Do Democrats support families and citizenship?
A couple weeks ago I had the temerity to suggest that the Senate Democrats might not want to ally with so-called moderate Senate Republicans to fashion an immigration compromise. I was not surprised when this tiny voice went unheeded and the deal was cut. Now none of the dealmakers should be surprised that the Senate Republicans as a group could not embrace the compromise. Nor, if the deal had gone through, would the House of Delay have accepted it.
Doubtlessly some Democrats thought that they were doing well by American workers of Hispanic origin even though they proposed to tell millions of them to go back to their place of origin in order to return, in one of the largest acts of reverse migration in history. Probably they thought that because some such workers would become citizens eventually under this proposed compromise bill then the bill was worth putting into law. Maybe they thought a poor bill was better than no law at all. But as happened so often before, the ruling party has disappointed even the hedged, hampered hopes of the Democrats.
What is necessary here, as on so many other issues, is to fight for what is right, and not accept much that is wrong for the sake of compromise. Hispanic families should not be broken up. American workers should be American citizens. American workers should have a reliable and strong safety net comprising health care insurance, high quality public education, retirement pensions, a decent minimum wage, and wage insurance against job loss. Just as important, the United States should dedicate resources to helping Mexico to create such provisions in its country, so that as with Canada there are good reasons for our neighboring countries' citizens to stay at home. Police should focus on arresting those who cross our borders to deliver guns or bombs, and not those who come to work. Yes, translating these goals into law is hard work, and in the end some compromising will be required. But articulating the goals will produce a national body of opinion that in turn will make it possible, especially after this November, to write a decent set of laws on all these topics. Already, more is being accomplished by marching for the right to keep families together and the right to engage in a free labor market than by negotiating the details of mediocre bills that if passed would in any case not be adequately administered or even funded.
bluebell
American citizens should be American workers.
Another good reason the bill didn't pass was that it vastly increased the number of H1B visas (thank you Lou Dobbs for letting us know about that).
We've got Republicans representing global corporations and the Democrats representing foreign workers. There ought to be room for a third party representing the American middle class.
April 8, 2006 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats representing foreign workers.
I simply don't accept the mutual exclusivity of the categories "undocumented worker" and "American". If you've lived and worked here long enough, have a family and a stake here, you're an American regardless of what oaths you've taken or what documents you have in your wallet.
April 8, 2006 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This immigration debate is about Mexico. Even our legal immigration policies there have amounted to importing poverty and increasing the poverty of unskilled American workers. Illegal immigration is worse. There needs to be an open and honest debate on the issue instead of political demagoguery. Reforming immigration is not about separating families. In fact, many illegal workers leave their families to come here and get jobs.
The Center for Immigration Studies may reach unwanted conclusions for many but their numbers and analyses seem solid. There has been an explosion of both legal and illegal Mexican immigrants over the past few decades. When over half of legal Mexican immigrants who have been in the United States for more than 20 years live in or near poverty, it becomes apparent that an open border to unskilled immigrants is not constructive to either side.
April 8, 2006 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell
They may not be mutually exclusive but they certainly aren't mutually inclusive either. I don't expect we're going to send them all back but why we're encouraging them to come is a mystery to me (and I expect to the majority of voters left, right and center).
April 8, 2006 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do we permit employers to offer such crappy jobs? There are lots of business practices we prohibit, including false advertising, loan sharking, unsafe work conditions, etc. Minimum wage and decent conditions should apply to day labor.
Once they become decent jobs they will get filled by people that speak the language and are legal. So we all pay a little more for produce and that new bathroom. We can handle it.
This subject has only become hot as a distraction from Iraq and the various investigations threatening GOP dominance.
April 8, 2006 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Bluebell:
Why do you always put your name on top of your posts? Every time I read one, I first think you're talking to Bluebell, and then I realize "no, it is bluebell talking". It's disconcerting. Please reconsider.
Otherwise, I totally agree with your posts here.
April 8, 2006 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't we just invade Mexico? That way, there would not be a debate. Our borders would get a lot smaller, at least on the south, and we would get all that Mexican oil.
We are going to take out Venezuela anyways, we might as well get a head start on the process. Lets give all those illegal immigrant workers citizenship if they help us invade.
It would not be any worse than Iraq. I mean, we would still have to import the water, but at least we would have more interpreters available. Judging from the hispanic side of the immigration debate, this time, the population really would greet us as liberators
Seriously, if Congress starts discussing THAT proposal, I bet Mexico starts coming up with practical solutions REAL fast.
April 8, 2006 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are encouraging them to come because many folks and businesses want a pool of dirt cheap labor. That this labor has no rights, no recourse, nothing going for them, is a bonus to those people. If we eliminate this demand for dirt cheap labor the illegals will not be coming here in nearly the same numbers.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 8, 2006 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had the temerity to suggest that the Senate Democrats might not want to ally with so-called moderate Senate Republicans to fashion an immigration compromise. I was not surprised when this tiny voice went unheeded and the deal was cut. Now none of the dealmakers should be surprised that the Senate Republicans as a group could not embrace the compromise.
I don't get it still. Was Reid just trying to cut a deal with some moderate Republicans or did he think that he had a deal that the Republican leadership and president had signed onto? It looks to me like that latter. Now we have a much weakened bill on the table that the Democrats have agreed to but that the Republicans want to further weaken and they accuse Reid of be an obstructionist because he wants to keep the deal he thought he made.
You are suggesting that Reid just fell into a trap. It sort of looks like that to me. I hope that there is some explanation forthcoming on the Sunday talk shows. From here it looks like Reid gave away half of the store for nothing and the Republicans want even more of that sort of negotiation and "compromise".
How could this have happened. Did Reid really just hope that if he gave up a lot stuff in a show good faith then the perhaps all the Republicans would too? He just does not seem like the kind of guy who does business that way.
Fred in Vermont
April 8, 2006 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand where the "I told you so" attitude is coming from. What did Democrats lose by making the compromise? Nothing. A minority party has to be wil;ling to compromise to accomplish anything, and Dems especially need to defuse Republican efforts to paint them as obstructionist.
April 8, 2006 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did Democrats lose by making the compromise? Nothing.
Well I suppose you could look at it that way. Before the compromise there was a bipartisan bill on the table that had passed the Judiciary committee 12 to 6 but which was going to be amended to death by Republican opponents. Now after the compromise we have a bill which creates a new non-citizen semi-permanent status for about half of those given a path to citizenship by the initial bill and it this new version that now faces being amended to death by its Republican opponents.
So since either way it looks like the bill will not pass I suppose we have lost nothing. But what about the politics of this? Wouldn't it be better to be accused of "obstructionism" for fighting to support a stronger version of immigration reform than a much weaker one? What does it matter if the new version might get a few more Republican votes in a vote that will never happen?
Fred in Vermont
April 9, 2006 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink