Senate Democrats' plan highlights nation's shift to the right on immigration

[pampango]

Source: Washington Post

As protesters in 80 U.S. cities demanded an overhaul Saturday of the nation's immigration laws, fueled in part by anger over a measure enacted two weeks ago in Arizona, a new proposal by Senate Democrats shows how far the debate has shifted to the right since Congress took up the issue in 2007, advocates on both sides said.

The Democrats' legislative "framework" includes a slew of new immigration enforcement measures aimed at U.S. borders and workplaces. It would further expand the 20,000-member Border Patrol; triple fines against U.S. employers that hire illegal immigrants; and, most controversially, require all American workers -- citizens and non-citizens alike -- to get new Social Security cards linked to their fingerprints to ease work eligibility checks.

The plan's emphasis on "securing the border first" before taking steps to allow many of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States to pay fines and apply for legal status was plainly a gesture to Republicans. Even so, no Republican is supporting it, not even Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who has been working with Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) in bipartisan talks over the issue for months. Ideas that were hotly contested in ill-fated Senate debates in 2006 and 2007 seem now to be taken for granted, said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "You've seen a lot of movement, and in partisan terms mostly movement on the Democratic side toward Republican positions," he said.

The shift is troubling to labor strategists and immigrant advocates, who for years have seen accepting tougher enforcement as a concession that would allow them to attain their goal of bringing illegal workers and their families out of the shadows. "Why would a conservative vote for something if they are already getting what they want?" said Ali Noorani, a lead organizer of Saturday's national demonstrations to hold President Obama to his 2008 campaign promise to take action.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/01/AR2010050100990.html?hpid=topnews

---

Maybe Obama is smart to delay immigration reform. If Democrat are moving "toward Republican positions" like ""securing the border first" before taking steps to allow many of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States to pay fines and apply for legal status", is would be pointless to do any "reform".

"Border security" is an impossible goal (like total safety from terrorism), so the repubs can keep calling for the same thing for years into the future and fear will work its magic to stop substantive reform. Kind of like the sacrifices many citizens are willing to buy for the sake of the elusive "perfect safety from terrorism". Fear - the republicans' secret card that trumps all. Mexicans coming - be afraid, build the wall higher, more troops, arrest 'em, deport 'em. They keep coming - be more afraid, build the wall higher, more troops, arrest 'em, deport 'em. Terrorists out there - be afraid, kill 'em, invade their territory, "drone" 'em. They keep coming - be more afraid, kill 'em, invade their territory, "drone" 'em. The wall and the gun solve all problems.

I had hoped that proposing comprehensive reform would give the change for republicans to expose themselves as xenophobic bigots they mostly are with the constant mantra of "more money on border security", higher walls, more troops, etc, but if Democrats are drifting right toward republican positions that won't work. Maybe better to wait for "some time in the future" when the economy is better (I know, the economy was better in 2007 and the repubs stopped it then), to try to reform immigration comprehensively. Until then we'll have to just play the republican 'border security' game. :(

[mikehiggins]

1. Yes the Dems seem to be going RIghtward but no it is not impossible

to seal the borders. Check out the Great Wall in China.

A wall, even one built by undocumented workers as part of this ons has been, will do a lot of that work.

The better solution is to make fines meaningful so chicken ranchers, etc, will get hurt severely if they go the undocumented route. A half-million dollar fine per worker would make undocumented workers disappear in a hurry. The only reason honest people risk crossing the border in the first place is in the hope of getting a job. No jobs? Then the only people coming would be the cartels, etc. A lot less bodies and a lot easier to contain.

Okay, anyone who wants to rip these ideas apart have at it.

[FreakinDJ]

2. I agree - Employer Enforcement

[humbled_opinion]

5. LOL

You expect business people to actually pay equal rates when they get illegals for slave labor rates? Have you no sense of capitalist greed?/s

Seriously, employer laws prohibiting hiring of non-documented workers have been in place and are being enforced but there is too much wiggle room, loopholes for employers, i.e., well he showed me what appeared to be a valid ID, how am I supposed to figuer out that it wasn't.... wink, wink...

