Skip to main content

Interesting, in my last post on immigration reform, many commenters fretted that doing it now would prove unpopular with voters. It's amazing how so many people have internalized right-wing opposition to doing the right thing, and assume it's true.

Let's look at recent polling on the issue.

CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 5-12, 2010.

"Should LEGAL immigration into the United States be kept at its present level, increased, or decreased?"

Present Level 35
Increased 16
Decreased 41

Even today, in the midst of recession, Americans are supportive of immigration.

Benenson Strategy Group (PDF) for America's Voice. 12/19-21/2009.

Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, strongly oppose Congress passing comprehensive immigration reform?

Support 64
Oppose 23

"Favor" by party ID

Democratic 69
Republican 67
Independent 72

Even among Republicans, there is strong support for immigration reform.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 7/6-9.

Do you favor or oppose Congress passing comprehensive immigration reform?

Favor 69
Oppose 25

"Favor" by party ID

Democratic 67
Republican 72
Independent 69

One version of immigration reform that people have discussed would do the following if passed into law; it would secure the border crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants require illegal immigrants to register for legal immigration status pay back taxes and learn English in order to be eligible for U.S. citizenship. Do you favor or oppose Congress passing this version of immigration reform?

Favor 74
Oppose 18

"Favor" by party ID

Democratic 75
Republican 71
Independent 76

Again, support for comprehensive immigration reform crosses partisan lines. Voters are particularly drawn to the punitive side of CIR -- paying back taxes and perhaps even fines, as well as the "learn English" provision.

CBS News/New York Times, April 22-26, 2009.

"Which comes closest to your view about illegal immigrants who are currently working in the U.S.? (1) They should be allowed to stay in their jobs, and to eventually apply for US citizenship. OR, (2) They should be allowed to stay in their jobs only as temporary guest workers, but not to apply for U.S. citizenship. OR, (3) They should be required to leave their jobs and leave the U.S."

Stay, Apply for Citizenship: 44
Stay as guest workers 21
Leave 30

ABC News/Washington Post. April 21-24, 2009.

"Would you support or oppose a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?"

Support 61
Oppose 35

Progressives complain that a loud minority of teabaggers created a perception of widespread opposition to health care reform. Well, the same thing is happening on immigration, but the difference is that on this issue, lots of you guys are falling for it.

The poll numbers are clear and consistent -- voters overwhelmingly support immigration reform. The frothing-at-the-mouth teabaggers won't like it, but they are and remain a fringe minority. Immigration reform is popular, has widespread bipartisan appeal, is good policy, is the morally right thing to do, and is electorally necessary for the Democratic Party ... AND the GOP, if it hopes to compete for this growing demographic into the future.

But to claim that the issue hurts is electorally flies in the face of all available data.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:10 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Graham/Schumer bill is fair ir conservative, (6+ / 0-)

    and the reuiniting families legislation pending will be a nice addition.  This will go through this year because all those western and southwestern Congresspeople want to be reelected.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:13:13 AM PDT

  •  Yes, but the Republican idea of reform (19+ / 0-)

    is deportation.

    I find it very amusing, particularly in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California, how many whites forget that they are the immigrants living in Old Mexico.  It's as if the Gadsden Purchase and the Treaty of Guadlupe Hidalgo were never taught in elementary school.

    Well, we all know about Texas anyway.  

    So let's do some serious immigration reform.  Start turning white settlers wagons around and send 'em back East.

  •  This will be similar to health insurance (11+ / 0-)

    We know that people support various pieces of reform, but in the overall it's going to be much more difficult to get agreement on immigration.  There are so many variables and ways to look at it, that I just can't imagine that we can get agreement just within the Democratic party.  

    What's with the Jesus fish eating the Darwin fish? I thought they wanted people to eat Jesus, not have Jesus eat people.

    by otto on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:13:44 AM PDT

    •  Will Obama cave or go all in? O's only 2-gears (0+ / 0-)

      creep forward, or boldly go where no Democrat has gone before, since Uncle Frankie

      80 % of success is just showing up!!

      by Churchill on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:24:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think we're past that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jay C, bay of arizona

      in the sense that Democrats in Congress know the 2010 electoral die was cast with the passage of the HCR bill.  Everything else- finance reform, immigration, energy/exhaust policy changes, the SC nomination, foreign policy details- essentially only reinforces the voting decisions already made.

      So I'm sure the general attitude on Capitol Hill and in the White House is that there isn't any worthwhile finessing of details for the purposes of the fall campaigns to do.  After all the quibbling and detail of HCR, I'm not sure Congress has the patience or energy get deep into the weeds on the detail of any bill in any case.  I'm about 90% sure they'll just play the balls right up the middle, giving The People what they broadly support along with enough administratively useful detail for the agencies to implement things properly.  

      The polling is clear and shows what it already did in 2006.  First, that moderate Republicans (people at the 35% position from the right end of the political spectrum) are the swing ideological bloc, the people who are going to set the terms of the bill in any case.  Second, the 70%+ popular support for the bill containing the three conditions given in the Research 2000 polling from every partisan electorate means that what opposition remains is genuinely incoherent.  

      If there were some genuine and coherent objection, even if no one has articulated it well, it's about 99% probable we'd see one or more of the usual ideological blocs of the American political spectrum show up quite united in opposition.  I think the numbers so far say the opposition that is found in polling has to do with ambivalence, or unclear proposed measures, or fear to change the status quo despite no particular reasons to favor it, or moderately popular reasons the system cannot properly respect (e.g. racism).  It's certainly not all racism, I'm sure, and it may be that a coherent and morally respectable opposition position emerges.  But the polling says it doesn't exist at the moment.

      In short, Democrats may not be terribly agreed among each other but the Republican opposition is going to be strong yet contemptible.  I'm willing to bet that in the end it's going to be come down to an argument about "common sense", i.e. just how stupid Blue State Republican Senators and moderate or conservative Democratic ones are willing to look to their constituents in return for, well, no benefit whatsoever.

  •  What are the range of issues (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, CParis, crystal eyes, midwestblue

    for which media discussion makes what public really wants / thinks?

    Here are a few thoughts:

    1.  Public Option (or even single payer) for health care
    1.  Higher taxes on wealthy
    1.  Financial reform
    1.  Government spending to spark jobs
    1.  Clean energy investments
    1.  Environmental protection


  •  Just make immigration Workable & Fair (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ManhattanMan, GN1927, bay of arizona

    we have let immigration go under the radar as a national priority since the 1986 Reagan Immigration Regulation and Control Act.

    80 % of success is just showing up!!

    by Churchill on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:15:31 AM PDT

  •  It doesn't matter what we (or the polls) (10+ / 0-)

    think. It only matters what Congressmen think, and they are terrified of this issue in an election year. And they are the ones that determine the timing of congressional agenda items. The poll that is missing but is most important is the poll of representatives and senators asking "Are you terrified of having a vote on immigration?"

    I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

    by doc2 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:16:29 AM PDT

  •  Once the issue has a human face, (5+ / 0-)

    expect support to go up a bit more.  We saw this with gay marriage, with Conservative-leaning people who were not "hard leaners" -- in other words, they hadn't given it much thought before it became an issue.  

    They started out against marriage equality in the abstract sense, but when the issue began to take on a human face, with real stories etc., some of them changed to supportive or at least mixed-opinion.

  •  kos, you need to correct the headline in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ... you previous post. The IRS is investigating Rubio, not the FBI.

  •  What the heck does... (12+ / 0-)

    ..."Comprehensive" Immigration Reform mean?

    These polls are not useful because (I suspect) each respondent thinks that CIR means "all of the things I support and none of the things I hate". But what it really means is "Amnesty".  Before we go there:

    1. We need to show voters that we are making a solid attempt to control the border.
    1. We need to crack down on employers who hire illegals.
    1. We need to help Left-wing and Right-wing Libertarians get mentally prepared for a National ID card. We need to make sure that it is not misused.

    Once we have done those things, voters will be ready to hear about Amnesty. Until then, any "reform" is bad policy and even worse politics.

    •  Read the poll questions (6+ / 0-)

      They specifically explain what the plans would be.

      •  The devil is STILL in the details. (4+ / 0-)

        Consider the second question in the DKos poll. It offers to:

        "...crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants..."

        That sounds great...but it doesn't mention that this will require some kind of ID system that privacy advocates will hate.

        We ask voters if they want to:

        " the border..."

        Of course we do! We also want to eliminate Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in the Federal budget. But real border security is a promise that probably can't be kept. (The other poll in the Diary says that 30% of voters don't think a "fence" will work). Immigration experts laugh when fences, dogs, towers, and helicopters are mentioned.

        I don't think that this will be as easy as it looks.

        We should not start with a Big Comprehensive Bill. Unlike Healthcare, everything is not as inter-connected. We should make small, popular reforms first. Grab the low-hanging fruit, win the midterms, and go back for more in a few years.

    •  You're not going to get me to go along (5+ / 0-)

      with privacy killing national biometric ID.

      "Do your taxpayers a favor, and leave him alone." (My State Assembly Rep, Marc Pocan, to Denver's City Atty before 2008 DNC)

      by ben masel on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:28:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So my plan... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah, CParis, erush1345 get people like you "mentally prepared" for a National ID, isn't working very well, is it?

        That makes Immigration Reform difficult. We cannot bust employers for hiring illegals if there is no way that an employer can verify citizenship. And as long as the jobs are available, people will keep coming illegally.

        I don't know of any way to do that verification without a National ID. I am not sure if it needs to be biometric, though.

    •  I'm bloody well against ID's being required (4+ / 0-)

      for a lot of things.  We're required to ID ourselves far too often already.  The only time I should ever be required by law to ID myself is when I actually commit a crime, go to vote, or specifically waive my right to remain anonymous by opting in to contests, promotions, or 'clubs' that offer me specific incentives if I let them ID me.

      I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:44:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You have a SSN number don't you? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah, CoyoteMarti

        We just need a new one that has better guards against fraudulent use.

        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

        by Skeptical Bastard on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:50:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, and thankfully, I'm rarely required (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, buddabelly, midwestblue

          to produce it, and most places that ask for it correctly note that providing it is 'optional'.

          I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell

          by Ezekial 23 20 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:54:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ezekial (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aexia, CParis, mariachi mama, erush1345

            An ID card would only need to carry your name, age (birth date), home address, weight, height, eye color and a photo.
            Oh, wait.  That's called a Drivers License. or a photo ID.  If you drive, you have to have one.  The only difference between an national ID and your state drivers is national and one is state.

            Virtually every European nation (civilized last I heard) has a national ID card, and I don't hear about citizen round ups.  In fact, if we were to adopt federal regulations concerning driving across the board, your drivers license would be a good national ID.

            The truth is, if you think that a National ID will tell the government too much about you, that horse is already out of the barn.  I don't know you, but give me your full name and within 24 hours I'd know when you got your first haircut and what your grades were in Mr. Jones class in the sixth grade.  From the time you were born, and long before you thought to protect your identity, vast amounts of information were accumulated about your life.

            Does that make me uncomfortable?  Sure, somewhat.  It's the inevitable part of living in a world with other people, and partaking of the rewards of society.  I'd say you should just learn to live with it, but you really have no choice.

          •  Try getting your credit scores without it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Or for that matter, try buying health insurance without it.
            Frankly I don't think a National ID card is any worse than say, having a driver's license, a SS number, passport, or a birth certificate.
            If they want to implant a GPS chip onto my forehead I'd oppose it. But an additional form of ID that augments or replace the SS card is at worse an inconvenience.

