Skip to main content

Latinos for Obama sign
Elections have consequences.
One day before President Barack Obama kicks off his push for comprehensive immigration reform, a bipartisan group of Senators has announced agreement on a blueprint for reform:
A bipartisan group of senators has agreed on a set of principles for a sweeping overhaul of the immigration system, including a pathway to American citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants that would hinge on progress in securing the borders and ensuring that foreigners leave the country when their visas expire.

The senators were able to reach a deal by incorporating the Democrats’ insistence on a single comprehensive bill that would not deny eventual citizenship to illegal immigrants, with Republican demands that strong border and interior enforcement had to be clearly in place before Congress could consider legal status for illegal immigrants.

The senators who authored the proposal—Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Robert Menendez, Marco Rubio, Michael Bennet, and Jeff Flake—will formally unveil their blueprint today at 2:30 PM ET, but won't include legislative language.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is not part of the group, but an aide said that he is "fully supportive" of their efforts. Although there the framework doesn't yet include legislative language, it does not appear to go as far as President Obama would like as far as providing a path to citizenship. Greg Sargent explains:

The rub is that the process for putting undocumented immigrants — who will be granted probationary legal status — on a path to citizenship is contingent on a commission deciding that the border is secure.
That does seem to be a convoluted mess. Nonetheless, pushing a single legislative vehicle instead of taking a patchwork approach has been a major White House objective. If the Senate does end up passing a single bill that President Obama is able to support, House Republicans will face tremendous pressure either to approve it or at the very least allow it to come up for a vote, even if a majority of House Republicans oppose it.

President Obama is scheduled to speak on immigration reform in Las Vegas on Tuesday, kicking off his public push for comprehensive legislation. Last week, he met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and told them immigration reform was his top legislative priority.

6:44 AM PT: Adam Serwer's take:

The Senate's immigration reform compromise isn't terrible, just unworkable

@AdamSerwer via web

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

  •  well (4+ / 0-)

    if there's was any doubt that rubio is ginning up a run in '16, it's gone now.

    anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

    by chopper on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:32:30 AM PST

  •  Secure the borders? (16+ / 0-)

       I wonder what the criteria will be for deciding that the borders are secure. Ilegal Immigration is at a decade low and the borders are more patrolled and watched than ever before. However, I guess the Republicans have to convince their base that this is some sort of great achievement.

    •  I suspect there will be a video (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TKO333, tb mare, Laconic Lib

      of Rubio looking all serious walking along a tall razor wire fence with some patriotic music playing and a campaign slogan bearing the words, "we built this."


      by rightiswrong on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:40:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is why *now* is the time to... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, david78209

      ...get this legislation through.

      We can say, "Look, our border controls work! Immigration is down!"  We won't mention that immigration is down because there are so few jobs in the USA that nobody feels like making the trip.

      The voters (myself included) will accept amnesty if there is at least a Good Faith Attempt at border control. Better to do it now while the numbers are low.

    •  are Brewer and AZ vigilantes empowered? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, Laconic Lib

      Hope they wont be in charge of border security.

    •  Securing the border is the rub. (8+ / 0-)

      What does "secure" the border even mean?  If it means somehow making the southern border impervious to illegal crossing, that's simply not possible.   I really believe this will be more a political chore - convincing people that everything that can be done is being done - than a result of policy.  Other than that, even stationing military troops on the southern border with orders to shoot anyone unable to present citizenship documents won't stop those absolutely determined to get through.

      The people insisting that the border (they always mean the southern border) be "secured" are the same people wanting to cut funding for every responsibility of the federal government anyway.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:54:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think as long as one person makes it across (4+ / 0-)

        the border that will be enough to give Republicans like Jeff Flake and John McCain cover to say that it's not safe enough.  I mean, when the AZ governor keeps screeching about headless bodies in the desert and you've got Sheriff Joe on the case, there really is no way to get them to accept the border is as safe as it can be.  Making a path to citizenship contingent upon getting those guys (and gals) to agree - this is just doomed to failure.

      •  Secure the border... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tb mare, Laconic Lib, qofdisks, thomask

        ...basically sounds like hiring private contractors to perform surveillance and the like. Drones too. More drones.

        And it's funny that they want to "secure" the border when less people are crossing the border now than in a long while.

        The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

        by cybrestrike on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:16:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not even the Stasi could make the East German (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib, qofdisks, marvyt, bear83

        border "secure".  People still got over The Wall until they tore it down. What are we going to do, plant land mines?  Machine gun nests?