[blue97keet]

18. Agreed, since when is workplace enforcement a shift to the right

unless your sense of direction is all backwards.

[FreakinDJ]

29. Mandatory "6 months Jail Time"

[EFerrari]

3. We're making our own problem by installing and supporting governments like this one:

New wave of repression targets opponents of Honduran coup

April 27, 2010

Both the Canadian and US governments have praised the January 27 elections in Honduras as a major step forward toward a return to democracy and national reconciliation. Yet the reality on the ground under the newly elected government of Porfirio Lobo is one of continuing repression and selective assassinations of those who dared to oppose the June 28, 2009 military coup.



http://en.maquilasolidarity.org/node/935

That wasn't Bush, either.

[IndianaJoe]

6. The Great Wall didn't work. Ask Genghis Khan. n/t

[Synicus Maximus]

13. But it did work for over 2000 years. From the 5 century BC until

1640 CE.If we build a wall that last half that long I would be happy.

[IndianaJoe]

16. Genghis Khan invaded North China in 1210.

Thereafter they ruled China for around a century. The Manchus got through a couple of centuries later too.

Keeping out armies and keeping out handfuls of interlopers are different things.

I served as a soldier in Germany during the Cold War. The East Germans "secured their border" pretty well too. However, they had to use machine gun towers, land mines, barbed wire, and attack dogs to do it. We'll never do that.

In your plans for a wall, I think you are underestimating the native ingenuity and intelligence of a group of determined Mexicans.

[xsquid]

26. It's a good idea but first they wouls have

to make it to where employers would be able to catch illegal workers. Part of this post is relevant, these places are hiring illegals that pass the check with stolen papers. Hard to hold the employer responsible for that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4365291&mesg_id=4365708

There has to be a system to tell that the legal papers do not actually belong to the illegal before the employers can be held responsible. The current system does not do that.

[humbled_opinion]

4. Its a hot button and political liability

To take the position of Amnesty. The right has confused the issue, you are now fighting against law and if you take the position that people who break the law can escape justice then you are on the losing side. The only viable options...

- Secure the border

- Offer a guest worker program with ID to those here illegally. (solves many issues and gives some rights to migrant workers that they don't have now)

- Employer sanctions for those still hiring illegals with no worker cards.

- Deport those that do not comply.

[certainot]

7. protests should go to the limbaugh megastations that sells the racism and hate

all day.

the left lets 1000 radio stations rile up the racists and wimps whenever they want. they did it after katrina and bush had to pretend to do something but his paymasters needed the cheap labor to keep wages down.

this crap wouldn't keep happening if the left finally took their protests to the root of the problem- 1000 coordinated uncontested radio stations.

[IndianaJoe]

8. A lot of the "Secure the Border First"

stuff seems to come out of the Republican playbook. Something to mollify Lindsey Graham (who now is refusing to support the stuff he negotiated -- a la Senator Grassle and Health Reform). I guess my question is why?

Can't we immediately address the issues confronting the approximately 11 Million undocumented that are here in this country now while we are simultaneously trying to "secure the border"? Why do we have to wait until the undisclosed border security "benchmarks" have occurred before addressing issues like interim legal presence, family unity, deportation of the young etc.

The path to "legal status" (whatever that means) under the Dem proposal is already 8 years. Add to that the unknown amount of time that it will take to satisfy the unknown "benchmark" before any other reforms are implemented and I think it adds up to pretty phony reform. Its telling Latinos, we'll see you in 5 or 6 years -- after we "secure" the border.

Can't we walk and chew gum at the same time?

[Unvanguard]

9. The most important thing right now is stopping the deportations and getting a path to citizenship.

If we can do that with the bill, I'll support it. And we need to do it as soon as possible.