  •  Thanks for putting out this poll data. It's (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, Lost Left Coaster, docrocktex

    much more possitive than I thought, and I find it encouraging.

  •  Poll numbers show bipartisan agreement (8+ / 0-)

    Doing something like what was required would be a wedge issue splitting the 30% who want to send them home away from the 70% who want to do something else.

    Once again, if we can force the GOP to embrace their 30% core and drive the 70% towards us, we win.

    I have to quibble with the poll numbers, though. Unless people are made aware that there are 12M undocumented workers in this country, many with family members who are citizens, they don't understand the problem.

    Twelve million jobs to be filled? By who? At what wages? How many require at least some training?

    We can't just round them up and send them home. And that means the 30% dead-enders have to be ignored.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:17:53 AM PDT

    •  Well said from start to finish (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The GOP can't win with its tea party base, and can't win without them.  This is an issue which is going to make that dilemma pretty explicit.' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

      by GN1927 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:24:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  By Who - Millions of unenmployed. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah, midwestblue

      At what wages - A fair wage.

      Just some possible answers.

      -9.63 -6.92
      Fox News - We Distort, You Deride

      by rick on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:28:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Are the unemployed near where the people who leave live?

        Do they have the skills? Not all of these guys are busing tables. Some are skilled and semi-skilled trade. For example, guy I know hires illegals to do drywall work in LV. That's not easy to do well.

        If the legal worker charges $2/hr more than the illegal worker, what effect will that have on prices?

        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

        by blue aardvark on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:41:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Answers (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          There are some nearby I am sure.

          Maybe we could use some stimulus funding for training instead of propping up thieving bankers....

          The effect on prices will depend on the market and if it can bear to go up anymore.  If not, the owners reaping huge benefits from cheap labor may lose a tad bit of profit.  Boo freaking hoo.

          -9.63 -6.92
          Fox News - We Distort, You Deride

          by rick on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:38:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Once the media turns to their GOP Luntz Memo (3+ / 0-)

      and makes up whatever bullshit they have concocted to demonize the bill, those positive poll numbers will disappear IMO. Immigrant death panel bailout legislation. Unfortunately, like health care it will work.

      •  Rec 10x (0+ / 0-)

        Last summer's Town Hall debacles should be a lesson to Dems to get out front on every issue with our talking points before the GOP has a chance to frame it in voters' minds.

        If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me. ~ Alice Roosevelt Longworth

        by CParis on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:30:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's all about the framing of the issue. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, erush1345

      If you ask somebody "Do you favor making the 12million illegal immigrants pay taxes?" Of course you are going to get all positive responses.

      If you ask somebody "Do you favor rewarding illegal immigrants with an amnesty", you'd probably get a lot of negative responses.

  •  just wait (8+ / 0-)

    As soon as it becomes the Obama immigration plan republican support will drop to zero. This wlll be used to fire up the base on both sides.
    Obama should  go all out and get the GOP to fillibuster an immigration bill and see how many hispanic votes they get in 2012.

    •  Death Panels for Military Vertrans? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CJB, bay of arizona, CParis, cybrestrike

      Bailout $$ for Mexican drug cartels?

      Cinco de Mayo replacing Presidents Day as a national holiday?

      I'd guess those are just a few of the attacks we will soon be hearing.

      •  You jest... (0+ / 0-)

        ...but I think the racists and xenophobes in the Republican caucus would say things not too far from what you're suggesting.  Unfortunately a certain group in our country are stupid and hateful enough to believe such lies.

        For them, it'll be just like creating another fake reality, Orwellian style.

        "Grow up Democrats. Face the music. Do it alone. You're the majority." -- Rachel Maddow

        by cybrestrike on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:29:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Devil's in the details on this one. (8+ / 0-)

         What exactly is meant by "immigration reform" ?

  •  The smoking gun (8+ / 0-)

    "Should LEGAL immigration into the United States be kept at its present level, increased, or decreased?"


    Decreased 41

    This has never been about illegal immigration. This is about wingnuts not liking Mexicans.

  •  Let Cuban-Americans visit their families in Cuba (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, Lost Left Coaster

    80 % of success is just showing up!!

    by Churchill on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:19:17 AM PDT

  •  Tea Baggers Are in the Wrong Century (3+ / 0-)
    The responses to the folloing question:

    "Do You Favor Restriction or Suppression of Foreign Immigration?"

    No Response----------------- 17.6%
    No-------------------------- 6.9%
    Restriction----------------- 55.6%
    Suppression----------------- 19.7%

    would delight the teabaggers. Too bad the survey was taken in Kansas. 1897.

    NeoCons' view on torture: if it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for anyone!

    by clone12 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:19:21 AM PDT

  •  Pat Buchanan Says Tea Party Is New Aryan Party (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    au8285, GN1927, annieli, docrocktex

    I have not seen the polling of the teabaggers on immigration, but I can guess.

    Pat's getting closer to open fascism every day, and he has many admirers who are self-identified Nazis.

  •  When Republicans say "immigration reform"... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, annieli

    ...what they mean is make it legal to shoot illegal aliens or people who look like they might be illegal aliens thanks to their brown skin.

    "Oh wow, a bunch of angry, ignorant white people with a colonial cosplay fetish."
    -unattributed quote

    by Orbital Mind Control Lasers on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:19:41 AM PDT

  •  The 'guest worker' program, which will be sold (9+ / 0-)

    as the reasonable compromise between left and right, is actually a gift to certain corporations who will have a source of cheap labor.

    Barack Obama in the Oval Office: There's a black man who knows his place.

    by Greasy Grant on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:19:44 AM PDT

  •  Thank you, Kos! (4+ / 0-)

    Democrats need to realize this issue is a win/win.

    All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Mohandas Gandhi

    by MufsMom on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:19:52 AM PDT

  •  I've been assuming that the Obama administration (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, Same As It Ever Was

    would put off Comprehensive Immigration Reform until 2011 rather than stoke that debate right in front of the midterm election.

    But damn!  Now it looks like they may actually do HCR, then some financial reform, and then go right to CIR this year!

    Wow.  I've sure been happier about being a Democrat since HCR passed!

  •  Kos, nice story. Immigration reform is important (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, The Dead Man

    but action on climate is far more important and urgent, not a "pet issue."  Will you be putting any stories about climate on the front page any time soon?

    Finally broke down, joined the twittering classes: RL_Miller

    by RLMiller on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:20:02 AM PDT

  •  Base the bill off of the IRCA of 1986 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, bay of arizona, TexMex

    it has been established law for almost a quarter of a century.  Just re-do it and sharpen in up.  Let  the GOP vote against a Reagan initiative.

    80 % of success is just showing up!!

    by Churchill on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:20:07 AM PDT

  •  What do they mean by IR? (10+ / 0-)

    Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, strongly oppose Congress passing comprehensive immigration reform?

    Support 64
    Oppose 23

    "Favor" by party ID

    Democratic 69
    Republican 67
    Independent 72

    Yeah, but what do hte responders mean by "comprehensive immigration reform?"

    You know what you mean, but the words can be used to mean "seal the borders and kick out the spics."

    Corporations are people; money is speech.
    1984 - George Orwell

    by Frank Palmer on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:20:26 AM PDT

  •  This is an excellent time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    True North, TexMex

    to move on this reform. Not only is it necessary and doable, but it is a shrewd political move that will hand the GOP another anchor to juggle.

    "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." -- Barack Obama

    by liberalis on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:21:17 AM PDT

  •  "Immigration Reform" (9+ / 0-)

    is an undefined umbrella issue.  Once Democrats outline a plan, I'd expect support from Republicans to drop sharply.

    You thought HCR was bad, in terms of contentiousness?  Republicans are going to polarize the shit out of this one.  

    "During the time of such startling unemployment numbers, we shouldn't be giving people a free pass to come and work here".

    You can copy and paste the statement above.  This will be the Republican talking point, and they're going to beat you over the head with it.

  •  agree with others (6+ / 0-)

    that say that there is a vast difference in approving reform from the 'left' and approving reform from the 'right'.

    Approve but want the opposite thing isn't agreement.  There appears to be some agreement that nobody is a big fan of a guest worker program and that any back taxes should be paid.  Are we giving credit for back taxes paid on a borrowed SSN?  Learning english?  We send home the 80 yr old grandma who can't learn but let the rest of the family stay?

    The devil is in the details.

  •  Good point about "internalizing" (0+ / 0-)

    right-wing crap.

    They've influenced the general public with this issue and with taxes.

    They've made raising taxes the equivalent of murder.
    Something else we need to fight against.

  •  What will the bill be junked up with? (3+ / 0-)

    The Lieberman/Graham version has a privacy killing national biometric ID. The Administration has not, to my know;ledge, repudiated this.

    "Do your taxpayers a favor, and leave him alone." (My State Assembly Rep, Marc Pocan, to Denver's City Atty before 2008 DNC)

    by ben masel on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:25:10 AM PDT

  •  The term "reform" is just so damn vague. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It can mean anything, everything, or nothing.  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:25:14 AM PDT

    •  On the lips of legistlators, that is. (0+ / 0-)

      In several of the polling scenarios given, it is admirably specific.

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:31:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We've seen this before... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, bay of arizona, icemilkcoffee

    Polling in May, 2009 with 80% support for comprehensive health care reform.

    The numbers will plummet once we get close to an actual vote and people cherry pick what they don't like about the legislation and project it to the whole thing.

    We should still do it, though... It's the right thing to do and we should reward the hispanic base who came through for us when we needed them.

    DARTH SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
    LANDO REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

    by LordMike on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:25:20 AM PDT

    •  Just like (4+ / 0-)

      with HCR, polls are easy to rig. With all the mis-information that is put out there, I do not trust that people make informed responses to pollsters.

      HCR polls were all over the map,and both sides used them as ''hard'' evidence they had the public with them.

      As we also saw with HRC, once the process gets going,the sausage-making alone turns the public off,and it will poll poorly.

      It is the right thing to do anyway,so I guess we plow forward again into the teeth of a perfect teabagger demogoguary issue. a white sox fan I was listening to an interview with our hot new reliever, and he told his story of having his mexican parents come to the US when they were young and he and his two brothers were born in Ca....his two brothers graduated from UCLA,and one from Georgetown Law...and he is the black sheep as a MLB pitcher..who has a great future.

      America's greatness is partially from skimming the best and the brightest from other this kid.

      •  "America's greatness is partially from skimming (0+ / 0-)

        the best and brightest from other countries."

        So true; brain drain is a serious issue for many countries.

        "It's not enough to be right. You still have to use your nice voice." -said by my then six-year-old daughter; "Love binds us all."-willb48

        by be the change you seek on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:30:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We already (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, sable

      went through this two years ago. It was scuttled by the precursors to the teabaggers, but it was a national debate, and support for reform remained high even after the GOP filibustered Bush's own bill.

  •  Great job, Kos (5+ / 0-)

    This matters for sooo many reasons.
    We can' t have two tiers for Americans.


    and the Americans that are children to immigrants brought in illegally to serve American masters.

    We are wholesale  importing people from foreign lands to do jobs we Americans should be doing but can't because our schools are shitty because of the fact that we "look foreign" even though we are Americans for several generations.

    You would think that Mexican Americans would be against immigration reform.  But obviously, Hispanics Americans continue to suffer for bing looked upon as foreigner by the white looking folks.
    No matter what Kos has done for opening up our country to truth and open discourse, if he had to rush one of his kids to emergency with his wife there would be someone looking askant at the "illegal trying to game the system".