        I fear that a "secure border" means a silly, useless fence along the entire border that will do nothing but keep ocelots and jaguars from crossing back into their historic range in SE Arizona.

        “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

        by ivorybill on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:19:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What? No filibuster yet? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kml, Laconic Lib, qofdisks, bear83

    Why do I always get a bad feeling when I see the words bipartisan and Republican in the same sentence?

  •  House rethugs get another opportunity to SHINE! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aquarius40, qofdisks

    The House GOP........there's the rub.

    •  Exactly. I just don't see how this gets (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skillet, qofdisks

      through the GOP House. As so many here have pointed out, the widespread GOP gerrymandering has created a situation where their congress people are scared of being primaried from their right flank.  They could care less about how they're perceived from the general public at large.

      If the House GOP members are afraid of being primaried by nativist freaks like, say, Joe Miller of AK or Steve King of IA, how could they explain their votes on this back home?

  •  It will serve Schumer's lyin'-ass right... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TKO333, qofdisks

    ...if his Grand Immigration Plan gets filibustered.

    He had the chance to support real filibuster reform and he wimped out. Now he has the nerve to try to push controversial (though useful) legislation.

    All anyone needs to do is make 40 phone calls and use the word "amnesty"...and this legislation is dead.

    •  Highly unlikely... (0+ / 0-)

      Because McCain, Graham, Rubio and Flake would vote to break any filibuster, along with Kirk and Ayotte surely (McCain groupies) - that's six there, and it would only take seven as I understand it under the new agreement, and they'd surely have enough for the 60 vote cloture as well.  

      "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness" -Annie Savoy (Bull Durham)

      by Jacoby Jonze on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:47:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Democrats feel preparaed (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, ivorybill, askew, Laconic Lib

      Democrats are doing what they can to turn this issue against Republicans. They are prepared to carry through reform OR let the Republicans commit suicide on the issue. It is about time.

      This was very explicitly stated at the recent community swearing in of Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez and done so in the presence of Chuck Schumer...initially stated by a mayoral candidate (Comptroller John Liu) and reiterated over and over by several others.

      This is a deliberate choice by the Democrats and the Republicans are scared of the strategy. I just hope Nydia keeps everyone focused on it and doesn't let compromise take over too much.

      FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. NYC's Progressive/Reform Blog

      by mole333 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:10:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  On top of it... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ... by putting this Senate-produced version out there ahead of Obama's version tomorrow, Democrats avoid the reflexive chorus of "NOs" that come from the House GOP whenever Obama opens his mouth on anything.

        Now Obama can propose a totally unacceptable (to the GOP) version and fall back if need be on the Senate version which, on the whole, isn't awful.

        "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

        by gsbadj on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:33:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Isn't this a lot like the original (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dgil, Laconic Lib, TKO333

    Schumer-Graham thing they were working on in 2009 before McConnell said to obstruct everything?

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:44:22 AM PST

    •  Yep. Before McConnell's number one goal was (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, Laconic Lib

      to see Obama was a one-term President.  When the plan was to obstruct everything and give Obama no votes from the GOP so they could then blame him for Washington being broken.

      However that was before 2012 where GOP lost Latino vote even more and before Obama's re-election.  McConnell saw the Dems gain in the Senate when heading into 2012 they though they had a decent chance at taking the Senate.  

      "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness" -Annie Savoy (Bull Durham)

      by Jacoby Jonze on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:50:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just for the record... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I reported this was coming...and an event Schumer was at.

    Democrats seem poised to make this a number one issue. Seems Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez is taking a leadership role on this. Just in case you don't know, Nydia is the one who is responsible for Sonia Sotomayor being nominated Supreme. She has a tendency to pick up the phone, call Schumer, then get things done.

    FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. NYC's Progressive/Reform Blog

    by mole333 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:44:24 AM PST

  •  Bi-Partisan Senate "gang" rushes it out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to beat the Obama roll-out tomorrow.  Geez, how petty.  

    Rubio wants this to be his signature legislation he can run on in 2016 it seems.  McCain was staunchly against any reforms since 2008 when he went hard anti-immigration, and then was pissed off at the Latino community for backing Pres Obama.  

    You have to imagine that this will pretty much be the final bill though - Pres Obama might need to appear to stay out of it so McCain doesn't decide to blow it up out of spite, and Rubio gets to play a more predominant role.  Hopefully Pres Obama has been in close contact with Durbin and Schumer.  

