TAPPED Archive | The American Prospect

Feeds: Articles | Issues


	TAPPED \| Beat the Press

SUBSCRIBE | LOGIN

Current Issue

Download the PDF

The

symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.

The group blog of The American Prospect

« | Main | »

THE POLITICS OF IMMIGRATION BILLS. I think Matt is misusing the Daniel Davies dictum that "good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance." As Matt shows, the RNC is telling a lot of lies to make this bill seem more supportable to its members. Not to be too crude about this, but if the Republican base thinks this immigration bill is a bad idea, that seems like a fairly serious argument in its favor. After all, what they're trying to evade is the perception that it represents an amnesty. They're lying. It is an amnesty. And I think amnesty is the only realistic and humane way forward. So in this case, telling lies to make people with bad opinions think this is a good idea doesn't reflect poorly on its merits.

The real catch is the guest worker program. Greg Anrig has a strong and passionate denunciation of its inclusion, saying, "[There] are three basic traits that distinguish progressives from movement conservatives: our moral values derive from a fundamental belief that basic human rights should be respected for all individuals; if a public policy has failed over and over in the past, we learn from the experience and don't repeat the same mistake; and we consider the economic well-being of average workers to be far more important than the wish list of corporate lobbyists. The guest worker provisions of the Senate immigration deal clearly violate all three of those principles." He follows this up by detailing the sorry and even scary history of guest worker programs in the past.

But here's what I need to be convinced on: Putting aside the tweaks Reid and Pelosi can make through the legislative process, the choice looks to me like this bill or nothing. My hunch is that a solid Democratic government couldn't get this far out on immigration without potentially provoking a nativist backlash, and so they wouldn't. And nor does it look like any of the Republican contenders would be substantially more liberal or independent on this issue than Bush has proven himself. The 12 million undocumented immigrants are a pressing problem, and I would, if this were my only choice, bring them into the light of American society and labor laws even at the cost of a guest worker program.

So sketch me out a situation wherein we get an amnesty without a guest worker program. Matt thinks that "insofar as the political dynamic produces a polarized choice between pro- and anti-immigration positions, the business community -- i.e. the constituency for guest worker programs -- is going to need to side with the pro-immigration view. There's no reason to accept a giant guest worker program as part of a political compromise. Things should move in the other direction." Sadly, that looks at least as likely to cut the other way, as the business community doesn't mind illegals, and immigrant advocates need business support at least as much as the other way around.

--Ezra Klein

Posted by Ezra Klein on May 18, 2007 1:06 PM | Permalink |

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference :

» Home Equity Poor Credit from Home Equity Poor Credit
With lower interest rates than credit cards and uns [Read More]

» Home Residential Security System from Home Residential Security System
2.9 On-Q Home (Example of Innovative Systems offers residential an [Read More]

» Pa Modular Home Prices from Pa Modular Home Prices
Clayton Homes, Abottstown, Pennsylvania, 17301. Welcome to D [Read More]

COMMENTS (50)

So sketch me out a situation wherein we get an amnesty without a guest worker program.

Scrap the guest worker program, in exchange for which the GOP scraps most of the goofy "it's not amnesty" provisions, and just vote on normalizing status for current undocumented immigrants. Hold another vote in 20 years.

After all, we did that once, right?

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | May 18, 2007 1:52 PM

Scrap the guest worker program, in exchange for which the GOP scraps most of the goofy "it's not amnesty" provisions, and just vote on normalizing status for current undocumented immigrants.

I'm probably missing something, but this sounds like a bill that only Democrats would vote for. What does the GOP get out of it, except maybe the chance to portray Dems as advocates of straight-up unvarnished amnesty? The law then becomes something the GOP can run hard against on a nativist platform in the next election. Under the current bill, at least each side is giving the other political cover against the purists.

I'm just trying to work out your political calculation, Nicholas; on the merits I'm ambivalent.

Posted by: Ryan | May 18, 2007 2:16 PM

First, you give the far right "credit" for killing the guest worker program.

Second, you keep the fence, the increase in employer sanctions, and more funding for CBP.

Third, you keep some of the requirements like learning english, the back taxes, and the fine/fee. And maybe you keep a watered-down version of the alterations to family-based visas/green cards. You get rid of the touchback and the arbitrary waiting period, and just put them at the end of existing lines.

You won't get as many votes as the current bill. But you'll get more than Reid-Specter-McCain Kennedy. In particular, you can probably convince any Republican who admits that we're not going to deport or jail 12 million people ... Lindsay Graham, maybe Sam Brownback. I think you can get to 61 votes that way.

Let's see, McCain, Snowe, Collins, Brownback, Graham, maybe DeMint, Roberts, Warner, maybe Domenici ... so, it seems feasible. I'm not sure if it's a better idea to just hit "reset" on the current system again or pass a modified version of the current proposal.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | May 18, 2007 2:54 PM

last year, the senate passed a bill with a better amnesty process, a guest worker program that was one in name only (six years of time on a non-immigrant visa and then the worker can self-petition for permanent residency), and no ruinous changes to the family visa preference system. The bill had no chance in the house because it was run by republicans (who refused to conference). If we had a democratic congress last year, that bill would have passed and Bush would have signed it.

The difference? Massive marches.

Posted by: wquine | May 18, 2007 2:57 PM

I still feel like we have fallen for the GOP frames on this one. Per usual, the GOP base presents this as 'dirty brown skin criminals' debate, while the GOP leaders want the cheap labor for their real consitutents. So the GOP leaders agree with Dem leaders to pass this bill which feeds into the base's worst fear of Democrats being weak on crime and immigration, while the GOP leadership gets to take a pass from the ire of their base while ultimately pleasing their corporate overlords.

