This sudden xenophobia that has gripped the right wing of the Republican party reminds of the America Firsters whose isolationism helped leave America unprepared for WW2. It is denial, and I do not mean a river in Egypt.
There are millions of immigrants in this country today. This is a fact. It is also a fact that we have an unemployment rate of about 4.8% and by some accounts these folks represent about 1 in 20 workers. The idea that all of these people can be rounded up and sent back over the border is ridiculous. We are talking about millions of people who have been allowed over the course of many years to come here to the United States. I think a guest worker program or something like it is needed. But then again without adequate border security such a program will not be fully utilized.
Most of all it seems that this gives the right wing of the party yet another reason to sabotage their president and with him their best chance of winning in 2006. Some people just can not get out of their own way.
I know this is not the kind of pandering people expect, but this is one moderate who is getting really tired of the chest pounding and not one more dime speeches from the Buchanan branch of the party.
It seems there are two bills and two approaches out there now, one thing we can be sure of the Democrats will exploit this the same way they exploited the Dubai nonsense. Hillary Clinton has already pointed out that the Republicans would have made a criminal of Jesus. Absurd I know, but effective.
Sometimes I hate politics.
The Bush administration is calling for a comprehensive bill that encompasses border security as well as some provision for temporary workers in the United States. A bill that addresses only border security, or a failure to win any bill at all, could represent yet another setback for the president. Many analysts believe that no bill is the most likely outcome.
"Given the president's approval rating these days, and with one-third of the Senate up for re-election this year, they are not going to follow the president off the cliff on this one," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which opposes what it sees as amnesty.
"If the Senate does go ahead and pass something that looks like amnesty, they will never get this passed in the House," Mehlman said.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who has presidential ambitions, has made it clear he will push a straight border-protection bill if senators can't agree on another plan. But Senate Democrats vow to oppose an enforcement-only bill, with Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., arguing that immigration has been haphazard for decades and that making criminals of millions of people serves no purpose.
Frist has pressured the Senate Judiciary Committee to produce a bill, saying that if they can't, he will take his own plan to a Senate vote the final week of March. Frist has prompted the divided committee to take another stab at an agreement when senators return from recess Monday.
Since Bush started a renewed push for immigration reform in January 2004, the former Texas governor, who has a firsthand understanding of border issues, has insisted that the United States should be able to match "willing workers" with "willing employers."
"We see millions of hardworking men and women condemned to fear and insecurity in a massive, undocumented economy," Bush said then, proposing a new legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants enabling them to work several years in the United States and then return home. He has insisted that this is not amnesty.
But Bush has invested little time in pushing an immigration bill, and he has not threatened to veto an enforcement-only bill.
Compromise is not a dirty word. And right now we could use some of it.
31 comments:
The minute any roundups started, the papers would be full of sad stories of honor school grads and long time residents being ripped from their ties here and sent to countries they have no ties with.
Still, the sight of so many Mexican flags in these demos, means the wall is going up faster.
...reminds of the America Firsters whose isolationism helped leave America unprepared for WW2.
Except the American Firsters were left (Norman Thomas) *and* right (Lindbergh). The left was among the most isolationist factions in the thirties as a consequence of socialist pacifism. It is an odd fact that the left opposition to US participation in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor is generally overlooked, while their wholly consistent opposition to Vietnam, the Gulf War, Kosovo, and OIF is celebrated. Hmmm... I need to find out how the Korean war was viewed.
terrye, you are not a moderate. I'm sure I've mentioned this before.
Three quarters of Americans are strongly opposed to continued high levels of immigration, let alone illegal immigration. To try to pass this off as the attitude of an extreme right wing fringe is silly.
The wall will be built, and there will be no amnesty for illegal immigrants. I'm not sure why those facts trouble you, and you don't get around to saying.
The definition of the modern nation-state is that it defines itself. The claim that America must allow anyone who wishes to live here effectivly abolishes the concept of borders, of identity, and of America itself.
cf
If the media running nasty stories about some policy is allowed to determine its success or failure, then we need to reconsider a whole range of policy choices. For one thing we should withdraw from Iraq ASAP, since the media will never portray it in other than a negative fashion.