    I have "bumped" into this repeatedly.
    Second generation American whose father was in the Pacific in WWII and brother enlisted for the Vietnam war is still often asked, :Hey what part of Mexico do you come from?"
    Ok some of those are Canadian questions, but always as a child groing up I was a Mexican child even though both my parents were born in Texas.
    So people can argue on one side against racial profiling and then scream bloody murder about "brownie taking thur jobs" when that particular brownie might just be an American veteran.
    We need immigration reform.
    It is right and just to stop oppressing the poor who break their backs to put food on YOUR table at prices you want to pay.


    by TexMex on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:26:14 AM PDT

  •  it depends on how you define "reform" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jay C, au8285

    ...immigration reform, like health reform before it, is, to a certain extent, in the eye of the beholder.

    Teabaggers and most Republicans would probably consider reform to be...putting up more fences, arresting and deporting as many people as possible.

    Democrats, on the other hand, would likely define immigration reform much differently.

    You are exactly right when it comes to pointing out how so many people willingly accept right wing memes at face value. That's probably why the right has no regard for truth and only focuses on trying to influence people's perceptions...they have been allowed to get away with it for so long and they assume they will continue to be allowed to simply lie to achieve their goals. It would sure be nice if we an an ongoing national "truth squad" that would aggressively attack all of their lies head on in a timely way. Of course, their are so many lies and distortions...where would you begin?

  •  Every person who opposes IR should reflect upon (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bay of arizona, sable

    their own family's immigrant experience and history before they expose their false consciousness to others. AZ should be the last instance a fascist ID measure ever gets through a legislature.

    "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

    by annieli on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:27:40 AM PDT

    •  i hope they dont use this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      as a bargaining chip on their end, its appalling

      A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step

      by uclabruin on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:34:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I do (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Dead Man, annieli

      and being that my ancestors were for the most part not immigrants, but instead people who were brought to America by force, or who America was brought to by force, no, I have no problem with taking measures to restrict the flow of illegal immigrants into the country.

      •  then make them legal, pay proper wages (6+ / 0-)

        to pick your lettuce and then you have to pay for the new high price of that lettuce.

        Why does having brown skin mean having to get paid less for your work around the world.


        by TexMex on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:52:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How about instead of "making them legal" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          we just require that employers follow the law and hire legally authorized workers to pick our lettuce, which I have no problem with paying a few cents more a pound for.

          •  They're already here and never leaving (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            True North, TexMex, buddabelly, sable

            Making them legal makes sense. THEN require employers to follow the law.

            you know, it's just a blog. some of you people need to get the frak over yourselves.

            by terrypinder on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:01:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We supposedly did that in 1986 (4+ / 0-)

              and all that happened, was that even more people came in, hoping that one day, they too would be made legal. People leave all the time. Most voluntarily. Plenty are deported. If we get control of the border, and the workplace, eventually we'll get down to a smaller number of people who really are "never leaving" and those people could get some kind of permit to stay and work, but not citizenship. Anything else is grossly unfair to the tens of millions of people all over the world who are waiting in line to come into the U.S. the right way -- legally.

              •  Who gives a shit about those people (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                terrypinder, mariachi mama

                nything else is grossly unfair to the tens of millions of people all over the world who are waiting in line to come into the U.S. the right way -- legally.

                The ones who have been waiting here have been paying taxes and proving their good citizenship everyday and keeping our economy running when all else has crashed.  Busting their ass on your lawn and your neighbors lawn or every where else these immigrant folks work.
                Many businesses have stayed alive in America because they use illegal workers, you just don't know what you hot dogs would cost.

                All about the "right way"
                Why don't you pay the RIGHT amount of money for your lettuce, or your restaurant meal.
                What do you want to pay for roses?
                We even buy our roses for Equador
                Why, because of wages.
                I found out yesterday that if Miami was closed down due to a hurricane flower shops in America would suffer due to the loss of South American green houses.


                by TexMex on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:31:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  How much would lettuce (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bay of arizona, erush1345

                  cost if you paid $35 an hour to pick it.  Many crops still require manual, back-breaking labor, and will never be replaced by machines.  Fair wages, opportunity to participate in HCR (not a free program), registering as an "available" worker, with the right to work here, and to go home.  

                  I asked one of my clients if his son, who is currently unemployed, would work for $35 an hour.  He said that he would be happy to have a job that paid that kind of wage.  I then told him the job would be picking lettuce in California, during the summer.  He understood what I was getting at, but said that he didn't raise his college educated son to pick lettuce, at any price.  I guess I don't have to draw conclusions on this one.

                  •  It's A Stupid Argument Anyway (4+ / 0-)

                    4% of all illegal immigrants work in any kind of agriculture, illegal immigrants make up 24% of the agricultural work force, and the wages of farm workers could be doubled and the price of lettuce would increase by a dime.

                    Illegal immigration is most concentrated in construction and service industries.

                    <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                    by superscalar on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:11:38 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't know where anyone's getting (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Odysseus, erush1345

                    a $35 an hour figure. I'm a lawyer and I might go pick some lettuce for that much. Plenty of U.S. citizens (say inner-city young people looking at 50+% unemployment right now) will gladly go up there and pick some lettuce for $15 an hour tops.

                    •  You're missing my point (0+ / 0-)

                      The $35 per hour was brought up in a conversation with a client.  It could have been anything else, including $15 per hour.  His objection wasn't to the money, it was to picking lettuce.

                      Ed Schulz used to talk about this all the time on his radio show.  He said that all you had to do was raise the wages and you'd have no problem getting all the help you needed.  That's been tried here in AZ, and it didn't work.

                      Perhaps we should post job boards all over the inner cities looking for $15 per hour labor.  Job description:  Must be in physically good condition, no health problems (we don't provide insurance or health care), willing to work 14-16 hours a day in stoop labor, in 100+ heat, live in substandard housing with inadequate plumbing.  No long term job security.  $15 per hour.  Are you still interested?

                      And superscalar- if illegal immigrants make up 24% of the agricultural work force, and you doubled their wages, lettuce would go up a lot more a dime.  It's not a stupid, or inconsequential argument.  If it were true then why hasn't it already been done, since there wouldn't be any real consequences to the action?

                      Jobs and immigration are tied together.. AZ just passed a vicious anti-immigrant bill, which no doubt will be found to be unconstitutional.  It allows local police officers to stop anyone on the street, demand proof of citizenship, and arrest and deportation of those who can't provide it.  How do you know who to stop?  The color of their skin, the language they speak, dangle balls on the rear view mirror, low riders?  We need to find a solution to this problem because this kind of discrimination and bigotry is not American and certainly not in anyone's best interest.

                      •  A Reply (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Odysseus, longislandny

                        if illegal immigrants make up 24% of the agricultural work force

                        Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population

                        and you doubled their wages, lettuce would go up a lot more a dime. [ ... ]  If it were true then why hasn't it already been done, since there wouldn't be any real consequences to the action?

                        How Much Is that Tomato in the Window?

                        The removal of illegal workers from the seasonal agricultural workforce would increase the summer-fall supermarket prices of fresh fruits and vegetables by about 6 percent in the short run and 3 percent in the intermediate term.  During the winter-spring seasons, prices would rise more than 3 percent in the short term and less then 2 percent in the intermediate term.  Imports would increase about 1 percent.

                        I link to the Center for Immigration Studies for this study only because it is the only place to get it free anymore. The study was originally done at the Iowa State University department of Economics.

                        <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                        by superscalar on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:34:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  You can't seriously argue (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        that there are jobs that Americans "won't do". The question is how high will the wages, benefits and working conditions need to go in order to attract authorized workers. But clearly there is some point at which people will do that work.

                        You seem to think that that point is "too high" for those of us who enjoy the benefits of that low-cost labor. I'm telling you that I don't care. If we were talking in the 1850's, you might argue that I'd have to pay more for everything that's imported from the South if we ended slavery. It wouldn't matter to me. It's wrong, and I'm willing to make whatever sacrifices need to be made to make it right.

                  •  You draw a false conclusion from that anecdote (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    I could take you to any number of communities around the country where people would be ecstatic to pick lettuse for $35/hr.  Do you really believe people would turn their nose up at that job because it's beneath them?  It's a ridiculous notion.

                •  As I said above, I'm willing to pay (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TexMex, WillR, orestes1963

                  whatever I must in order for all workers in the United States to be properly authorized. That's a non-issue for me. Canada has almost no illegal immigrants, and yet they seem to get their lawns mowed just fine.

                  And your attitude of "who gives a chit" towards those who are waiting in line and following the rules, while seeking to reward those who did not, is exactly the opposite of how I feel, and I suspect most people feel as well. Lawbreakers should not get a benefit that's not available to law-abiders.

                  •  that's cause we get the Mexican Mennonites to cut (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    And the Hutteries clean most excellently.

                    And Canada wants and needs people!


                    by TexMex on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:52:29 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not illegal immigrants (0+ / 0-)
                      •  Well they're here too (0+ / 0-)

                        because I have seen Hispanic labor type folks a the home depot and Canadian Tire.

                        Canada has a guest worker program that allows immigrants in then the farmer pays for them to go home.  The famer pays their way in and out. They live on his property and must leave at the end of the season.

                        But then Canada has a problem with letting in the Tamil Tigers as refugees.
                        Immigration isn't that big a problem because well.

                        Until recently, Alberta was struggling with a tremendous skilled labor shortage in order to get the oil out of the Tar Sands

                        It's  freaking Canada!!!!!!

                        Big place needs more people and it's freaking COLD!
                        What immigrant from tropical paradise wants to freeze their asses off!
                        Besides Canada has it's own problems.........
                        First Nations People have been really mistreated by Canada.



                        by TexMex on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 04:18:48 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Just because they're Hispanic (0+ / 0-)

                          does not mean that they're illegal. I've researched this and Canada has very low levels of illegal immigration relative to the U.S. So do plenty of other countries that somehow manage to mow their lawns, clean their houses, and wash their dishes. If you have cites that indicate otherwise, I'd love to see them.

                          •  because like I said (0+ / 0-)

                            Canada allows for legal guest workers in from Trinadad and Jamaica.
                            And then pays tfor thier return.
                            Americans famers don't do that.
                            Where did you say you got your research from?
                            Cause I can pick up the phone and call my buddy Honest Ed.

                            Just because they're Hispanic does not mean that they're illegal

                            Now you are cooking with gas!


                            by TexMex on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 04:54:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We have guest workers also, though (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            maybe we're not as generous. I think guest worker programs probably make some sense in limited circumstances. To tell the truth, I really don't care much about what immigration policies we choose to adopt, so long as they're followed. I'm pretty sure that if you were to sit down with people on the left, right and center and exclude maybe the most extreme 10-20% on each side, the differences in proposed policies would be so minor in comparison between the difference between our stated policy and what actually happens as to be totally inconsequential.

                            That's a long way of saying that I'm in favor of any imigration policy, so long as it's followed 90+% of the time, as opposed to the +-50% we have right now.

                      •  I am not so sure. (0+ / 0-)

                        They would get work immediately,If they have good enough English skill.  The problem with getting these folks into the workforce in Canada is that big piece of land called the U.S.  But I have seen Hispanic looking men at the Calgary airport in groups traveling together with their small amount of belongings.
                        Canada makes it easy for guest workers to come here during the growing season and then get flown back.
                        But the growing season is short so the workers just stay on one farm unlike the American workers, who follow the crops as they mature north across the country.

                        As a rare Hispanic where I live, the number of Hispanic looking people looking at tools at my local hardware store has definitely increased.

                        Besides in Socialist Canada you pay very high taxes to provide good government, health care and they NEVER scream about paying high taxes it is part of our duty as Canadians to support our government.
                        Remember the Canadians are the Original Anti Tea-baggers!
                        Loyalists to King George.