    "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness" -Annie Savoy (Bull Durham)

    by Jacoby Jonze on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:44:37 AM PST

    •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

      Rubio wants to be on record that he voted for this IF he gets the nom. and goes to the general election. He doesn't want this to be an issue that his side can seem "out of touch" on because it will be out of the way.

      We all have our own life to pursue, our own kind of dream to be weaving, and we all have the power to make wishes come true, as long as we keep believing. Louisa May Alcott

      by YoungArizonaLiberal on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:43:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

      ... rolling it out BEFORE Obama speaks on the issue preempts the automatic "NO" that you'd hear from the House GOP if this were Obama's proposal.  They can't fall back on the usual "Obama's trying to socialize America" wheeze that they run everytime he opens his mouth.

      I think it's a good idea to get it out there. Now Obama is free to take a farther left position, before ultimately being forced to compromise into accepting something like the Senate version.

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

      by gsbadj on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:39:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  One More Time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If the U.S. family based immigration system is 'broken' by virtue of the fact that some millions of individuals decided they didn't want to follow U.S. immigration law, when Congress 'fixes' it, won't it again be 'broken' when the next group of individuals decides that they don't want to obey U.S. immigration law?

    And why, still, has nobody even used the term 'NAFTA' in all of this?

    'Comprehensive Immigration Reform', The Prequel

    I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

    by superscalar on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:47:50 AM PST

    •  More than that... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, Laconic Lib

      Large chunks of our economy are BASED on all levels on illegal immigration. Agriculture, construction and child care costs are actually kept down by this. So it has never been clear to me that ANYONE in America wants to "solve" illegal immigration. Prices for agriculture, construction and child care would go way up.

      That said, what I am seeing is that what is happening now is immigration is being deliberately taken over by Democrats as a wedge issue against the Republicans. And Republicans are scared shitless about it. THAT is good even if the basic structure of the economy that depends on illegal immigration isn't changing.

      FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. NYC's Progressive/Reform Blog

      by mole333 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:06:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hence the secure borders bit (0+ / 0-)

      If you have 'secure' borders then you won't have a next group of individuals deciding they don't want to obey U.S. immigration law.

      Of course it's all BS but so long as tea bagging nutsacks are secure in the false knowledge that there won't be a new horde of dirty brown people swarming over our free lands and taking our liburty away and impregnating their girls or deflowering their boys or spreading teh gay, then it's all good.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:07:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  No legislative language = no plan. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare, ratcityreprobate

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:49:37 AM PST

    •  the only specific proposal that has been released (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cartoon Peril, DSPS owl

      from this agreement is the amnesty provision for 10 million.  
      What a shock.

      Whatever passes, I predict that everything except for the amnesty provision will be left vague, unworkable, and so ridden with loopholes that we will basically be left with the current status quo.

      Oregon:'s cold. But it's a damp cold.

      by Keith930 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:11:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's about time (0+ / 0-)

    I guess the election cycle is over.....

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:51:42 AM PST

  •  what is it (5+ / 0-)

    What is it with you people,
    I'm find myself repeating the same thing over and over again, Rubio is Cuban... has no clue of what it took to become a citizen. Has no pull with latins, we don't really see each other as the same race. There are about 26 countries in Central, South and Caribbian America, and yet you all see not to understand we dont hold each others hands.
    Rubio is a Republican and we latins know the difference. If hes running hes running for whites to feel good not latins.

    I think Jesus meant christian as a verb not a noun

    by rageagnstmach on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:52:17 AM PST

    •  Rubio is an idiot (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nannyberry, ivorybill, tb mare, askew

      if he thinks this will give him some advantage with Latinos.  If anything it will solidify them as a Democratic block.  Many Latino households will have Obama's portrait hanging up in their living room.  None will give a shit about Rubio.  

      Cubans and White people on the other hand WILL give a shit.  Cubanos will consider him a traitor and whites will turn on him as just another brown person looking out for brown people at the expense of white people's liburty and stuff.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:12:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama took nearly half the Cuban vote (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rageagnstmach, Chitown Kev, gsbadj

      and exceeded 50% in districts outside of S. Florida.  The GOP can't even count on the Cuban community anymore.