If there are good arguments to be made for illegal immigration, other than emotive appeals about what the American people will supposedly stand for, I have yet to see them appear here.
No, I don't consider anarcho-libertarianism and the abolition of the nation-state a good argument. It usually rears it's dopey head somewhere in these discussions.
As one who is half Hispanic, and who grew up speaking both languages in my home in the Southwest, I have mixed feelings about this.
You sound like one of my cousins. My uncle married a Cruz from Arizona and they settled down not far from Bakersfield, in a town among the almond orchards, where many of their neighbors were Hispanic. In fact, the young woman who took care of my dying aunt lived across the street and wasn't all that fluent in english. I didn't detect any of that separatist stuff, who wants to fight with the folks next door in a mixed neighborhood? The biggest split I saw was in church attendence, Catholics vs evangelical Protestants.
Assimilation should be encouraged. I don't see why Hispanics should wish to establish an outpost of the polity that has forced so many of its own citizens to seek life in another country. This is where the Left really misses the point: if the US is so evil and ugly, why are these folks coming here? We should celebrate our virtues and recognize the corruption of the state these folks have left. Indeed, I sometimes think the best solution would be to move the US borders south.
As to border controls, how could we close the border without establishing a huge force dedicated to the purpose? The border is awfully long. I think it better to provide legal means for workers to come here and face up to the task of assimilation. Guest workers are not going to return home, that is just how it works. So we should encourage them to lend their loyalties to this country and participate in moving it forward.
Mexico itself is a large part of the problem. I have no idea what we can do to change that. Any thoughts?
Chuck,
The number of us with relatives of Mexican descent militates against anything but a compromise settlement. I believe that the compromise will involve a stiffening at the border but I also believe that such a stiffening is almost as futile as it is silly.
Money spent on a futile, silly wall would be much better spent on accelerating the immigration court process and reducing requirements for hearings. The current 'tag and release' program needs to be changed to a 'catch and pen' program run on the same level of facility provision that Sherriff Arpayo employs in Maricopa County. The current downside to being caught simply isn't high enough.
I do not regard Mexico as being fixable, the stuctural defects require a clean piece of paper solution and that is politically unfeasible.
I don't know if the flag bit will have an impact or not - I'm with Skook on that but I'm so used to seeing the American flag flown beside the Mexican flag by neighbors that it doesn't register. The fact that their son is going back to Iraq does register.
flenser:
Yes I know I am a communist. I keep forgetting.
I never said I wanted the border open or anything like that.
My point is that we have the Democrats threatening a filibuster, the right wingers in the House wanting to make criminals of every Mexican in America as well as building a wall, the Senate wanting a bill that focuses on law enforcement and does not deal with the question of what to do with the people who are here and a president that is pushing a guest worker program. I would like to see a compromise. I realize that makes me leftist.
Hey, maybe the Democrats will come to their senses and lefties like me will go back home, then the people who really can't stand us will not have to deal with us anymore. Of course they won't be running the country either, but what the hey. At least they will be pure.
chuck:
I am reading Truman by David McCollough right now and he discusses the America Firsters. As far as Truman was concerned, they were really the "antipreparedness" guys and they were mostly right wing Repbulicans, but then again he was of the opposite persuasion and he was a Democrat. So I think partisan politics played a big part in all that.
Skook,
Isn't the first step to actually try and define the problem beyond the 'noise' being broadcast by politicians? California killing the ESL program was a big first step - and that was done by the Mexican immigrants themselves as much as anything else. I'm not sure much effort needs to be made regarding assimilation. Personally, I'd rather see a much higher legal immigration rate for Mexico coupled with a very harsh reaction to illegals - the 'catch and pen' with a quick hearing and return, preferably to southern Mexico, as an additional deterrent.
The problem with the illegals who are already here might be resolved through that raised limit with the raise applied to those applying for a provisional status that could end in deportation. Work the problem off over ten years rather than trying for a 'tomorrow' solution.
Rick:
Yes, they need to do something workable, practical.
And this is an election year. It is beginning to look like nothing will get accomplished unless someone gives an inch or so. And the politicians in the House are more concerned with the next election than they are with getting a bill passed.