[IndianaJoe]

19. Agreed. But the whole thrust of "Reform" is border security n/t

[humbled_opinion]

22. You are on the losing side of the arguement

Somehow the wingnuts got the upper hand and now it is an argument that the undocumented migrants broke the law if you do not hold them accountable for their lawlessness then you are now part of the problem.

[Unvanguard]

25. I don't think so. It is simply not practical to deport eleven million people.

Lots of people in both parties get this. Immigration reform may happen this year or it may happen in three or four more years, but it will happen.

[SkyDaddy7]

10. THE REPUGS WILL NEVER PASS IMMIGRATION REFORM!!!

...If they did they would lose one of their primary political fear weapons! So, do not look for any reform in the next decade unless Dems actually take back seats in 2012.

[harun]

21. Exactly, they have had ample opportunity to change it all they want

the last 10 years and they didn't change anything. They love it the way it is because it gives them cheap labor that can't organize and can't bring lawsuits against them.

[SkyDaddy7]

24. Yes...And the most important fact...

They need illegal immigration as one of their political fear weapons to use in every election as they have for 30+ years!

[AlphaCentauri]

11. What if republicans take more senate seats?

how far right immigration reform will get?

Then there would be no action at all and the implementation of immigration laws will be left to states like Arizona or massive deportations will be the norm.
So how latinos will vote for republicans or democrats if they are not getting what they want?

[librechik]

12. BS--the nation didn't shift to the right--special interests groups are doing all they can to pull

perceptions over in their direction for their own benefit and fuck The People.

[Unvanguard]

15. On this particular issue, they probably did, because of the recession.

What "special interest groups" are involved here?

[eomer]

20. The "special interest group" involved here is...

all the employers who have been getting a large pool of workers who are "illegal", terrorized by ICE (and previously, INS), and who are therefore extremely cheap, powerless, and easily exploited.

That seems pretty obvious; did I misunderstand your question?

[humbled_opinion]

23. I totally agree..

Some greedy business people are treating undocumented workers as slave labor and getting away with it. How do you fix it? You can never convince people that rewarding these workers with citizenship, or amnesty is the answer. I always have liked a guest worker program but when Bush brought that up years ago it seemed like the whole country shot it down so I really don't know what the answer is.

[Romulox]

28. Since when is corporatism and laissez faire capitalism a value of "the left"?

The OP regularly links the Heritage Foundation. Left? I think not.

[cornermouse]

14. I wonder how much the new social security cards

linked to fingerprints will cost us and I wonder how much money it will raise for the feds. :(

[Bette Noir]

17. Is no one bothered that the Gummint now wants to have all Americans'

fingerprints on file? This strikes me as a huge overreach.

[Romulox]

27. Cheap labor isn't a value of the left. Ever see the OP start a thread on poverty?

:hi:

[Unvanguard]

30. Supporting marginalized and exploited people, however, is.

Indeed, in a real sense it is the ENTIRE POINT of the Left.

Some of us are not willing to sacrifice it for narrow sectional politics.

[Romulox]

31. Right. But as to native born marginalized persons in places like Detroit or Cleveland

people like you and the OP haven't a word to say. Funny how that works.

"Indeed, in a real sense it is the ENTIRE POINT of the Left."

You mean that neo-liberalism and so-called "free trade" aren't the ENTIRE POINT (sic) of the Left? Maybe you can PM the OP? :hi:

[Unvanguard]

32. ...and you know this how?

Do you have any idea what I think about economic policy in general?

Is your anti-immigrant sentiment just so intense that you cannot imagine how anyone could both support immigrants and also support pro-worker policies broadly speaking?

[Romulox]

33. I read DU, that's how.

LOL to the idea that it's somehow unfair to read and note things people post on these fora...

[Unvanguard]

34. Well, clearly you haven't read very carefully.

Because you are quite wrong about my attitudes toward native working-class people.