                        That tea bag shit doesn't go down well up here.

                        Canada is not anti immigrant, in fact some critics say that Canada put too much emphasis on being multicultural and not enough pride in being Canadian.


                        by TexMex on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 04:32:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, Canada also is a lot more welcoming (0+ / 0-)

                    to immigrants, too.

                    you know, it's just a blog. some of you people need to get the frak over yourselves.

                    by terrypinder on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:20:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Canada has no illegal immigrants? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    longislandny, erush1345

                    So why did they have a 1986 amnesty? For the birds?

                    Now it is true that they have fewer illegal immigrants. Having only one national border, with the USA, probably has something to do with that.

                    •  My wife is Canadian (0+ / 0-)

                      They don't tolerate illegal immigration there. The numbers are measured in the thousands, not millions. Young Canadian college students and grads can and quite often do make $200-300 a day doing agricultural work in the summer.

              •  Controlling the border and deporting "them" won't (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                terrypinder, mariachi mama

                ever happen. It's factually impossible.

                I'd like you to explain how this could conceivably happen?

                •  There is not all encompassing solution (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WillR, erush1345

                  no matter how you break it down. Nobody is proposing to offer citizenship to all illegal immigrants, and nobody is proposing to deport them all.

                  Nobody is saying that we can stop all illegal border crossings and nobody is saying that we can stop none of them.

                  So, yes, it's factually impossible to 100% control the border and deport 100% of illegal immigrants, but so what?

                  The question is what should the policy aim for?

                  The fact is that improved border control has reduced the flow of illegal immigrants in those places where it has been implemented. It's reduced the total flow and it's shifted some of the remaining flow to other more porous sections of the border. As control gets tighter in those places, the total flow will be further reduced. Of course, it will never be entirely eliminated, but a substantial reduction is definitely possible, and if current policies continue, likely.

                  With respect to workplace enforcement, it's the same thing. The E-Verify program has problems, but they're being worked out and more employers are using it. As it gets better, it will become increasingly difficult to work in the U.S. without proper authorization. As the numbers are reduced, it's easier for INS agents to focus on employers who continue to violate. Again, it won't be entirely eliminated, but current trends will severely reduce it over time.

                  Some illegal immigrants who get caught by the INS or who end up in the criminal justice system will be deported, but deportations will never make a huge dent in the total numbers, so I don't see where it's that relevant. Border control and workplace enforcement will reduce the numbers much more substantially.

              •  "waiting in line to come to the US" is myth (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus, TexMex

                There is actually no 'line' for you to wait in. There are myriads of obscure ways to get into the US, but for the vast, vast majority of immigrants, there are realistically only 3 ways:

                1. You have a direct relative who is already a US citizen.
                1. You have an employer saying you have particular  skills that are in shortage in the US (H1b).
                1. You have a big bag of money to invest in the US (Repuert Murdoch famously)

                If you don't fall into one of these categories,  there is simply no 'line' for you to get into. You have no realistic chace of getting into the US legally period.

                •  16 million people applied last year (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Odysseus, WillR

                  for the "diversity" lottery -- 50,000 slots. Millions more are waiting in line for family reunification. The wait for siblings of U.S. citizens for example is 20-25 years. And of course there are millions maybe billions more who would quickly get "in line" if that line was moving a bit faster.

                  •  16million per year going for 50,000 slots (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    That's not a line. That's a lottery. A line would keep moving once you're in it. A lottery is something yo have to keep paying and keep applying every year.

                    also- note that this lottery is only for people who come from "countries with low rates of immigration to the United States."
                    In other words, Mexicans need not apply. Nor people from all the usual places where immigrants are typically: Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.

                    I reiterate- for the vast majority of immigrants into this country- there is no generic 'line' to get into this country. You either meet those specific conditions, or you're SOL.

                    •  Well, the question is if someone applies (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      to come into the country illegally and is rejected they can do one of two things:

                      1. Try again next year, etc.
                      1. Enter the country illegally

                      Why would we reward those who chose Option 2 as against those who chose Option 1?

                      •  There is no option 1 for most of those people (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        That is my whole point. You assume that there is a 'legitimate way' for these people to get into the US. Most of the time there isn't. If they had a legitimate way to immigrate into the US, they wouldn't jeopardize it by coming in here illegally. Having been here out of status is an automatic disqualification for green card (granted- it's not clear how strictly they enforce this clause).

                        •  But people do keep trying to come the legal way (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Odysseus, erush1345

                          I know many of them. My wife's family is Nigerian by way of Canada. I live in Los Angeles. I'm continually surrounded by people who come into the U.S. in a variety of different ways, all of whom have friends and family at home who would like to do the same.

                          It's not that I don't understand why some people come here illegally, but that doesn't make it right, nor does it make it right for us to reward them for it and punish those who chose to stay within the law.

                          It's like the stupid "dry sand" rule from Cuba during the 90's that encouraged people to risk their lives in rubber rafts. We got rid of that because it's just a stupid and wrong way to go about granting entrance to the country. Tacitly allowing illegal immigration, while severely restricting legal immigration, followed by period amnesties is also a stupid and wrong way to form an immigration policy.

                •  You need to do some reading (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TexMex, WillR, erush1345

                  There are schedules of the number of immigrants from each country who are admitted to the US each year.  For some countries, the wait is relatively short.  For others, it can be a number of years before your number comes up.  But there is most definitely a list.

                  Furthermore, an H1B visa is just that, a visa.  It is not the equivalent of citizenship.  

                  •  They Are Right Here (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Odysseus, erush1345

                    Yearbook of Immigration Statistics

                    There is actually no 'line' for you to wait in

                    There is some truth to this statement. U.S. immigration law is family based.

                    US Embassy in Jordan

                    Family First Preference (F1) - Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and their minor children, if any.

                    Family Second Preference (F2) - Spouses, minor unmarried children and unmarried sons and daughters (age 21 or older) of lawful permanent residents.

                    Family Third Preference (F3) - Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and minor children.

                    Family Fourth Preference (F4) - Brothers and sisters of United States citizens and their spouses and minor children provided the U.S. citizen is at least 21 years of age.

                    The primary beneficiary of U.S. immigration policy for the past twenty years has been Mexico. The majority of all illegal immigrants is also from Mexico.

                    <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                    by superscalar on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:07:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  If you have no relatives in the US, then (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    there is no line for you to wait in at all. This is the central misunderstanding most people have. They think there is some kind of generic line that anyone can get in. When in fact only very specific groups of people can get into that line. Other people are plain SOL.

              •  yes, you can believe that if you want (0+ / 0-)

                but those people who are here illegally don't leave. they're never leaving. that number will only lessen if they are given a clear path to becoming legal.

                you know, it's just a blog. some of you people need to get the frak over yourselves.

                by terrypinder on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:20:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You Can Believe This If You Want (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Odysseus, pragprogress

                  but those people who are here illegally don't leave. they're never leaving

                  But It's Not True.

                  Illegal immigrants are leaving. In fact they're leaving in record numbers. The majority of illegal immigrants have been in the U.S. for less than five or six years.

                  <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                  by superscalar on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:37:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  So was the public option and many (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    other components of the HCR bill but that didn't  stop democratic politicians from crapping themselves with joy at the thought of scuttling almost all of them and giving insurers millions of new subsidized customers to abuse instead.

    It also didn't stop certain people from cheering on the Republican Health Insurance Industry Welfare bill either, because the legislative/political victory for "democrats" was far more important.

    I expect little more than the same kind of shafting and kabuki on this issue.

  •  I'd like to see... (3+ / 0-)

    some state by state polling numbers.

    •  and support for reform (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      doesn't necessarily mean everyone wants the same thing, so types of reform should be proposed in questioning as well...that was evident in the HCR debate when small majority did not favor the bill but favored the public option...components of a bill can be polled as well

      A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step

      by uclabruin on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:31:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yep... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        there was no question about "amnesty" in this poll.

        Plus this issue tends to carry the bait and switch where people who oppose illegal immigration are said to oppose all immigration. It's like the left's answer to the right painting those who are pro-choice as being pro-abortion. Two very different things in both cases.

  •  any word on the dream act? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TexMex, mariachi mama, sable

    and path to legalization for college students/grads?

    A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step

    by uclabruin on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:30:00 AM PDT

  •  There shouldn't be an English requirement... (7+ / 0-)

    beyond what already exists for citizenship applications which is a requirement from which you can be exempted if you're 50+ and have been resident for a certain number of years or if you are learning impaired. I think even that's too much, but it certainly shouldn't be made any more stringent in the immigration reform law.

    •  how is this even an issue (4+ / 0-)

      to people? that the language someone speaks should determine their fitness for citizenship...freakin americans

      A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step

      by uclabruin on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:33:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TexMex's something to assuage the 'concerns' of the xenophobes.

        "Grow up Democrats. Face the music. Do it alone. You're the majority." -- Rachel Maddow

        by cybrestrike on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:36:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  dear bruin (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jay C, Rich in PA, erush1345

        In how many other first world countries can you become a citizen without demonstrating proficiency in the official language? I don't know the answer, but I would guess it is a small single digit number approaching zero. It would be interesting to know however.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:36:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  perhaps but (0+ / 0-)

          as a practical matter, how important is it?

          A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step

          by uclabruin on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:37:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think it is very important (5+ / 0-)

            One of the reasons our melting pot has succeeded is that by the second generation ethnic differences are blurred and a important part of that is language. All of my grandparents were immigrants who came to the US as adults. They settled in a community that was highly concentrated with residents from their country of origin. While they spoke to my parents in their native language, they quickly learned English and made sure that their children were bilingual. My grandparents only spoke English to me and my cousins, which they did without an accent. They clearly understood that proficiency was in English was an essential skill for economic advancement and the future of their family.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:49:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  100 years ago... (4+ / 0-)

              ...hundreds of thousands of Americans went to German-only elementary schools.  German language papers thrived.  The idea that once upon a time immigrants fell over themselves to immediately learn English is nothing more than a myth.  Remember Lawrence Welk?  He grew up in North Dakota and didn't learn English until his late teens.

              Somehow, the Republic survived...

            •  Which is why this is racist. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bay of arizona, buddabelly, sable

              One of the reasons our melting pot has succeeded is that by the second generation ethnic differences are blurred and a important part of that is language.

              Your melting pot may have succeeded but I grew up in a neighborhood politically carved out to include Mexicans and Mexican Americans who were not allowed to buy else where. Great to have the family nearby, but difficult to learn proper English when your schools are  the poorest, taught by some well meaning people and lots of perverts and failed incompetent educators because we couldn't afford better pay.
              Besides, I loved being able to spend time with my Nana and that meant speaking to my Grandma in Spanish.
              Usually two languages should be a great thing, but we also had only a Monday only book mobile service in our neigborhood, but hey Mexican's can't read so why bother building a library. We couldn't afford a library till way after I graduated for high school.
              Every block to successfully learn English was put in place, while being forced to live in a gerrymandered school district with the little source of funding from the picked pockets of the poor in an oil rich state.


              1989 - The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Third Court of Appeals and sustained the original ruling of the District Court by Judge Clark. The justices ruled that the Texas funding system violated “fiscal neutrality and required the state to provide the public school students of Texas sustainable equal access to educational revenues.

              1990 - In June, the Texas Legislature began a special session to address the educational funding system. After four special sessions and public outcry, Senate Bill 1 was passed. In September, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the new funding formula was unconstitutional.