BTW, it is true that most Americans want to see the borders more secure {Frist's bill can help with that}, but the majority of Americans would also rather see the two sides work together toward reform than see gridlock.
Yeah, but I like tacos al pastor better.
The 'catch and pen" refers to the practice today of allowing illegals taken well within the US and possessing any sort of phony documentation to drag out deportation hearings for months - sometimes years. The ones caught at the border are returned with with dispatch already.
When I was a kid in Oklahoma my grandparents used to go to Mexico all the time, it was no big deal to cross that border. I think that for years that was the case and since most of the workers who came seemed to go back no one really made an issue of it.
But then the people crossing the border increased and more of them stayed and of course there was 9/11. That makes people nervous. It is understandable.
My fear is that a few people on the right and left will take the "my way or the highway" approach to the issue and nothing will get done.
Except maybe for more border agents and increased law enforcement, the government is already supposed to be doing that much.
flenser
The wall will be built, and there will be no amnesty for illegal immigrants. I'm not sure why those facts trouble you, and you don't get around to saying.
There will be a wall AND there will be some type of amnesty/guest worker thingy for those who are already here and working.
I hope that doesn't bother you too much. It's our own damn fault they're here and most of them are decent people.
..the United States should be able to match "willing workers" with "willing employers."
I must have missed the part where the United States redefined itself as a job placement agency. What possible involvement does the government have in matching workers with employers?
I do like the "willing" part however. Sounds like slavery won't be making a comeback then.
Rick
Why would you favor much higher rates of legal immigration? Effectivly you would solve the problem by redefining what is currently illegal as legal. What positive outcome do you envisage from such a course?
Syl:
I think you are right. There will probably be some kind of wall, how much will be physical and how much "virtual" I do not know.
And I think there will be some kind of program for many of the people who are here, just because the job of phsically rounding up millions of people and transporting them would be overwhelming in any practical sense. [That is if they pols make a compromise.]
TIME says the Democrats are leading by nine now and if the election were held today the Republicans would lose the 15 seats they need to carry the House, this means NO immigration reform that includes a wall and a possible attempt to impeach Bush. But I guess as far as some folks are concerned, loyalty means nothing, it is just every politician for himself.
terrye
It's our own damn fault they're here and most of them are decent people.
You need to explain yourself instead of making unsupported assertions. How exactly is it "our fault" that people have snuck across the border? Are non-Americans really not responsible for their own actions? Are Americans really responsible for the actions of others?
How is this position any different from that of the "Blame America First" crowd, which holds that only Americans have choice and free will, while others are helpless pawns of forces beyond their control?
As for their being decent people; I'm sure there are billions of decent people in the world. Is it your position that their decency constitutes a kind of virtual passport entitling them all to come live in the US? If not, why not?
TIME says the Democrats are leading by nine now and if the election were held today the Republicans would lose the 15 seats they need to carry the House, this means NO immigration reform that includes a wall and a possible attempt to impeach Bush.
This looks like a pretty good argument to do something about immigration, a move which would be very popular with the voters. If the Frist proposal gets passed into law the Republicans will be in good shape come November.
I'd be hard pressed to think of anything more likely to cause the Republicans to lose Congress and Bush to be impeached than for the WSJ open borders policy to be passed into law.
flenser:
Speaking of unsupported claims you need to read who wrote that post again. It was not I.
BTW I support:
making the borders secure, knowing who the hell is in the country, allowing for immigration when and where it is fair and safe and beneficial to both sides and a long term workable solution to a problem that took decades to get to this point.
I don't want to see a lot of people on either end of the spectrum making this more political than it has to be and I don't want to see the Republicans lose the gains they have made with the hispanic voters just to appease a bunch of folks who are never going to be appeased anyway. Especially considering the fact that we might be facing another impeachment trial if the Republicans lose the House.
It is pretty sad when I make points like that and get a hard time from someone who seems to think he is the real conservative, not me.
flenser:
I think Frist's bill sounds pretty good and so far as I know Bush is not threatening a veto, but the House does not like his bill because it does not make provisions for going after the folks who are already here, other than following existing law. They want something tougher. So yes, people want to see something done, but if these guys just bicker and bitch nothing will happen and if they make a point of punishing people that can backfire on them. People want solutions.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
Why would you favor much higher rates of legal immigration? Effectivly you would solve the problem by redefining what is currently illegal as legal. What positive outcome do you envisage from such a course?
