issues.I'd much prefer to do this now with Bush as political cover.
                The laws and postions of a temporary worker program will be fought over, and over, and over again. The laws will change over this program constantly. I don't believe we should quibble over a program that could be altered in as few as 5 years.

    •  LEGALIZATION is the key word here... (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      mango, lynmar

      it has nothing to do with the illegals, it has everything to do with the EMPLOYERS.  No more illegals, no more illegal problems(not that they have them)for employers.

      All the people here right now 10-30 million by my best guess all, suddenly, magically become LEGAL.

      They don't have to pursue citizenship, many of them really don't care, particularly Mexican Nationals who just want to work and send money "home".  Their "home" is still Mexico, they plan on going back there.

      In the meantime, without health certification, background checks and a legal pass, it will trigger a flood of biblical proportions of more ILLEGALS coming in betting on the come.

      It is all about the corporations, it is not good for the American worker and it is not good for the illegal worker.

      Follow the money - who is pushing this bill?  Chamber of Commerce and the rest of the business lobby.

  •  oppose the bill (5+ / 0-)

    Whether you are for "amnesty" or not ...this bill is by and for the US Chamber of Commerce to labor arbitrage Americans and we just had Democrats push forward a bill by Bush corporation.

    This is not good and all Dems should be speaking out loud and clear to kill this bill.

  •  This is an excellent diary (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    importer, coigue, andydoubtless

    Family migration has been at THE CORE of immigration to the United States for 400 years. There is no good reason to stop that, and the only reason it is in the bill is as a sop to bigots and xenophobes.

    Also, your point on the fundamental importance of a path to citizenship is a good one. Without access to citizenship you are creating a de facto servant and powerless class. Citizenship needs to be easier to obtain for immigrants, not harder.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
    Neither is California High Speed Rail

    by eugene on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 01:05:42 PM PDT

    •  thanks and belated tip jar (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      eugene, importer, coigue, lynmar

      I think that if a Democrat is elected in 2008 and with Dems still in charge of congress, I think we can get a mcuh better bill that hews to those fundamental principles.

      I think we should enlarge legal immigration which should make illegal less necessary.  and maybe look at the country quyoptas which I don't have data on, but this could be something that could be periodically revisited as immgration patterns change.

      •  Jesus christ (0+ / 0-)

        No, you will not get better bill then the current one because you will not get 60 votes to pass it.....Do you know the meaning of a "Lou Dobbs democrats"....Do you understand that there are many democrats that hates immigrants  as much as Tom Tancredo and conservative extremist??...Have you ever heard of Jon Tester??..Claire Mcaskill??..Jim Webb...Those democrats are using the same rhetorics of Tom Tancredo and many xenophobes on immigration....Please,do your studies...The Lou Dobbs Democrats are fighting like hell and liberals like you that wants to kill this bill, only do their jobs...Those Dobbs democrats understands clearly that this is i, and if they can kill this bill, mass deportation could start since i see see the next president touching such a devisive issue.

        •  Typoz (0+ / 0-)

          I meant to say  "i don't see a democratic president touching this issue since it is so hot to handle".

          Why would you even touch it if the votes arent there to pass this more progressive immigration bill?...It's either you take the current bill or nothing.

          Im 100% confident that if this current immigration bill falters,the democrats will be forced to pass a defacto mass deportation bill to convince the Public they are doing something about illegal immigration.

  •  This bill must pass (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Sentido, christianfalling

    A lot of liberals that aren't for mass deportation seem to believe that they could easily kill this bill and later on, under a democratic president, pass a more progressive bill.

    In my opinion, only a GOP president could get an immigration bill that legalizes the 12 million illegal immigrants through congress and here's why.

    1.Democrats do not have enough votes in their caucus to push this bill without  the help of moderate Republicans.

    2.Moderate republicans are on record saying they would not get along with a bill that just legalizes 12 million people and demands the guest worker program.

    3.A Democratic president will not be able to convince Lou Dobbs democrats who are as vicious toward immigrants as extremist Republicans, to legalize 12 million illegal immigrants.

    4.Even if Democrats gains 10-15 new seats in the senate, those seats will most likely come from red states which means a lot of them will win as Lou Dobbs democrats..this also means...Take a look at Claire McCaskill,Jim Webb,Jon Tester..All those democrats ran on mass deportation for illegal immigrants...Only Jim webb was a bit practical but still ran against clean legalization..Also, Harold Ford ran on mass deportation...