              1991 - In January, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled unanimously in upholding the district courts unconstitutional ruling on the Senate Bill 1 funding formula. It declared that the plan did not address the deficiencies noted in Edgewood I.

              Thereafter, the property poor districts filed for a rehearing to overrule the 1931 Love v. City of Dallas decision, stating that local property taxes could not be used to educate students outside the district. Considered the Edgewood II decision, The court refused to overrule Love, stating that tax base consolidation could be achieved through the creation of new districts.

              During this time, property-rich districts filed a brief asking the court to clarify whether unequalized local enrichment was still possible under the state constitution. Five of the justices agreed that local school districts might supplement education resources if the local property owners agree to pay an additional property tax.

              1992 - In January, the Texas Supreme Court declared Senate Bill 351 unconstitutional in the Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD v. Edgewood ISD case, considered Edgewood III. The problem was that the county education districts violated constitutional provisions requiring local voter approval of local property taxes and prohibiting a state property tax.

              1993 - The legislature passed Senate Bill 7. The law required school districts above a certain wealth level by transferring wealth to poorer school districts. This was considered the “Robinhood” plan.

              1994 - The Texas Supreme Court upheld Senate Bill 7 as constitutional.

              look at these nuts


              by TexMex on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:10:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Puerto Ricans are born american (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bay of arizona

          I'm not aware of any Puerto Ricans being forced to 'demonstrate proficiency in the official language'

      •  Well, I certainly want (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jay C, CParis, CoyoteMarti, erush1345

        at least a high enough comprehension level to be required to drive, for instance, so that you're not a danger to others on the road because you can't read the signs.

        Not all signs are just 'stop'.  Some are more complicated, and assume the drivers can comprehend.

        Citizenship is different, of course, and I'd probably have to use more abstract examples to come up with similar dangers, but in general, countries tend to have only 1-2 dominant languages, simply because it makes things easier for the country.  Signs and official documents can all be in one language; you don't have to worry about things being translated improperly, etc.

        I'd expect no less if I emigrated to a country that doesn't speak English.  And no, that's not because I'm a 'xenophobe'.

        I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell

        by Ezekial 23 20 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:52:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Language unites people... (4+ / 0-)

        ..or it did prior to being demonized.

      •  you need to have a basic understanding (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        of English as it is the dominant language and in some states, the official language. Now given that many Americans mangle the language, perhaps it doesn't need to be much more then that.

        you know, it's just a blog. some of you people need to get the frak over yourselves.

        by terrypinder on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:59:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Seriously, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          terrypinder, MistaBling

          If English were the official language of the US, how did George Bush ever  get elected?

          TexMex:  I really appreciate your comments, because they mirror those of many of my friends here in Arizona.  People who are born into the "system" may not understand just why Mexicans, blacks, native Americans and others haven't had all the advantages of good schools, libraries, and educational experiences.  Sort of an "Ozzie and Harriett" 1950's mentality that assumes that others have access to all these things, just because I do.

          I'm recommending your comments.

    •  For better or for worse (11+ / 0-)

      it's part of the reason CIR polls so well with independents and Republicans. And in any case, economic success in this country depends in large part on speaking the dominant language, English.

      It's a compromise I'm willing to make, and one that is genuinely in the best interests of immigrants.

      (And remember, I've lived the immigrant experience, arriving in this country speaking very little English at the age of 9.)

      •  as long as it is framed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ezekial 23 20

        as a compromise, that could help the debate, rather than it being a given and a necessity

        A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step

        by uclabruin on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:39:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well so you know (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, mariachi mama

        I am a second generation American whose first language was Spanish. Both my parents went to  American high schools and spoke English.
        How did that happen?
        Housing segregation.
        Put a circle around the colonias in San antonio call it a school district and don' t let them buy homes anywhere else, expect them to work for others, then return to the colonia.

        Segregation is not a way to unifiy a country.
        Segregate people then accuse them for not learning English.
        For me to get my education was a massive effort.
        Many walks to the mobile library to learn about the things my teachers couldn't teach because they were too loaded with 40 plus kids in class and many with poor English skills.  With those teachers always trying to reach the slowest most desperate kids, meant the brightest minds either self educated themselves or turned to malice and mischief.


        by TexMex on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:19:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There must be an exception for the elderly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, erush1345

        It's one thing for a 9 year old to learn a new language, but quite another thing for someone above the age of 40 or 50. Especially if you came from a culture that has no connection to the Latin language family.

      •  It is likely helping with the polling... (0+ / 0-)

        I agree, but forgive me as I show off some of the new language skills I've acquired from my recent purchase of Rosetta Stone, Glenbeckistani edition:

        We don't need the Government coming into our homes and our communities and our places of business and telling us what language to speak. Let the free marketplace of languages determine what languages people speak in this country as it always has. Our Founding Fathers knew best, when they in their wisdom did not establish any official language for this new country. They did this so people like Martin Van Buren, the first American-born President, whose parents spoke Dutch and who himself spoke English as a second language, could rise to heights he may not have achieved in the country of his ancestry. They did this knowing that Englishmen made up less than half of the population of the fledgling Country (according to the 1790 Census) and even among those who counted as the full five fifths of a person, 20%+ were not English (or Scottish or Irish or Welsh) speakers.

        This is not England. This is America. Our Founding Fathers risked everything to fight the tyranny of England. Why then should we disregard their sacrifice by mandating that everyone speak the language of England?!

        English has done just fine in achieving dominant market share without a Government bailout. According to the 2000 Census 90% of the Country speaks English well. That is way up by the way from what it was in 1910 when they started asking the question. Friends, you must resist these oppressive measures. They could mean the end of America as we know it.

    •  Huh? There is NO official language in the USA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and besides, there are places in the US where people are born citizens and do not speak English and most go through out their lives never learning to speak English.

    •  Agreed. A nonsensical requirement (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I thought this was a free conutry. Also- Puerto Ricans are american by birth, and they speak spanish.

  •  The bottom line on immigration (4+ / 0-)

    is to find a system that works within the natural migration of labor between two massive populations - the US (3rd most populous country on earth) and Mexico/Central America (ranking 11th in the world  for mexico alone). Migration from overseas makes up a much smaller number due to the expense and tighter border controls that are possible in airports.

    People naturally migrate. We have been doing it for millions of years. Common sense tells us that legalization and more proactive policies for labor migration, combined with foreign aid to Mexico/CA, could equalize the situation, and put less pressure on people to migrate here permanently, or make it not matter so much if they do.

    As I've said here before, those who focus on individual immigrants as "lawbreakers" are not having an honest discussion. They're avoiding the big picture issue that will not go away, no matter what fantasies of mass deportation they may have.

  •  I do not think "reform" (5+ / 0-)

    means what you think it means to many, many people.  Not all of those people want amnesty or even easier immigration.  Many of those people want illegal immigration stopped, completely.

  •  But we always lose the media war (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, Southside

    Health care reform polled very well leading into the whole debate.  Even specific parts of a potential health care reform bill polled well before the debate.  By the time it was all said and done, the debate was so twisted by the right, with the lapdog media following right behind, that the health care reform bill that passed now polls negatively.  Or, at least the polls that the media constantly tout show the reform to be more unpopular than popular.  So, these polls showing the idea of immigration reform being favored by about 10 points don't necessarily mean it will be a political winner.

    That said, I still I hope they do it.

    The smartest thing you'll read todayTM.

    by TheC on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:35:17 AM PDT

  •  The issue is not if it is the right thing... (0+ / 0-)

    to do, but does this very weak Democratic Leadership have the balls to do it.  We can start the process now and wrap it up after the election and before XMAS break.  If you want one more big ticket item, this is it.

  •  I support 'amnesty' as it is the only way to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Norm in Chicago

    address immigrant problems from the 1980s, but going forward I think we need to greatly reduce foreign immigration into the US and go back pre-1967.
    It's the only way to raise wages for US workers who have to compete with foreign-born, especially as unions are so weak.
    The one area we should have some slack is for our neighbors Mexico, Canada as they need jobs for their people, so a guest worker program for them. Guest workers are different enough so they won't compete too much with native-born.

  •  Hmmmm... (4+ / 0-)

    Sorta depends on what "comprehensive immigration reform" means in the mind of the person being asked about it, does it not?

    Not the same for Democrats and Republicans, I suspect. If you asked the question "Do you support comprehensive immigration reform that _________? [fill in the blank]", I suspect these numbers would look quite a bit different.

    New .sig: It's "EClectablog", not "Electablog".
    Become an Eclectablog Facebook Fan!

    by Eclectablog on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:38:24 AM PDT

  •  All well and good, and I really do believe you, (4+ / 0-)

    but can you get an immigration bill through before the election without the topic of porous borders being raised, and without the impact on jobs making some very ugly noise?

    By all means, pass a bill. We should have eliminated the ugly underground ghetto into which illegal workers have been herded years ago.  It tarnishes us as a nation. Let France have its immigrant underclass. That is not the American way.

    But --

    An election is months away and jobs are a hot topic.

    Just sayin'.

    Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

    by dinotrac on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:39:25 AM PDT

    •  perhaps if the case is made (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that the economy would be be pretty negatively "affected" by the exodus of 12 million immigrants

      A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step

      by uclabruin on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:42:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which matters why? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thethinveil, erush1345

        I don't think anybody's suggesting we kick them out.

        But, for the sake of argument, a some people might see that as a lot of jobs opening up.

        Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

        by dinotrac on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:46:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, Dinotrac (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bay of arizona, dinotrac

          many people here in Arizona and across the country are suggesting exactly that.  As to the jobs opening up, the temperature during the summer in AZ hovers around 110-115 degrees.  Not exactly balmy, but most of us here have learned to live with it.  Assume that 100,000 jobs became available because we deported Mexican workers.  Do you want to work here in that kind of heat?  Most of those jobs are outside. Didn't think so.

          •  You assume too much too quickly. (4+ / 0-)

            A lot of immigrants worked New Orleans as roofers, carpenters, electricians, and all kinds of cool stuff.

            If you went looking around where I live (Illinois), Michigan, Ohio and other places, I'll bet you could find a lot of people willing to take those jobs.

            Your disdain for American workers is odd when you consider the long association of the Democratic party with the labor movement.

            Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

            by dinotrac on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:33:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Please (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bay of arizona, dinotrac

              I have no disdain for American workers.  I am a lifelong Democrat and union member (for over 50 years).  But I live here in AZ, and half this state empties out around the first of May, when everybody goes home to Minnesota, Illinois and the cooler climes of the North.

              In a way, you validated what I just said.  "A lot of immigrants worked New Orleans".  Immigrants.  And the documentation is there to show that they were paid sub-par wages, discriminated against even as they were helping to rebuild the city.  The jobs that would become available here are not highly paid professional jobs in air-conditioned offices.  

              I would love to see more jobs staying right here in the US.  I want to see more manufacturing, more basic production.  I want jobs that can't be outsourced.  Let's build our own solar panels, wind generators.  Let's fix our streets and bridges.  Let's upgrade our homes, and let's hire those workers living in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Indiana.  Sign me up.  But unless you've been here in Arizona during the summer, don't think people are going to come flocking here in droves for $8 an hour jobs that won't even pay the rent (or air conditioning) in their overpriced rental housing.

              Unemployment here is at 9.6%.  Even the illegals can't find work, and many are leaving on their own.  Until we solve some of these problems, we're only putting a band-aid on a wound that needs a tourniquet.

              •  Well how do you like that? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                We actually end up at about the same place:

                Unemployment here is at 9.6%.  Even the illegals can't find work, and many are leaving on their own.  Until we solve some of these problems, we're only putting a band-aid on a wound that needs a tourniquet.