      You are exactly right that Latinos in general won't flock to that pendejo Rubio just because he's got a Spanish last name.  Beyond all that, Latinos - as human beings - make up their decisions on many issues other than or in addition to ethnicity.  I didn't see African Americans flocking to support Herman Cain.  I doubt Clarence Thomas would get elected in the South Side of Chicago.  

      Rubio is using his ethnicity not to appeal to Latino voters, but to dupe Republicans into seeing him as their Great Latino Hope.  He's milking his ethnicity, but the intended target of all this posturing is probably the GOP power-brokers and donors, not the vision of a great conservative coalition with massive numbers of Latino voters.  That's marketing, not reality.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:26:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This morning on my facebook, a Latina colleague of (0+ / 0-)

      mine posted "Rubio is putting his pen were his mouth is.  About time! Starting to watch him as he might be worth watching."

      I haven't responded yet but I will, once I decide the best way to approach it.  She seems to like him a little and I know she is a Democrat.  I need to show her the light, but not sure how to do it without upsetting her.

  •  It seems okay except for the commission (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    which is a pretty big exception. Who gets to decide on the commission? Would the WH nominees need Senate confirmation? Could they simply not make a decision indefinitely?

    Definitely unworkable.

    •  I'd guess it's just language to appease far right (0+ / 0-)

      minute men types.  I mean you can't have Brewer and Arpaio on the commission - at least not with any veto rights of any sort.  I have to imagine Flake and McCain, and most of the GOP know Arpaio and Brewer are a special kind of nuts.

      I'd guess Napolitano and Homeland Security would be heavily involved in this commission.  

      "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness" -Annie Savoy (Bull Durham)

      by Jacoby Jonze on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:03:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, that provision needs to be stripped out as (0+ / 0-)

      it is unworkable. Also, I am hoping the DREAM Act language gets incorporated into the bill, which I have not seen mentioned so far.

      President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

      by askew on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:21:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It looks like it will be in there (0+ / 0-)
        The proposals would offer major exemptions from the requirements for citizenship to young immigrants here illegally who came to United States as children, giving them a faster path to become Americans.

        McCain has also said the DREAM act has to be in there.

        •  Excellent news. I don't trust anything McCain says (0+ / 0-)

          after his behavior the past 4 years, but I do trust Schumer and Bennet.

          President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

          by askew on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:43:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The President needs to go ahead with (4+ / 0-)

    proposing his own reforms, if only to push the Overton Window more to the left.  Even if what is finally enacted looks more like this than what the White House proposes, it helps to reframe the debate.

  •  I would bet ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ratcityreprobate, Laconic Lib

    ....that any reform package would not include the ability for new immigrants to change jobs or join unions.  It always seems that immigrants, esp. ones for high end jobs always have to ahve a 'sponsor'.  Otherwise how could they be exploited and used as downward preasure on general wages.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:04:25 AM PST

    •  Agreed (4+ / 0-)

      and it's all about lowering wages for engineers, techs, etc. by bringing more into the country and giving green cards to grads from other countries. Soon, no one will want to be an engineer, because wages will be down to $25k and all the recruits will be from "agencies" representing foreigners.

      •  what really pisses me off... (5+ / 0-)

        ...are all the high tech companies saying in ads and other places that there are not enough high tech workers or grads to meet demand.  What they really mean is there are not enough workers here that compete salary wise with workers in India, Ireland, Poland or any other low wage environments.  There are pleanty of people willing to work, myself included, but because of experience or other factors cost them more than they want to pay.  And companies don't want to retrain either.

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:21:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No training - exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          delver rootnose

          Training is the one of the first things that gets cut in a downturn - and it never comes back.

          Companies don't want to train their own talent any more - that might mean having to give people a raise.

          Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

          by bear83 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:55:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  What is needed is tough laws on employers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoGoGoEverton, DSPS owl

    Corporate America created this mess in the first place for their insatiable desire for cheap labor.  We must increase the penalties including jailing of all Corporate Officers when violations and exploitations occur.

  •  won't hold my breath (0+ / 0-)

    immigration is a low hanging fruit for the GOP, especially teepers and the newly elected who ran against reform:

    President Obama in The New Republic

    Until Republicans feel that there's a real price to pay for them just saying no and being obstructionist, you'll probably see at least a number of them arguing that we should keep on doing it. It worked for them in the 2010 election cycle, and I think there are those who believe that it can work again. I disagree with them, and I think the cost to the country has been enormous.
    Democrats, as painful as it was, as much as we got attacked by some of our core constituencies, were willing to step up because it was the right thing to do. And the other side could not do that.