I think Rick is just being practical. I don't know how things are back in New York but out here in the Southwest our hispanic compadres are a fact of life. Most of us are intermarried or have deep financial or personal relationships with immigrants from Mexico. Illegals are everywhere and everybody knows about them. There isn't going to be any possible way that these people are all going to be yanked of the communities where they have lived for years and thrown back over the border. These are hard-working God-fearing family-oriented non-citizens that any sensible country would recruit actively. Rick's suggesting what is in my mind the only sensible course--make it legal and get control of it.
MHA
How does legalizing the current high level of illegal immigration "get control of it."?
The quality of the people is not the issue. We can assume for the sake of argument that 100% of illegal immigrants are the most wonderful people in the world. That does not constitute a good reason for them to be here.
terrye
1) The Republicans will not lose their current level of hispanic support by cracking down on illegal immigration. Studies have shown that even a majority of (legal) hispanics are opposed to the current nonsense. Most hispanic voters support the Democrats and will probably continue to do so for their own reasons.
2) Granting a general amnesty to 12 million illegals is political suicide for the GOP. Yet that is what is being bandied about as the "sensible" solution.
3) Nothing is more likely to help the Republicans do well in November as taking a tough line on illegal immigration. In the not-too-distant past it prided itself on being the law-and-order party.
If it could at least pretend to enforce the laws currently on the books, and perhaps at least slow the rate at which the size of government is increasing, it will do fine. If it keeps trying to recast itself as the New Democratic Party it will be dead, and rightfully so.
flenser
It's our damn fault because we did NOT enforce our own laws. That's why the situation has gotten so bad.
flenser:
Bush got 44% of the hispanic vote [an all time high for a Republican] and yet to hear the right wing of his own party tell it he is way too nice to those folks. Fine, put them on your list of people you don't need, along with exdemocrats.
No one, including me, is saying we should ignore illegal immigration. The problem with some people however, is that they assume getting tough means tearing apart millions of hispanic families and claiming they will thank us for it.
In the process these politicians and pundits are trashing everyone, including Frist and Bush if they dare disagree with them. It is self destructive and it should be remembered that other people have opinions on this issue... it effects all Americans.
Rick is right, we need to be practical. In other words, compromise.
And Syl is right, for years the United States wanted these people to come here. We did nothing to really stop it and in fact it can be argued we benefited from it. Those days are over and now we need to secure that border, but that does not make all these people criminals.
Flenser,
I support raising the legal immigration rate for a couple of reasons but it's important that I make it clear that the first requirement I would set is sponsorship that involves a 10 year non-dischargeable assumption of responsibility for any public subsidy used by the immigrant. Either the immigrant pays for services used or the sponsor does.
The first reason that I support increased immigration is that it improves the general population by increasing the number of rational risk takers with the energy and will to try and better their circumstances. I'll take a 22 year old healthy couple from Mexico in trade for all the kids sitting in one of Ward Churchill's classes, nodding their heads hard enough so that you can hear the rattle, any day of the week.
The second reason is that legal immigrants are actually a low cost high return investment if they come as adults. They pay the full rate in unavoidable taxes - sales, employment and property from the moment they take their first job and rent their first apartment.
Using an increase in immigration levels to regularize illegals - with a lottery element involving some deportations would satisfy most people. Making reimbursement of any public funds expended upon their behalf during the time that they have been here illegally would be a help too, although I'm not sure how easy that would be to accomplish.
terrye
Bush got 44% of the hispanic vote [an all time high for a Republican] and yet to hear the right wing of his own party tell it he is way too nice to those folks.
I don't know what you are talking about. The topic here is illegal immigration. Are you suggesting that Bush won election due to the votes of illegal immigrants? Who are "these folks" you mention?
..getting tough means tearing apart millions of hispanic families and claiming they will thank us for it.
This makes no sense. Current law allows immediate family of legal residents to join them here in the US. Can you dial back the emotion and explain?