    What i'm saying is that, it may tougher to pass immigration reform in 2009, not easier, even under a democratic president.

    5.Bush, who happens to be a republicans, give moderate GOP senators the perfect cover to back comprehenive immigration reform...Without a perfect cover for those GOP senators, they will most likely not support such a divisive issue....This is why i believe immigration reform is impossible uinder a democratic president...Those GOP senators that are getting hit hard by their conservative constituencies because they support this immigration bill do so out of loyalty for a republican president..They will NEVER defy their base for a democratic president...this mean a democratic president will not get enough votes from the republican side to pass legalization

    My final conclusion...Bush may be our last hope to enact comprehensive immigration reform since a democratic president will not get the support of moderate republicans which are needed to pass an immigration bill

    •  What is in this bill that you find so attractive? (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      esquimaux, andydoubtless, lynmar

      It doesn't address the core problems with illegal immigration?  

      It doesn't do anything for LEGAL immigrants who will continue to stand in line hoping to get their paperwork right.

      There are ways to tweak immigration without this COMPREHENSIVE bill.  It is just a cover to give the corporations what they want.  More H visas and a guest worker program.

      •  whats your plan?? (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        christianfalling

        unless you can guaranty  pro-immigrants groups that you have the vote to pass clean legalization for the 12 million illegal immigrants and no guest worker program attach to it, then how can you kill the current bill??

        The only reason those pro-immigrants support this bill is because they are afraid that this could be their last chance...Those folks arent stupid...Unlike you, a lot of them have families that are undocumented..I have a friend thats undocumented...Unless you get guaranty me that you have enough vote to pass your own bill, then i cant take you seriously.

        This is the same exact reason why major labor unions like UNITE-HERE and SEIU backs this bill...They are feeling a lot of pressure from their rank and file and a large amount of them are immigrants themselves.

        Like i've stated above..A lot of liberals frankly, dont know what the fuck they are talking about...The majority of them never read the bill, but yet, they act like experts on it..

        For example, the guest worker program has many protection that protects a guest worker from low wages...They are under the same minimum wages protection as any U.S citizens, but yet, i've seen a lot of people here posting that the guest worker program is some type of slavery with no protection...Again, does anyone believe Kennedy would go along with such a program??...They guy has fought for workers rights all his life, but now, im suppose to believe he wants slavery??

        Please, go read the bill, then talk to me...The AFL-CIO are jealous of UNITE-HERE and SEIU because if this bill passes, it will enlarge their competition since many of their members will gain legal status.

        •  I don't need a plan, beyond what is on the books. (0+ / 0-)

          Much of what is in this bill is less effective than what is currently on the books as far as enforcement and documentation.  It weakens previous legislation and none of it will be enforced anyway.

          It increases the use of work visas and guest workers to the great joy of the corporations, and the "stronger" rules for workers will not be enforced either.

          As far as the illegals, I think it is hysterical to think that there will be mass roundups and deportations.  The ice raids we have had recently have all been for show, and the Swift ones were directed at workers who are trying to unionize.

          You might be surprised to find that those who are in unions, or attempting to form unions will have a tough time getting legal status.  That's just for free from me to you.  The corporations won't put up with it.

          So unless you have a reason beyond getting legalization for yourself? or your friends, I think the whole thing is a waste of time and effort and is doing what it is intended to do, drive a bigger wedge between Americans on yet another wedge issue.  Gays, guns and God don't seem to be working anymore.

          •  Oh jeez (0+ / 0-)

            Sorry buddy, i thought you was one of our liberal friends that agrees with the legalization program, but hates the guest worker program.

          •  This is almost worth a troll-rate... (0+ / 0-)

            The insinuation that anyone who support a path to citizenship is probably an "illegal" is uncalled for.

            There are, of course, many reasons that we support legalization; compassion, human understanding and making it harder to exploit workers.

            But instead of a troll rating, I will give you amnesty.

            •  Yet you miss the central point (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              importer, BobOak, philimus

              So unless you have a reason beyond getting legalization for yourself? or your friends

              To some here, their only agenda is changing the legal status of those currently in this country illegally (their friends, their family, take your pick), and this bill does that (it does little beyond that), and that is the only reason they support this bill.