    I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

    by wretchedhive on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:07:20 AM PST

  •  The idea of probational amnesty/border secure (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is great, but I agree that there's probably nothing really 'there', here.

    1. There's no point in attempting to deport or even require an exodus for people currently living in the US.

    2. Without the border more secure, we cannot have a functional strong safety net.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:11:52 AM PST

    •  Borders ARE secure (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib, bear83

      Immigration is down, especially illegal immigration.

      It's a no brainer so long as the people already here are allowed to become citizens after paying taxes and fines and so on.

      First of all it brings in much needed revenue, albeit one time in the penalties.

      It also beings in long term revenue as the illegals will all be legal which means they will be on the books paying federal and payroll taxes.  

      These people will now be paid wages above minimum since they will now be legal.  It will raise the living standards of millions and will help others as they will no longer be competing with cheap labor.  

      Our revenue will go up, expenses will go down, our Social Security system will be strengthened along with our Medicare system as more money will be put into it.  Wages will go up for many.  Of course prices will probably go up a bit as well but frankly cheaper goods hasn't gotten us a better economy.  As prices have gone down so too have our wages, even more so than prices.  It brings millions out of the shadows and into the light where they can be participating in our communities.  

      Of course it also goes without saying that it will change the political landscape almost overnight.  Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, Florida and so on will all turn a bit bluer much sooner than many expect.  Making the GOP's schemes to steal elections all but moot and it may even help swing some of the numerous R+5 districts in D favor  giving the Dems the House.

      That's why I remain skeptical about it ever passing.  

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:22:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Disagree with your conclusions. (0+ / 0-)

        I think unlawful immigration is down because of the economic downturn.

        They don't bring in revenue without jobs, jobs that we still don't have enough of for the folks currently here. And they send money back to their families unless they all got to the US together.

        Again, where are those jobs for them to have to contribute to SS? And you know that they'll need to be paid out by SS too, right?

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:28:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I KNOW it's down because of both (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib

          People are still trying to come here.  Why?  because frankly as shitty as our economy is the economies in Mexico and Ecuador are far worse.   My friend's brother was stopped twice and the brother's wife was stopped once.  In prior years they would already have been here.  

          You're wrong about revenue because many are working jobs, under the table.  You also don't really understand how they live and why they're able to send so much money back.  They live meager lives, pack many into small spaces to save money.   If they're paying taxes they'll be making more money because they won't be getting paid below minimum and under the table.  they'll be paid above minimum taxes will be taken out and they will still have about the same take home.  

          Like I said, many already HAVE jobs, shit low wage jobs.

          And yes I do realize that eventually they might get SS paid back to them but it will be 30-50 years from now, well after most of the baby boomers are long dead and buried.  

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:54:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I thought we were talking about new (0+ / 0-)

            undocumented immigrants, not the current ones?

            I hope you're right and that the 'employers' would just hire them all on.

            So you're admitting that new immigrants from low-income countries will not keep their revenue stateside, correct?

            I have long though that there should be heavy taxes on sending money abroad, which will keep the uber-rich from wiring money out as well.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:12:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Existing undocumented immigrants (0+ / 0-)

              If their money is taken out from under the table and taxed, that will be a big new source of long term revenue.

              The employers will either have to hire them all on or not have any workers.  The influx of 'new' illegals won't be enough because there aren't enough of them making it in.  I'm sure some who are making it in will still be able to find work under the table but when you're taking 11 million illegals and replacing them with a few thousand 'new' ones it just doesn't work.  Businesses will have to deal somehow with paying their existing employees more.  

              This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

              by DisNoir36 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:25:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The problem is that if their wages are raised to (0+ / 0-)

                above minimum, then they will not be the only ones fighting for those jobs.

                 The only reason that jobs that undocumented workers are subject to remain unfilled by citizens, is not because they refuse to do the labor but rather  it is because the wages are way too low and citizens have the means and documents to demand more....even if not much more.

                However, once the wages are raised, citizens will also apply to the same jobs and companies will then again have power to find those who would be willing to work for less and someone eventually will work regardless of pay wage.  Once you have many people applying for the same job, the companies end up having the most power. We see this constantly in fast food and retail, as eventually it works out that the jobs are filled, even with such abuses, by those who must work and need work to survive but can only find low pay jobs.

                 Companies already abuse labor laws and even operate in down right illegal ways...this will not change until we have a system that punishes them severely for doing so.