As an old school, labor Democrat I hate this plan too. The frame we should have been pushing isn't that of criminalizing the illegal workers but the even bigger crime of actually hiring them. Crime bosses have created this problem by running out the American worker and hiring, cheap, easily-coerced illegal labor in its place. I am not in favor of anything that doesn't start with the problem of too much illegal hiring.

I am not sure of what the most humane way is of dealing with the millions of undocumented laborers are, but the first thing we need to do throw into jail and heavily fine all those businesses that have created the problem in the first place. I am fine with amnesty for those currently here if it comes with immediate documentation along with a job in place, but it also must be accompanied by an immediate and dramatic raise in the minimum wage. If you want to hire someone from outside our borders you will hire them at the same rate as a citizen with the same rights.

Posted by: Ricky | May 18, 2007 3:02 PM

Only an idiot judges something by who supports it. It's an argument to be used if you think a bill will do something it doesn't say it will do, not one to be used about a bill that's plain as day. When it's obvious what a bill will do, you judge it on it's merits.

If Ezra can't really mount an argument on the merits of this bill, it says plenty about it. All his posts are "Better than nothing", "We need the tax money", the ever bizarre "I like taco's" argument, and now "Republicans hate it, it must be good.".

His first post was the only one with real substance, and it only really contains promises that the bill will get fixed later. That's not an argument that should convince anyone.

Posted by: soullite | May 18, 2007 3:19 PM

I disagree almost entirely with your quote from Greg Anrig. I don't hold a lot in common with movement conservatives, but I don't think the three points he defines are at all representative of the divide.

1) One of the central issues that conservatives in America organize around, opposition to abortion, is premised on an expansion of human rights to those not yet born. Search the internet for "respect life" and you will find large communities of social conservatives who might find our respect for basic human rights lacking.

2)A case could certainly be made that progressives of today have a more evidence-based approach to governance as opposed to the current faith-based presidency, but that is not what Anrig argues here. Republicans of the last decade or so have not at all contented themselves with repeating old mistakes; they innovated entirely new ones.

3) Finally, I don't think movement conservatives care for corporate lobbyists any more than movement progressives. They just don't think about them as much because they largely organize around social issues (and have a greater faith in the goodness of businesses).

My problem with the analysis isn't that it isn't fair; it's that it's so contrived to fit the story of the day. Is this really how you would describe the conservative/liberal divide in any other context?

Posted by: William | May 18, 2007 4:05 PM

Ezra,

Let me see if I can do justice to your "sketch"?

Immigration Reform should come in four parts. Perhaps, addressing the first two parts, will cause some further "percolating" of ideas on your part. If not, this exercise will be all about the mental masturbation on my part.

The first part comes in a three-step process:

a) We have a large number of citizens or children born to undocumented immigrant parents who have returned to the Nation of Origin. The State Department should be required to locate these children to insure/assure our nation that these kids are getting three squares-a-day and etcetera. Perhaps, our redirection of some of our existing foreign aid funds will be sufficient to address any potential areas for human services or "needs". Thus, the parents should be given "Priority One" for potential citizenship should the desire exist. b) Additionally, "Priority Two" should focus on the children that were brought into the USA (Dream ACT)by their undocumented immigrant parents, and thus given the keys to their citizenship opportunity. c) And thirdly, "Priority Three" should be that the Nations of Origin are required to divest themselves from their ownership of the Organized Labor institutions, as well as determining the wages and benefits to be derived by the employees. Take, for example, the Mexican Government should not only divest itself, but go even further, and establish an infrastructure in similarity to the United States. Until accomplished, immigrants from any Nation of Origin are prohibited from participating in additional citizenship opportunities or participate in any 'guest worker/bracero program'. Consequently, the above is a three-part process to achieve a viable First Step.

The Second Step of Family Re-unification, cannot commence until such time as the First Step is completed. Using a constructive rationale for prioritizing (Priority Four) who among the family members that will be permited their legalization, can be accomplished via a variety of scenarios and needs, i.e, health, education, skills, employability, and even from a need or lack of any governmenal benefits or a dependance on a governmental program.

Step Three: "guest worker" program.

Step Four: Border security.

Time Frame: Several years.

Needless to say, Senator Kennedy got it wrong, and McCain's "brain", Senator Kyl was still incompetent. Of course, my familiarity with Kyl has been before he got himself elected, and in which he was the chief lobbyist at the Arizona Legislature for the Chamber of Commerce and the largest business entities in Arizona. Perhaps, Kennedy bet his jock strap and lost his bet with Kyl, and we all have to suffer the indignity.

Jaango

Posted by: Jaango | May 18, 2007 5:02 PM

"Amnesty". When I pay a traffic ticket, did I receive "amnesty"?

Posted by: Vidor | May 18, 2007 5:03 PM

Vidor,

You sure did get "amnesty"!

Had you been required to confront a confused conservative, you would have been criminalized and felonized, and that's just for trespassing or jaywalking. That's how it been attempted in the Sonoran Desert. Welcome to our reality. :)

Jaango

Posted by: Jaango | May 18, 2007 5:27 PM

"One of the central issues that conservatives in America organize around, opposition to abortion, is premised on an expansion of human rights to those not yet born. Search the internet for "respect life" and you will find large communities of social conservatives who might find our respect for basic human rights lacking."

No, no, no. You have it totally backwards.

It's "respect for *innocent* life. Everyone is born with original sin. Therefore, once born, no longer innocent and thus no longer eligible for special rights and privileges.

Get it now?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 18, 2007 7:15 PM

m917k

Posted by: ro955ck | July 3, 2007 7:14 AM

m103k

Posted by: ro992ck | July 11, 2007 10:44 PM

m129k urine test xanax - http://buy-xanax1.freecities.com/urine-test-xanax.html

Posted by: ro497ck | July 13, 2007 3:44 AM