              As I have been saying for some time now, true immigration reform can't be about those people in this country illegally now -- I'm sorry but it just can't be -- otherwise we get IRCA Part Deux, as witnessed by this current bill.

              Beyond that point, for someone to say that this bill represents 'comprehensive immigration reform' and that the Democratic Party should get behind it for this reason is a lie, it is as much a lie as the lie that says that Ted Kennedy didn't support Simpson-Mazzoli, as much a lie as this statement --

              “We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.” – Senator Ted Kennedy

              If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

              by superscalar on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:09:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There is no need to attack people here. (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                philimus

                I disagree with that immigration reform "can't" be about people living and working and raising families here now. For me, it is the most important part of the dicussion.

                Legalization is a valid political goal.

                If your family were affected by our current harsh laws, this would of course make you feel that much stronger. So what?

                The question is one of coalition.

                I understand that legalization is not important to you, but you have a choice. You can choose to work with us, or you can choose to work with the right wing xenophobes leaving us to work with the pro-business moderates.

                There will be a compromise (since I obviously can't get everything I want, and neither can you). The question is whether I can work together with you.

                If you continually tell me that my goals aren't good goals and attack my character... it doesn't bode well for us working together.

                It is anti-immigrant sentiment coming from the left that leads me to believe that this bill is the best possible.

                •  But I just wrote (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  importer, BobOak

                  immigration reform

                  This is not immigration reform. This is legalization of the currently illegal population, plus a guest-worker program.

                  You support this bill because it accomplishes your goal, it makes somebody you know who is in this country illegally legal.

                  Why else do you support this bill. What other provisions of this bill do you see as 'reform'?

                  If you insist on calling this 'immigration reform' it must, to your way of thinking, 'reform' something. What is that?

                  If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                  by superscalar on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:33:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I would guess from reading your posts... (0+ / 0-)

                    That you would like the parts about border security and increased fines for illegal employers.

                    •  From Crystal Patterson (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      BobOak

                      increased fines for illegal employers

                      Who is an aide to Senator Kennedy. This diary about S2611 (before it was S2611) is from Fri May 13, 2005.

                      This is just a brief on the new legislation; it does not include every detail on fines and enforcement.  To be honest, I'm not sure how you know what it does and does not do since it's not up on Thomas yet.

                      With all respect, I do not need to know the exact language regarding changes in enforcement. The problem is not that the language does not exist to enforce the law, the problem is that current law is not enforced. What makes you think that changes to the language of the law will compel anyone to enforce law which already exists?

                      The Department of Labor will have new authority to conduct random audits of employers and ensure compliance with labor laws; also includes new worker protections and enhanced fines for illegal employment practices

                      • Investigations targeting employers of illegal immigrants fell more than 70 percent, from 7,637 in 1997 to 2,194 in 2003.
                      • Arrests on job sites fell from 17,554 in 1997 to 445 in 2003.
                      • Fines levied for immigration-law violations fell from 778 in 1997 to 124 in 2003.

                      DHS collected only $2.6 million of $5.3 million in fines it levied on employers of illegal aliens in 2002. The agency was unable to collect a dime from nearly a quarter of those employers.

                      Now, all of this has occurred within the confines of the current 1986 IRCA law.

                      Also, I asked Please name one thing in this bill which promotes American workers rights, or will increase American workers wages. You answer with If immigrants have a way to come here and work legally, and enjoy the benefits of being in America openly, there's less incentive for them to take "under the table" jobs. Your answer directs itself to how, seemingly, illegal aliens will benefit from this legislation. Your answer does not, however, respond to my question as to just how American workers will benefit.

                      With all respect, you talk to me as Ms. Patterson does, that is to say, as if I am the village idiot who, when you say -- this bill will 'increase fines for illegal employers' -- I should respond "well that makes all the difference in the world, I can now fully support it".

                      If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                      by superscalar on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:21:02 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  It may be (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  BobOak

                  Legalization is a valid political goal

                  But legalization is not 'immigration reform', and it certainly does not constitute 'reform' in this bill, because this bill will do nothing about the current levels of illegal immigration.

                  The CBO has stated it will decrease current levels of illegal immigration by 13%, and I don't even believe that figure.