                Jobs and immigration DO go together and some of those $8 an hour jobs might pay a whole lot better (as you note, a lot of the folks in New Orleans were cheated not only out of fair wages, but even out of the wages they agreed to because they weren't in a good legal position to complain) if there weren't an eager supply of people willing to work cheap.

                Most of the people coming into the country are the kind of people we should want as citizens -- family-oriented, hard-working people. That's the raw material of a strong economy and of strong communities.

                Like I said in an earlier post, I'm all for fixing the mess, but...just like a shotgun, it's going to have a kick.


                Arizona may get hotter than Texas, but it doesn't have the humidity.  I managed Texas for ten years, might be able to survive Arizona.

                Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

                by dinotrac on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:11:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  and I didn't think we were really that far apart.  Thankfully, we don't have the humidity.  Every time I see stories of New Yorkers dropping on the streets in 100 degree weather, I wonder if they just played tennis too long.  That's just a nice day here.

                  Thanks for the dialogue!

                  •  ;0) Thank you, too...and an aside (0+ / 0-)

                    Before I moved to rejoin my family in Texas MANY years ago, there was a story in the news about a heat wave of I don't know how many consecutive days above 100 in the Dallas area (where my mother lives).

                    My wife of the time kept shaking her head and wondering how people could live there, but what really got her was the day after the heat wave broke.

                    Reporters were out at White Rock Lake show all manner of people running, skating, biking, having a great time on a day when the temperature only hit 98.


                    Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

                    by dinotrac on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:10:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Just did a little looking around... (0+ / 0-)

            Did you know that Arizona has lost 265,000 jobs, most of them in construction (much of that is outside work, btw).

            Folks from other states might not even get a crack at some of those 100,000 jobs that might be vacated if immigrants were actually sent packing.

            As I said, I don't advocate that. Just responding to your point.

            Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

            by dinotrac on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:41:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

              and construction jobs pay more here.  But there aren't any of those jobs right now.  You're right.  265,000 jobs lost.  However, those 100,000 jobs aren't available, because they come from the 265,000.  A large majority of Mexicans working here worked in construction (Phoenix area), but they lost their jobs too.  There are no jobs in that field to "have a crack at".  Actually, the Mexicans here lost jobs much higher proportionally than did other workers.

  •  Those questions are pretty generic overall. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, thethinveil

    Just because 67% of Republicans favor 'immigration reform' doesn't mean they agree with us on what 'reform' should mean.

    41% think we should have decreased immigration.  You can bet there's huge overlap between that number and the number of Repubs in favor of 'reform'.  They just think 'reform' means we should clamp down even harder on our borders.

    So you can bet once 'reform' gets more expressly explained to be increasing the ease of immigration, those Republican numbers will again turn to 'keep them thar furriners out!  Theyz stealin er jerbs!'

    I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:40:12 AM PDT

  •  Hmmm . . . you seem to have (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lobbygow, Jay C, The Dead Man, erush1345

    conveniently left out the next question in the CBS/NYT poll which was:

    How serious a problem do you think the issue of illegal immigration is for the country right now?

    83% thought it was a "serious problem", with 60% in the "very serious" category.

    I wonder how many of that group are going to agree with rewarding those who contributed to this "serious problem" with legalization?

  •  My arguement over immigration reform (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    didn't necessarily have to deal with support for immigration reform itself, it had to do with two things:

    1. doing immigration reform instead of other things like...fixing the economy
    1. The fact that we only have about 6 months before the election, not counting recesses.
    •  You'd think Congress can do more than one thing (0+ / 0-)

      at once.

      •  But the Senate cannot even do 1 thing at a time (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        We have 4 big issues: Financial reform, jobs, green economy/clean air, immigration.  The first 2 are key to the outcome of Nov 2010.  Immigration is not.

        I am a nativist, and that is a progressive position.

        by numberzguy on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:59:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't think having latino support is key (3+ / 0-)

          to the outcome of this year's election? Okay! Let's see how that works out in FL, NV, AZ, NM, PA, OH and NC.

          •  Doing projects that help everyone instead (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Norm in Chicago, erush1345

            of a particular segment... yeah, that's worthwhile.

            That is unless illegal immigrants are immune to the effects of climate, wall street and teabaggers.

            Drill, Barry, Drill. How Republican of you.

            by The Dead Man on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:36:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  My father in law is latino and is oppossed (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WillR, erush1345

            He works in a factory and he knows that the more immigration is allowed, the easier it is for his employer to fire him and replace him with someone more desperate and willing to work for peanuts.

            My latino father in law understands that he won't be able to earn a living wage in a country flooded by cheap labor.  None of us can.

            You think every latino in America supports turning this country into a 3rd world nation that is overpopulated with crushing poverty?

          •  Latino support now and evermore (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bay of arizona

            Bush and Rove were doing their best to try to capture this vote for Republicans, forevermore. They obviously noted that this community will be increasingly significant in terms of electoral results.

            Senate Republicans were unbelievably short-sighted were they chose to treat Justice Sotomayor with such disdain.

            Democrats should not take this community, or any other community concerned about immigration, for granted.

            Okay, so no one can promise eternal support. But Democrats should treat the Latino and other communities with some respect. If we agree that immigration reform--real immigration reform--is required, let's get this show on the road.

            The Obama Administration is big enough, and competent enough, to be working on more than one important issue at a time. The big issues might have to proceed through Congress one-by-one, but the groundwork should be well underway.

  •  Much of the rightwing playbook (0+ / 0-)

    is being taken up by supposed "Democrats". Just check the rec list.

    I did campaign on the public option, and I'm proud of it! Corporat Democrats will not get my vote, hence I will not vote.

    by Jazzenterprises on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:48:37 AM PDT

  •  We need more young Americans. More imigration (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    would be better for America. When people talk about hard choices for social security they are talking about cutting social security or raising taxes on the non rich or non big business. Another choice is more legal immigration. Legal status for those already here would also give more young people the chance to earn more and pay more taxes. The baby boom was a problem for social security. We need to smooth out that population curve with more young Americans. Hard choices.

    •  I don't think that's true... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rich in PA, Norm in Chicago

      We have already 309 million people and counting. Just how many more people do we need? We are projected to hit half a billion in 30 years already. We do not need more people. Social Security can be saved with a simple increase in the income threshold that is taxed.

      More people means more cars on the road, more services being used, more carbon emissions, more overcrowded schools, more competition for jobs in a deindustrialized economy. We do not need more people, by immigration or by natural birth. We need to stop the massive population climb.

      "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

      by michael1104 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:58:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The US is sparsely populated compared with (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, erush1345, We Won

        other first world countries. If you've lived in the UK, europe, or anywhere in Asia, you'll realize that the US is actually mostly empty. In some places you can drive 5 hours between gas stations. Try that in europe and you've already crossed two national borders.

        •  Good point. I'm not willing to take down the sign (0+ / 0-)
        •  that's because there (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          are so many areas that are inhospitable, and a huge chunk on that empty land out west is national parks.

          Our urban centers are NOT sparsely populated. And the more people this country fills up with, the more those people will be in the urban populated areas.

          "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

          by michael1104 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:55:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  except compared to most nations (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        We Won

        we just about barely replace our population. Immigrants have large families, but the 2nd generation tends not to.

        you know, it's just a blog. some of you people need to get the frak over yourselves.

        by terrypinder on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:01:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Then you need even more to pay for them (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      michael1104, erush1345

      It's a ponzi scheme, using the young to pay for the retirement of the old.  If we increase immigration, eventually they will grow old, and require even more people coming up behind them to support them.

      That will cause the US population to boom.  Everyone will try to live the American dream, and that will cause massive increases in energy consumption, C02 emmissions, development of farmland and wilderness areas, increased extinctions, more polution, more, more, more.

      Sorry, another ponzi scheme that simply passes the buck down the road is not the solution.

      •  Sustainable =/= Ponzi scheme (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, We Won

        The US has had BELOW REPLACEMENT birth rates since the 70's. The only reason it just barely crept back up to replacement level in the last 3 years or so is because of the hispanic population. The only reason the US population is growing at all is because of immigration. If you even want a sustained population, you'll need immigrants.

        I agree with you about americans and consumption. That is a problem we all have to deal with. Let's not blame that on immigration.

  •  Unlike other issues, you can't ignore millions (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    True North, Odysseus, bay of arizona

    of people marching and protesting.

    What I mean is that there may be more pressing issues, but those issues won't have millions of people marching and protesting and boycotting all over the country.

    The immigration movement isn't just a bunch of "illegals". It's media, young people, business, immigrants and their families.

    Like it or not, immigration supporters will make this a front page issue this year. Congress and the President better be prepared to pass legislation.

    •  When they are not citizens it's easy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WillR, erush1345

      to turn your back. They don't pull a lever in November.

      If we all just stopped voting would they all just go away?

      by longislandny on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:04:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Won't be just non-citizens (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Many faith based groups, labor, civil rights and voting citizens are also involved. Plus, there's lots of pressure from businesses, universities and medical institutions to get this fixed, too.

        I'd imagine the number of immigrant citizens and U.S. born children of immigrants vastly outweighs the number of non-citizen immigrants.

  •  So why did nothing get done in 2007? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Medina Mahmoud, erush1345

    You had a Republican president pushing for it, a Democratic majority in favor, street protests galore, and a pre-depression economy. And yet? Nothing happened, it was extremely difficult to do.

    Keep fooling yourself that this can be done this year Markos. It's not gonna happen.

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

    by michael1104 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:50:56 AM PDT

    •  Health care reform was more difficult (0+ / 0-)

      and somehow that was done.

      •  I think what michael1104 is trying to say is.... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jay C, burlydee, Rich in PA

        There was such a large movement and such loud voices for immigration reform a couple of years back.  Why was nothing done?  Wouldn't you have expected a president that supported immigration reform with a Democratic majority along with all of the voices calling for reform to have been able to do something about it?  Why didn't they?

        •  It wasn't so much the ISSUE of "reform" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mariachi mama, thethinveil

          back in '07, but the details of just what such "reform" would consist of. Going right-to-left we had:

          A) A loud and well-message-disciplined contingent of "nativist" wingers (mainly Republican) avid for a solely exclusionary/punitive approach.

          B) A larger contingent of GOP mainly concerned with NOT disrupting the labor policies of their business-oriented "base".

          C) The Bush Administration; trying to straddle the fence with a minimally-popular "guest worker" program.

          D) A large contingent of Democrats trying to balance employer-sanctions, graduated-legalization, and ending (or throttling back) of overt exploitation, and

          E) The Noisy Left, agitating for, fundamentally, full amnesty, open borders and vigorous wage-enforcement.

          Unfortunately, few of these groups (especially the "nativists") were prone to compromise their position, so ultimately, nothing got done. Which was just fine with a lot of folks, as the status quo can be quite profitable - the "base" for Group B above isn't entirely Republican by a long shot.

          •  And what's different about it this time? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jay C

            This is something that doesn't have either the GOP or Democrats united.  Unlike health care reform, for the most part both ends were banded and had a common idea on what they wanted.  I think that immigration reform is far different.  It's not a partisan issue.  There are many, many ideas for it from all sides.  I simply don't see what's going to be different this time around.  Everybody has been focusing on different issues, especially the economy, these past couple of years.  I think that's why you haven't heard a lot of various opinions about immigration reform.  But if they decide to make this their next big issue to focus on, all of those people you just mentioned will come back out.

          •  Sorry, I meant to say... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jay C, erush1345

            This is something that doesn't have either the GOP or Democrats united.  Unlike health care reform, for the most part both ends were banded and had a common idea on what they wanted.