Compromise; compromise is a funny word. I notice it usually means "lets do what I want".
the United States wanted these people to come here. We did nothing to really stop it
Who is this "we", Kemo Sabi? You seem to be saying that since you got what you wanted before, well, you should get what you want now. I guess thats that "compromise" you mentioned.
.. that does not make all these people criminals.
Actually, it does. That is why they are called "illegal immigrants". Because they are, you know, illegal. The fact that many Americans are complicit in the criminal behavior does not change that.
Rick
Improving the general population - I've heard this one before. The argument being that since the native stock is so poor we need to bring in healthy outsiders to compensate, as if Americans are a sickly herd of cattle.
But you cannot import virtue. If American society cannot produce quality people (and I admit that this may be true) then it either needs to rediscover how to do so, or it needs to perish.
Seeking to import people as if they are so many quality cars to replace the domestic product is ... whats the term I want, suicidal.
We have already outsourced a great deal to other countries. Are you serious in saying we should outsource the bearing and raising of children? And then import them to the US when they reach working age?
Surely this is Swiftian satire? Can we send them back to their native lands when they are done working? That would surely maximize our return on investment.
They pay the full rate in unavoidable taxes - sales, employment and property from the moment they take their first job and rent their first apartment.
Rick, you know as well as I do that those in the bottom quintile of wage earners, which is where these low skill immigrants are, pay essentially no taxes. Indeed, people in the bottom quintile are a net tax drain overall. They consume services (schools, medical care, water, sewage, transit) at a rate equal to or greater than others. But the taxes they pay are trivial.
"Rick, you know as well as I do that those in the bottom quintile of wage earners, which is where these low skill immigrants are, pay essentially no taxes."
No, I don't know that at all. A healthy 22 year old who is willing to work will not be in the bottom quintile in the first place. The bottom quintile family cutoff is about $11,000 ($5.50 per hour), a health 22 year old willing to work will pull $12 per hour on day one of a construction job in California and move to $16 within two years. If he learns his trade well enough he'll move to $22 within five years and at that point he will be paying some income tax. He will also have paid the sales, property and payroll taxes from the first dollar earned or spent - those are unavoidable if you are on a payroll. There is also the not so small matter of the avoided cost (plus its future value) of his education, which will more than offset the difference between what he pays into SS and what he receives in retirement benefits. If his wife works too, they will be in the fourth highest quintile within five years.
I would say that willingness to work is rather an essential virtue. One that is lacking in a fair chunk of the native born population. Being born here sure as hell doesn't guarantee virtue.
No, I don't know that at all.
Sure you do.
If he learns his trade well enough he'll move to $22 within five years and at that point he will be paying some income tax.
So you are saying that a bright young immigrant, working in the building trade, may work his way up to tax-payer status in five years?
And what about the ones not employed in the building industry? Or not as bright or ambitious? How much is a lettuce picker going to be making in five years? This is weak stuff, Rick.
Being born here sure as hell doesn't guarantee virtue.
Nope, it sure as hell doesn't. But the societies that stick around tend to have mastered the ability to reproduce themselves. That is, they are able to create individual people who encapsulate all the strengths of the native society.
When a society loses that ability its time to start looking for a way out. Sounds to me like you are already at that stage.
flenser:
I am not your kemo sabe.
"We" is/are the people of the United States who have ignored that border for about 100 years and have often as not encouraged a certain amount of immigration for the sake of cheap labor.
As for the hispanics not minding seeing millions of other hispanics dragged from their homes and sent packing.... Just look at your exchange with Rick, do you get the feeling he thinks you are being fair? Is he some leftie too? Are we all wrong and you alone are right?
You see no distinction between people wanting a better life and criminals, if those people happen to be hispanic and from Mexico. But hey, why would hispanics take offence at that? I am sure the Democrats hope and pray people like you keep thinking that.
Go put it on a bumper sticker:
Wetbacks and Commies need not apply.
Flenser:
As for dialing back the emotiion I think you are missing the obvious point that you are contradicting yourself: on one hand saying all these people should be shipped out of here and on the other claiming that the law states plainly that people with family members will not be sent away. How can you know how many of these folks have relatives here legally already? Look at Elpaso, half [if not more of] the population is and always has been hispanic.
Post a Comment