    •  "probational amnesty"= little bit pregnant(??)nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      *Austerity is the opposite of Prosperity*

      by josmndsn on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:47:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  All boils down to Hastert Rule staying the trash (0+ / 0-)

    The GOP Senators are busy saving their phony baloney jobs LePetomaine Style.....

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:16:56 AM PST

  •  Harry Reid: "fully supportive" just like his ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ratcityreprobate, DSPS owl

    optimism on filibuster reform.

    In November 2012, Reid said:

    "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pledged on Wednesday to take a serious look at revising the filibuster rules at the beginning of the next Congress, calling the current level of obstruction in the Senate unacceptable."
    A few days ago, the "current level of obstruction in the Senate" was reassured by Reid's cave on filibuster reform.

    So, I question why Harry Reid should remain Majority Leader when he leads by capitulation.

    Reid saying he is "fully supportive" of the efforts by the Gang of 8 on immigration is, at best, a hollow statement, based on his performance on the filibuster.

    *Austerity is the opposite of Prosperity*

    by josmndsn on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:28:40 AM PST

  •  The Chamber of Commerce likes it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib, bear83

    so this can't be good. As far as I can tell they like in particular the idea that businesses can hire foreign nationals. But while their web site talks about granting some current illegals "legal status," it doesn't actually mention citizenship. I really suspect that the GOP side of this proposal wants to make the conditions for citizenship quite onerous, just as they want to make the fence big and high.

  •  "Not terrible, just unworkable" -- Great Comment! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And it's not a particularly pessisimitic thought.  It points the debate in the direction of "How can we make this workable?"
    That's constructive.

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:49:13 AM PST

  •  This is tantamount, in statistical terms, to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    making the path to citizenship contingent on proving the null hypothesis.

    From Wikipedia (bold mine):

    The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, statements that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena[1] or that a potential treatment has no effect.[2]

    The null hypothesis can never be proven. Data, such as the results of an observation or experiment, can only reject or fail to reject a null hypothesis. For example, if comparison of two groups (for example, comparing subjects treated with a medication with untreated subjects) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not prove that there really is no difference; it only shows that the results were not sufficient to reject the null hypothesis.[5]

    In other words, how could you ever prove the borders are truly secure?  But then, logic and science don't seem to play much, if any, role in dealing with Republicans.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:54:04 AM PST

  •  Reform Immigration Now (0+ / 0-)

    Way past time for this action. Spread the word...

  •  Just another Republican attempt at (0+ / 0-)

    ...preemptive attack. And of course, cheerfully aided by your usual Democratic cast of invertebrates. What better way to steal Obama's thunder and make the Republican party appear "equally" supportive of all those previously worthless brown-skinned people they need to vote Republican in order to survive their demographically-challenged future?

    "Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?" - General Jack D. Ripper

    by wilder5121 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:14:16 AM PST

  •  Action instead of rhetoric (0+ / 0-)

    It incorporates points both sides feel important, is put together by both sides, and addresses the problem. That's how bills should work.

    If it takes these eight to move an issue onto the floor for debate more power to them all. Mansfield, Humphrey and Dirksen did some compromising and working together in the '60's that worked out pretty well.


  •  Given the close attention that Latinos will be (0+ / 0-)

    paying to this issue, Obama can push this proposal more to his position. Many latinos would be looking for a bill that does not move the goal posts or give the Republicans an arbitrary pre-condition to granting a path to legal status.  They want a clear path to legal status with no strings or tacit vetoes attached.  Given how important the latino vote is going to be in the 2014 mid-terms from the House all the way down to governor's races and state legislative races, the Democrats are going to be very keen on getting latino support for any compromise. T

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:34:24 AM PST

  •  So this is a framework that might some day (0+ / 0-)

    be worked into a plan that could be part of a proposal to make a law that includes it and hundreds of unrelated things?

    Some day?

  •  2013 Budgets for various federal agencies (0+ / 0-)

    FBI :                  $8.1 Billion
    ATF:                  $1.1 Billion
    TSA:                  $5.1 Billion
    Secret Service: $1.6 Billion
    Total                 $15.9 Billion

    Customs & Border Protection:           $10.3 Billion
    Immigration & Customs Enforcement: $5.3 Billion
    Total                                                  $15.6 Billion

    Seems like $15.6 billion would be enough to "secure" the border.

    Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

    by bear83 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 10:11:27 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site