            That's what I had previously written, but it doesn't sound like what I meant to say.

            Democrats were united on their end and had a common idea as a group.  And Republicans were united on their end and had a common idea as a group.  And those are both in reference to health care reform.  On immigration reform, the Democrats aren't united on their end and the Republicans aren't united on their end.  Hope that makes a bit more sense!

            •  What's different this time? (0+ / 0-)

              On the one had: not much: the various lobbies I outlined above are still around: if anything, the "nativist" opposition has gotten louder and shriller, and the fundamental issue of maintaining a large force of low-wage "undocumented" labor is still (IMO) the main stumbling block.

              The big difference today, I think, is That Man in The White House. It just may be the cynic in me, but I have always thought that GW Bush clung to his promotion of an unpopular "compromise" policy as a solution to the "immigration question" for the main purpose of derailing any real reform (as the status quo is profitable for the GOP's corporate/corporatist/business interests.) Obama, I think, will take a different approach. If he is serious (still to be seen)  about CIR, he will probably get the House (or Senate) to cobble together a bill containing all or most of the most-popular ideas (as per Markos's list) - and cheerlead from the sidelines. And then hope to avoid the "partisanship" trap, since the WH must know that they will never have the xenophobes and/or Teabaggers on board.

              And hopefully some bill will pass.

    •  Democrats want the spoils for themselves. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You can't play the "Republicans hate Latinos" card if you had the bill signed by a Republican.

  •  Combine immigration reform with Soc. Sec. reform (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Require that employers and immigrants here "illegally" pay a civil penalty as part of the social security withholding from paychecks (say 5% over what is already withheld).  The "penalty" language neuters the "rewarding illegal conduct" argument, while giving an incentive to immigrants to become citizens (in order to collect social security) and helping Social Security remain solvent.

    No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.

    by Magster on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:51:48 AM PDT

    •  They're not lacking an incentive (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bay of arizona

      Magster, I'm curious about this comment: "The "penalty" language neuters the "rewarding illegal conduct" argument, while giving an incentive to immigrants to become citizens (in order to collect social security)..."

      Is it your impression that people choose to live and work illegally in the United States because they just don't see any good reason to gain legal status and eventually apply for citizenship?

      The ones I know of desperately want legal status, but cannot get it.

      In at least one case, the person apparently got really bad advice from someone who was supposed to be an expert in immigration law. Maybe he had a chance at one point, but his lawyer blew it for him.

      For the most part, this fellow maintains a very quiet, low-profile, life, and tries not to come to the attention of immigration authorities.

      One of the problems with the immigration system in most countries, including the U.S., is that the immigrations rules and regulations are so complex that an ordinary person cannot begin to understand how the rules apply in their own case. If they turn to a lawyer whose fees they can afford--a lawyer who claims to be an expert on immigration law--they may not only not be helped, but may actually be hurt as a result of getting that advice.

    •  Agreed- have them 'buy in' to the system (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      My thinking is - having every illegal immigrant pay double the SS contribution for a period of 5 years. Then they get their green cards.

  •  Ed Rendell is on to something (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bay of arizona, fou

    "I don't think we have a battle for our soul -- I think we have lost our soul," he said. "We have been cowed into [sic] stop talking about the things that made us Democrats in the first place; that we believe the government can and should make a difference in people's lives; that we can protect the most vulnerable in our society; that we can, in fact, give opportunities to people who haven't had it. And that government can be an important catalyst -- they can't do it by itself -- but they can be a catalyst for growth."

    That's what we believe in. But [Republicans] have us cowering behind the shower curtains," he concluded.

    The Huffington Post approached Rendell after the affair and asked him to elaborate on what, exactly, he meant by saying the Democratic Party is soulless.

    "We have been out-spun and we are scared," he said. "And when you are scared, you can do one of two things: you can circle the wagons and hide inside or under the wagon, or you can get out and fight for what you believe in. I think we are starting -- President Obama started when he went to the Republican caucus -- to fight back and for what we believe in. If we do that, I think our losses will be much less [in 2010] than what anybody suspects."

    Republicans drove the country into a ditch, and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck. - Jim Cornette

    by justmy2 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:55:56 AM PDT

    •  I love Ed but he doesn't walk the walk (0+ / 0-)

      He wants Dems to be fighters nationally but here in PA he's never there to hold up our side of the debate.

      When your dream comes true, you're out one dream --The Nields

      by Rich in PA on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:44:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rendell is from the Biden school (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        toss out all of the good, populist rhetoric, but when it comes time to stand up, they scamper away.  Yeah, Ed, if the party is so soulless where is your fortitude?  Supporting Specter for senate?  Yeah, there's some real Democratic bravery!

  •  if there is strong republican support for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Immigration reform then WHY is John McCain trying to out Tancredo, Tancredo?   Do only the most anti reform teabaggers vote in the gop primaries in AZ?

    "We have passed beyond the absurd, our position is absolutely preposterous" - Ron Tavel

    by KnotIookin on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:56:31 AM PDT

    •  Puddles? (0+ / 0-)

      McCain has lost his mind.  Plus, he has Hayworth breathing down his neck although I doubt he's aware of it.  I'm sure his minders tell him what to say.  It's sad really.

      Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

      by fou on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:00:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Were you laid off 4 H-1B-respond to this post n/t (0+ / 0-)

    I am a nativist, and that is a progressive position.

    by numberzguy on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:57:34 AM PDT

  •  It's also an issue of practicality (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    True North

    There simply aren't going to be 15 million deportations.  There is no way of doing so, and even attempting such a thing would cost far more than having illegals here in the first place (which, overall, is pretty much a wash anyway).

  •  What makes this conversation difficult (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    True North, bay of arizona

    is that most people only think of Mexican or Hispanic people when the hear the words "illegals".  Government figures estimate around 12 million undocumented aliens in the United States.  Only about 55% of these are Hispanic or Mexican, still a large amount.  Others come from nations all over the world, on student visas, and for a variety of reasons decide to stay.

    Here in Arizona the Governor is getting ready to sign the toughest anti-immigration bill in the country.  Because of it's blatant discriminatory attributes, the chances that it will be challenged in court and declared unconstitutional are virtually 100%.  

    This is not admitting that there is not a problem, but that this is not the way to solve it.  Rounding up 6 million Mexican aliens and deporting them (which may not be possible or desirable) would be extremely expensive and involve intrusive and illegal violations of the US Constitution.  

    In addition, those who advocate deportation seem to believe that once we get them across the border (only the Mexicans, of course) then our problems are solved.  Several misconceptions are involved here. First, the vast majority of Mexican aliens pay taxes.  By that I mean federal income tax, state income tax, sales tax, property tax, fuel tax, etc.; in other words, all the same taxes we all pay.  Although some employers pay under the table, most won't take the risk.  As an employer, I collect income taxes, SS, and state taxes before I even cut a check.  I'm required by law to deposit these in a special account once a week.  Why would I risk my business when I gain nothing from it?  The only thing I wouldn't have to pay would be 6.5% Social Security, and that's not worth it.  If they are illegals they probably don't file income taxes, which means the money I deposited goes into the general Treasury, and is not returned.  Same with SSI.  The US government annually banks billions of dollars in non-refunded taxes.

    Second, there is no fence high enough, or long enough, to stop people from coming to this country.  If they can't go over it, or around it, they'll go under it.  Hundreds die in the Arizona desert every year just to find a job that can support their families in Mexico, a job that in most cases most Americans won't do.

    There are solutions, good ones.  But political posturing is getting in the way of getting things done.  Immigration in Arizona is all about Mexicans, even though a report on local television last night made the point that the illegals were not costing Arizonans jobs.  Perception is everything, and while what you have been told is about 90% wrong (think FOX News), it's what you believe that is defining the argument.

    •  I hate this lie (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, thethinveil, erush1345

      "jobs that Americans won't do."  That is simply B.S.  Try amending to:  Americans won't do at such a cheap price, under intolerable conditions, and without worker protections.  Then you'll understand the problem.  And shame on those who think it's okay to take advantage of undocumenteds in that manner (which is implicit in the notion that Americans won't do those jobs).

  •  It comes down to the details (4+ / 0-)

    Everyone is in favor of "immigration reform" if it means what they want it to mean, which is anything from blanket amnesty to mass deportations.

    The specific proposal questions are more interesting. Once the proposals on how we, for instance, "Secure the border" come out, we'll probably see very different poll numbers.

    This is an issue that crosses party lines and geographies.  I'm sure we'll see both bipartisan support and opposition to any substantive bill.

    Progressive -> Progress; Conservative -> Con

    by nightsweat on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:00:20 AM PDT

    •  That's what sets this issue apart from the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      others.  On one side, you have plenty of Democrats and Republicans that believe in some sort of pathway to citizenship.  On the other side, you have plenty of Democrats and Republicans that believe "rewarding" those that have violated laws is not right.  It would be interesting to see poll numbers that don't simply reflect whether or not people want to see immigration reform happen...more specific questions about immigration reform would be a lot more helpful to get an idea on where the nation as a whole might stand.

  •  I think the support is keyed strictly to more (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    midwestblue, erush1345

    secure borders.  And you and I know that's not going to happen because for most the will is not there to spend the money regardless of what passes in a bill, and some (many DKos folks) simply don't want a secure border.

    If the polling was simply, leave border control as lax as it is now and we'll make a path to citizenship for the 12 million "illegals" here now, I bet the polling in support of it would drop dramatically.  So those polls are skewed, at least I believe this.

  •  My reasons (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, CaseStreet

    for supporting Immigration Reform are very personal.  Too many people wait for years to have their 'cita' at the consulate.  I'm enclosing a link and another link to the list of scheduled immigrant visa appointments for April and May at the Santo Domingo consulate.  

    The case numbers are really telling.  All of them begin with the letters "SDO" the next four numbers indicate the year the original petition was filed with USCIS.  Dig through them and you'll see that some petitions were filed in 1996 and 1998.  Those are probably for siblings of U.S. citizens who wait years because they are a lower classification and subject to numberical limits.  So people wait and wait and wait.  

    In the case of my husband and stepson, they were not subject to numerical limits and their cases took under a year to process.  Same thing for my in-laws as my sister-in-law filed for them.  I have another sister-in-law in Santo Domingo and she can expect to wait years before her appointment.  We hope that it comes before her daughter turns twenty-one, (she's eleven) as the daughter will "age out" and not be eligible to enter under the petition that was filed.  If that happens, then her mother will have to file for her and that takes about five years.  

    Families want to be together.  Making people wait years to be together is wrong.  Many get frustrated.  If I had to wait that long, I would.  I hope that this issue can be addressed to speed up the waiting time for those subject to the numerical limit.  

    "Patriotism is no more about signs or pins than religion is about reminding others how pious we think we are." -- Bob Schieffer

    by sable on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:07:46 AM PDT

  •  According to TPM, Pres Obama told Scott Brown (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    immigration reform will be coming in May and he should get on board with it.


  •  I'm stunned that... (5+ / 0-)

    Most people are in favor of rewarding those that have broken the law.  Quite frankly, I just don't get it.  Open the borders for all that have applied to come here legally, then grant whomever you want citizenship.  If that cannot be done, then it's totally unfair.  If I have to be in the minority about this issue, so be it.  It's not fair people are being given a free pass and being rewarded upon breaking the law.  It's not fair that there are those that have gone about the process the legal way, have spent lots of money, and have been denied plenty of times.  What's the point in having laws if people will be rewarded for breaking them?  

