A few months ago, George Bush finally said something I could agree with--we need to debate the complexity of immigration in reasoned and respectful tones. At the time, I felt it was a great opportunity.
Whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, loves Bush unconditionally or dismisses him as the village idiot, he gave us an opening for national dialog. At the time I encouraged progressives to give Bush credit for NOT acting like an ideologue for once. My thinking was that if he could get positive re-enforcement for one issue, maybe he'd try examining another subject this way? I fantasized about a rational discussion on managing the rising costs of health care.
Then today, there is an article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg on the front page of the NY Times:
Bush Signaling Shift in Stance on Immigration
On the eve of nationwide hearings that could determine the fate of his immigration bill, President Bush is signaling a new willingness to negotiate with House Republicans in an effort to revise the stalled legislation before Election Day. http://www.nytimes.com/...
What happened? Here is the guy, revered by his party for "staying the course" and never backing down from what he believes in, caving in. This was the one policy area where Bush's history actually contained some reasonable thinking.
This is a major issue that does not divide neatly along party affiliations which is why I feel it is so promising as a way to build bridges and encourage nuanced conversations. For example, see the new diary WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL IS NOT UNDERSTOOD? by porchowski that was posted while I was writing this. http://www.dailykos.com/...
I have a somewhat different take.
Let's remind ourselves that illegal immigration is not exclusively about unskilled workers coming across the Mexican border.
It was pointed out to me (by a Brit who had at one time been here illegally) that the laws being broken are administrative regulations. The number of people permitted to emigrate from a given country varies over time. Laws against murder are rooted in morality but immigration quotas are arbitrary decisions like speed limits on roads. There may be good reasons for these laws, but should breaking them constitute a felony?
There are legitimate conflicting perspectives. It is understandable that those living in border towns feel overwhelmed. Beyond the moral implications, is it in our collective interest to deny emergency medical care to the undocumented, risking the spread of communicable diseases? Yes it costs money, but isn't it better for the rest of us if their children go to school instead of joining street gangs? Is it necessary for our safety to prosecute church groups helping frightened people flee political oppression?
Unauthorized immigration pushes an American hot button. It is unfair to cut ahead in line when someone else is waiting patiently, but let's be honest. We are not getting worked up over British citizens who overstay their tourist visas or take jobs Americans would fill. We don't express worry they want to kill us when they throw darts in U.S. "pubs" sporting British flags.
The economic implications are tremendous. As someone who is pro-labor, I am very troubled by what the influx of undocumented workers does or a guest worker program might do, to keep driving down the wages at the lower end of the pay scale. I'm opposed to H1-B visa programs because it means that American engineers (who are skilled, versatile, and talented) cannot get jobs because they are unwilling to work for $26,000 to $40,000 a year.
As to the security concerns which seem to be driving the House version of the immigration bill, they don't make logical sense to me. Actual terrorists are more likely to come to America on a first class plane ticket with a legitimate visa. If you had invested in training someone who was willing to blow himself up for your cause, would you risk him getting caught by the border patrol or dying of thirst in the desert? It's easy enough to grease a few palms back home and get the necessary papers to walk in our front door.
The reality was that lots of people (Democrats AND Republicans) freaked out because, for one day, huge numbers of brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking people we typically overlook, had parades and felt valued by the American citizens who marched with them. The next day they went back to their low-paid work. Are we so fearful that we begrudge them a momentary expression of solidarity and pride? The balance of power did not shift yet I heard all kinds of fear being expressed by friends.
As long as America remains a beacon of hope, people from all over the world will come seeking a better life. Can we realistically create an impenetrable bubble around our borders and solve the problem with fences and guns? Will our young people sign up for the National Guard border patrol if they can be shipped off to Iraq as easily as San Diego?
As SusanG pointed out yesterday in Dueling Immigration Hearings on Deck
"Democrats initially considered boycotting the hearings, but will treat them as a platform to assail an enforcement-only approach to immigration reform, said Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks."
We need to encourage the Democratic leadership to remain active and engaged about this and not just treat it like a campaign opportunity to damage the GOP with voters. Let's encourage them to really talk about it.
BTW, I will post an update to my offer to donate book sale proceeds to a progressive candidate later today.
http://www.dailykos.com/...