                  If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                  by superscalar on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:35:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  This is the best bill... (0+ / 0-)

      ... that we seem to be able to get.

      For those of us who feel that a path to citizenship is the only compassionate solution, there is no alternative being offered.

      •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

        This is what i'm saying...I frankly don't think we can get a better deal...The liberals that wants this bill dead, just don't have a clue of whats going on...They are not aware that the votes arent there for this more progressive bill.

        There are a lot of liberals that just wants to use this issue to get Hispanics votes and nothing else...Chuck Schumer is one of them...He couldnt care less about legalizing those folks that lives in fear of deportation everyday...He just wants hispanics votes and the way to do it is to blame the GOP for being racists and not wanting to pass immigrantion reform....A lot of liberals that talk as if they are pro-immigrants, are working hard behind the seen to kill this bill and blame it on the GOP...This allows them to go in Latino community and tag the GOP as racist that hates immigrants....Hispanics should warn the democrats of this kind of behavior...The main enemy is the AFL-CIO.

        The Democrats needs to be careful...If an immigration bill doesnt clear congress before the next election, then why should hispanics vote for them??...I'd rather stay home and not vote democatic since they arent interested in passing immigration reform....Why vote for them if i know nothing will get done on immigration

        •  I am ambivalent about this bill... (0+ / 0-)

          The pro-trancredo voices coming from the left make me more apt to support it.

          But I really wish there could be a unified progressive stance that was both compassionate (i.e. a path to citizenship) and pro-worker (no temporary workers).

          I support this bill reluctantly.

          But it is the liberals who have climed into bed with Tancredo that are forcing me to work with McCain.

          •  I respect McCain (0+ / 0-)

            Eventhough a lot of folks hates him, he's shown me a lot by not flip flopping on immigration just like romney and Giuliani.

            Romney is actually the only candidate that had illegal workers worked on his yard...Giuliani went to court to stop ICE from arresting and deport illegal workers in NYC..NYC is a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants.....Both of them changed their views on immigration...McCain is actually alone and he's getting hit hard...I feel sad for the guy because his position is the right one, but because of huge xenophobe winds inside the republican party, it's almost impossible for him to win the nomination.

        •  Sorry, BlueState, you lost me with this ... (0+ / 0-)

          "... The Democrats needs [sic] to be careful...If an immigration bill doesnt clear [C]ongress before the next election, then why should hispanics vote for them??...I'd rather stay home and not vote democatic [sic] since they arent interested in passing immigration reform....Why vote for them if [I] know nothing will get done on immigration[?]"

          Um, maybe because a Democratic president with a larger majority in Congress will be more likely to get us out of Iraq, address the issue of global warming and climate change, advance equal rights for same-sex couples, defend a woman's right to choose an abortion, promote fair trade policies that benefit foreign workers in their home countries, etc., etc.

          I mean, really, how seriously can we take you as a political activist if you are so obsessed with this single issue that you are ready to take your ball(ot) and stay home on Election Day just because you don't get your way on this one particular bill? FWIW, I sympathize with your feelings. I simply think Sentido is being more pragmatic to put it like this instead:

          "... that is how compromise works [when] you accept something you don't prefer in order to get support for something you feel is important.

          I would prefer to compromise with the anti-corporate progressives-- and I would even be able to live with some of the protectionist policies that I wouldn't normally accept. ..."

          At the risk of being presumptuous, I think it's a lot easier for most people to find areas to agree on with someone who isn't calling them bigots or racists or xenophobes every time there is a relatively minor disagreement over what tactics we use to accomplish the same goals. I welcome Sentido's comments but, with all due respect, I am not sure I can have a constructive conversation with you.

          Fire away ...

          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

            My number one issue is immigration, so this is very important to me.

            I'm sure it's also the number one issue for many hispanics...Why should Hispanics vote for a party that only wants to pimp them for votes?..Dont get me wrong, the GOP are plainful disrespecful to hispanics, but Liberals are as bad because they dont want this issue off the table because it allows them to point the finger at the GOP and tell hispanics that GOP hates you.

            I've actually heard rumours that Chuck Schumer do not want to pass immigration reform because it would take the issue off the table and they need it on the table to highlights the deep racism inside the republican party...That is as wrong as the bigots that dont want it pass because they hates hispanics.