    •  I don't understand it either. (3+ / 0-)

      There's a relative handful of us (if you follow immigration diaries/comments, you probably know most of us by name already!) who are in total head-scratching mode about the reflexive support for immigration liberalization amongst progressives.  

      When your dream comes true, you're out one dream --The Nields

      by Rich in PA on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:43:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm glad that there are other liberals out (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rich in PA, erush1345

        there that see this issue the same way as myself.  You would think that as progressives we'd expect a fair process.  You would think that we'd band together and fight for those doing this the legal way.  Personally, it frustrates me hearing stories about how hard illegals have it and how they're just trying to give their families a better life.  It's such a slap in the face to those that have either come here legally or are trying to come here legally.  Many people have sad stories and want to give their families everything.  But to grant them amnesty or a pathway to citizenship, it's basically saying that their causes are far more important than any of the people going through the immigration process legally.  I've seen many people's family members get denied quite a few times.  I've seen people spend so much money to come here and still get denied.  But I've also seen people get approved the legal way.  All of my parents friends are legal immigrants just like them.  All of the work they did to come here legally would be considered a waste of time if those that did it illegally are given the same rewards as them.  There's nothing right about that.  If we as progressives believe in equality, well I see nothing equal about rewarding those that have broken the law and giving a backhanded slap to those doing it the legal way...there's not one ounce of fairness in that.

        •  I would mind less if it were made more explicit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Medina Mahmoud

          For instance, if we said "We are where we are in the world, Mexico and Central America and the Caribbean are our neighbors, and they get a semi-free pass while everyone else has a rigorous process."  At least we'd have some formal structure, even if it conceded a free-for-all to some by virtue of country of origin.  And nobody would claim it embodied any economic or racial discrimination, since most migrants from those regions and very poor and not very white.

          When your dream comes true, you're out one dream --The Nields

          by Rich in PA on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:00:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I get that... (0+ / 0-)

            Usually border nations tend to be a bit more lax on each other.  While it wouldn't necessarily make the process 100% fair, it would make a bit of sense...except I would lessen that and make it only for those in Mexico and Canada, because they directly border us.  But a guest worker program is what I'd rather have it be.  The process to come to this country is hard enough, but there never seems to be any focus on that.  There are some really intelligent, educated people out there that can bring great things to our country that still get denied.  With our lagging education system, don't we want the best and the brightest?  I guess the process as a whole makes no sense to me.  When it comes to immigration reform, people need to look at the other end of the spectrum which is those trying to come to this country legally. I don't know when we started ignoring those obeying the laws...more attention needs to be given to those doing the right thing.

    •  Is it still a 'reward' if they have to pay a (0+ / 0-)

      penalty before they can get their green card?

      Do you also oppose the IRS giving non-filers an amnesty so they can start filing their taxes again?

  •  Are You Reading The Same Polls? (4+ / 0-)

    By my reading these results imply that:

    A majority (76%) want immigration to stay the same or decrease.

    A majority want "reform" but there is no clear agreement on what "reform" means with respect to being more or less restrictive on immigration, legal or illegal. I've met just as many Democrats as Republicans who think illegal immigration is a serious issue.

    My personal position is that immigrants built this country and will be the key to future economic viability - if managed correctly. It could also spell trouble if "reform" simply makes it easier for employers to hire people at ridiculously low wages.

    Your reading seems off.

    But maybe that's just me.

    •  The only thing that bothers me about what you... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rich in PA

      said is...

      My personal position is that immigrants built this country and will be the key to future economic viability - if managed correctly.

      With that, you make it sound as though it is illegal immigrants that built this country.  While I know you didn't say them specifically, I just have to say that there are many, many legal immigrants that take those crappy minimum wage paying jobs that people so often like to assume only illegals take.  

      •  There are also many "natives" who take those jobs (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Norm in Chicago, Medina Mahmoud

        Sorry for the ambiguity.

        My point is that an influx of cheap labor creates downward wage pressure. This of course applies to legal or illegal immigrants.

        But... if "reform" includes special "worker" statuses for immigrants that define rights differently than immigrants, then you've made exploitation and downward wage pressure even more likely.

        Also, if it is a progressive principle to respect the rule of law, then we have to be concerned with illegal immigration, even if it isn't the top priority.

        •  I see what you mean... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Personally I'm against illegal immigration and granting them any kind of citizenship.  I guess I've just seen many legal immigrants take the worst jobs and they never get any credit for it.  Those that are in favor of granting some sort of citizenship to illegals always make the argument that they're the only ones willing to do the jobs that Americans don't want to do.  When I've seen my parents doing the worst jobs just to take care of us, I take that kind of stuff personally.  They came here as legal immigrants and have done everything to take care of their children by doing those jobs that Americans don't want to do.

          **Sorry for the mini-rant...just had to let that out lol

  •  We gotta do this ASAP (0+ / 0-)

    Pass CIR and do it now.  Lou Dobbs is not on CNN anymore, and he was the chief and most popular liar about how paying fines amounts to amnesty.  He was heard by folks who don't do Fox news -- by the more sane and rational folks.  But he is GONE!

    If this passes this summer, the D's can finish the year quite strongly at the polls.  And the R's, if they play obstructionist, will be reduced even further, and for at least a generation (30 years mb), they will lose in dozens and dozens of places where they win a lot now -- like TX and AZ.  Can you imagine a blue Texas?  I can.  Pass CIR now!!

    Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle

    by not2plato on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:23:43 AM PDT

  •  My main concern (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, erush1345

    is for people who have been trying to become citizens legally.  What will happen with them under reform?  Perhaps someone with far more knowledge on this topic than me can answer that.

    A friend has been trying to get citizenship for her Dutch husband for what seems like at least two years now and forked over a ton of $$$ in the process.  

  •  Jobs/Immigrants moving in opposite directions (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    longislandny, Rich in PA, thethinveil

    Can anybody tell me what's the point of importing cheap labor from Mexico when our factory jobs keep moving TO Mexico.  We're at 15% unemployment now.  Where do you expect more immigrants to work?

    If you support immigration, fine.  But you have to be able to tell me where the jobs are for them.

    Importing people while exporting jobs is the path to 3rd world status.  Who does that serve?

  •  Not before midterm elections... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Meanderthal is right. I don't know how to pull any legislative support out of these polling numbers.
    The issue is too damn risky when independents and undecideds (who will likely be pissed at amnesty during high unemployment) will be more likely to turn out than registered latinos.
    Congress will be too scared to make this fight before midterms. We've got financial reform, a supreme court battle and august recess to endure before campaigns are full steam ahead and legislating fades out. If we have momentum after the midterms, MAYBE CIR in 2010.

  •  Thanks, I needed that. (0+ / 0-)

    This is a big reason why I'm such a fan of The Kos. I didn't even realize how loud that little tiny "yes, but..." voice was getting in my own mind, and I have a rather large optimistic bent. A strong intellectual head smack is almost always a good thing.

    Regular sig line is on sabatical.

    by CoyoteMarti on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:31:20 AM PDT

  •  nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I think that the problem is not with the immigrants, but the companies that hire them. Here in Chicago, union work has dried up badly and it's damn near impossible to find work in a non-union shop because the construction industry is awash with immigrant labor. The fact that I don't hear anything at all about the white immigrants is all the proof i need to believe nothing is gonna happen unless the businesses that hire them are punished.  

    where does our mobility lie?

    by discontent73 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:31:48 AM PDT

  •  I Guess We'll Find Out Pretty Soon, Won't We? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA

    <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

    by superscalar on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:39:07 AM PDT

  •  The question is posed in such a way... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345 to maximize support across party lines.  It ignores the details, and it ignores the political climate.  There is, in my opinion, no chance whatsoever for immigration reform this year.  

    When your dream comes true, you're out one dream --The Nields

    by Rich in PA on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:41:11 AM PDT

  •  Sure until Limbaugh etc (0+ / 0-)

    get their neo-nazi hate machine going then the American people will turn on it in a sec.

    To paraphrase Warren Ballentine: "We may have come here in separate boats but we're in the same one now"

    by OHknighty on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:43:03 AM PDT

  •  Open borders. (0+ / 0-)

    A poem by Emma Lazarus is graven on a tablet
    within the pedestal on which the statue stands.

    The New Colossus
    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
    With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

    "Affluent women will always find a way to find a safe and legal abortion. Insurance or no insurance." Meteor Blades

    by sometv on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:53:25 AM PDT

  •  The difference is, all the threats of violence (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mariachi mama, thethinveil

    and noise about 'taking the country back' will be visited upon minorities as the 20% Bircher Bagger
    Mintuemen morons go berserk.

    They already attack blacks and Latinos in the SW; I'd say as the 'debate' heats up, we'll be seeing this violence spread nationally.

    Shark Jumping, the new Dailykos sport

    by shpilk on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:02:50 AM PDT

  •  not surprising. "Reform" is nebulous (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Some right-wingers may see "reform" as building a gigantic wall on the border. Quite different from our (also varied) ideas of reform on the left.  

    Either you are a feminist or a sexist/misogynist. There is no box marked `other'." -Ani DiFranco

    by ErinW43 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:32:23 AM PDT

  •  What really should be fixed along (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    with a "path to citizenship" is Fair Trade renegotiation of NAFTA and more. Maybe if things were not so bad in other countries due to our trade policy we could actually stem the tide of immigration.

    And why should immigrants have to learn English first before becoming citizens? When have we in our history put such restrictions on citizenship?

    "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

    by thethinveil on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:01:44 PM PDT

  •  Some additional questions I would ask.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    1. If you support requiring illegal immigrants to learn English, do you support making all immigrants learn English, or just the illegal ones?  
    1. What happens if an illegal immigrant fails to learn English?  Do you support deporting them?
    1.  How do you compute the back tax owed?
    1. Since the border should be secured, how would you deal with special interest groups as well as cities etc that don't want a fence?
    1. What % of illegals do you really think are going to register?  What are the consequences if they don't?

    I hate to be negative, but I'm calling BS on any poll that claims 74% of Americans support the reform that was presented.  The is no political will to enforce even one of the provisions in the hypothetical reform bill polled.   Research 2000 is correct to lump the different elements together but the pollers are delusional if they think 74% is accurate.

  •  The data you show evidently indicate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, erush1345

    support for a more punitive approach than one of amnesty that you advocate. Again I don't see immigration reform as a winner the way you do.

  •  The Saujani plan for immigration reform (0+ / 0-)

    Hi everyone,

    For those of you who haven't heard of me, I'm an Indian-American progressive running for Congress in New York's 14th congressional district.

    My biography

    I wanted to tell you guys about my plan for comprehensive immigration reform.  There are a few key policy points I've outlined.  We need to:

    • Create a path to citizenship for the illegal immigrants in the country, which will boost GDP by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. We should also implement a guest worker program, which would add another $792 billion to GDP during the same period.
    • Lift the cap on H1-B and EB-5 work and investor visas and pass the "Start-up visa" program, which keeps immigrant entrepreneurs, who commit to create jobs, hire American workers and generate sales in the United States.
    • Restore New York’s share of the DHS Transit Security Grant Program – which includes funds for sensors and bomb detecting equipment.
    • Pass provisions for illegal immigrants who have critical witness information to come forward and help law enforcement personnel.
    • Ensure passage of the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow citizens in same-sex couples to sponsor their partners for legal immigration status.
    • Pass the DREAM Act to give U.S. citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants who graduate from high school and have stayed out of trouble.

    I wrote an op-ed on The Huffington Post yesterday about my plan for immigration reform.  Check it out here:

    HuffPo op-ed: Comprehensive Immigration Reform to Create Jobs and Secure our Future

    Let me know what you think.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site