            •  No question about that, if it is true ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... and it is just as bad as Democrats who would vote against cutting off funding for the war because they think the issue is more important for them to be able to score political points off of it while more people die needlessly. I don't know if that is happening, either, but I share your disgust with politicians who would rather have the issue to run on than to do the right thing.

  •  Sorry, BlueState and Sentido ... (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Trapper John, importer, lynmar

    ... but right now I would have to agree that no bill at all is better than the one Bush and Kennedy want us to accept.

    FWIW, I wrote Senator Warner today urging him NOT to vote for it (although he probably will anyway because he's a water-carrier for the Chamber-of-Commerce wing of the Rethuglican Party).

    I understand what you are saying about maybe not being able to get a decent deal later with a Democratic president and increased majorities in Congress, but that still doesn't sell me on this compromise legislation. As I wrote to Warner, the guest-worker program seems designed to both exploit immigrant labor (and keep undocumented employees living in a permanent underclass status) and screw over U.S. citizens competing for living-wage jobs at the same time.

    IMHO, we desperately need to streamline our broken process for helping people get the papers to live and work here legally, AND enforce the current laws against employers who are illegally taking advantage of folks who only want to work hard and make this the same land of opportunity it has been for the many generations of immigrants who came here before them. This bill seems to benefit only the corporations and the upper class at the expense of working people on both sides of the border.

    We can do better than this. We must find a way to do better than this ... or the current minor problem may someday become unmanageable. Let's hope it never reaches that point.

    Peace.

    "So if you're looking for an answer,
    he's standing there by your side.
    And you'll never really know how far you'll go
    'til you join together and try." - Phil Ochs, 1965

    •  That's the big question... (0+ / 0-)

      I disagree that the status quo is worse than this bill-- there are many families and undocumented workers who would benefit.

      If I felt confident that we could do better in a reasonable timeframe, I would feel differently...

      A compassionate solution is very important for many of us.

      •  But you seem to see immigration law (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        BobOak

        As being in place solely to the benefit of those illegal immigrants currently in this country, with little or no concern for who may benefit outside of that constituency, if they benefit at all, and with no concern as to how the US benefits, again, if at all.

        You speak to none of the downside of this bill -- it's always about that one thing that you are concerned with, changing the legal status of those in this country illegally.

        A compassionate solution is very important for many of us.

        You cast this bill as a 'solution'. I say again, this bill solves nothing beyond the legal status of those in this country illegally, quite possibly because it was not designed to solve anything else.

        If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

        by superscalar on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:18:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you understand compromise? (0+ / 0-)

          I do see the downside of the bill. I have consistantly said I was ambivalent.

          But that is how compromise works, you accept something you don't prefer in order to get support for something you feel is important.

          I would prefer to compromise with the anti-corporate progressives-- and I would even be able to live with some of the protectionist policies that I wouldn't normally accept.

          But the anti-corporate progressives seem to have become quite unreasonable of late.

          This debate has come down to a choice between Tancredo and McCain. I am not a McCain fan... but that's live.

  •  Everybody should be able to pay a $2,000 (0+ / 0-)

    a year fee and be able to stay.

    An insurance company would have to bond each person at $40,000 a head.

    If someone is here in 2010 and didn't pay their 2008, 2009, and 2010 fees, the insurance company would pay out $40,000. If the person is found by a local police department, the department would get 25% of the $40,000.

    Relatives would put up their houses as collateral for the insurance company bond. When they sell, $40,000 would be retained by the insurance company until a new house is bought and a lien placed against it.

    The annual fees of about $24 billion would posted to the IRS accounts of American citizens already here and would be available as refundable tax credits.  

  •  One more major flaw (0+ / 0-)

    Debcoop,one more major flaw in the imigration bill is the National I.D. card attachment .It would give everyone a spychip to carry around with them.We should all call our  Representitives and Senators and tell them we don't want big brother in our back pockets or purses.Good post deb thanks!  

    I once had an origional sin,but reflecting,it was plagairism !

    by kurt gubrud on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:42:26 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for this. (0+ / 0-)

    The survivors of the Holocaust are becoming fewer and fewer, so the more often we preserve their stories, the better.

    "There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America." - Otto Prince Bismarck

    by MBNYC on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:03:25 PM PDT

Permalink | 45 comments