If the immigration deal goes through, do you think we could win in 08 with a bag of frozen peas?

[More Than A Feeling]

According to the WaPo, 52% of Americans support "a program giving illegal immigrants the right to stay and work in the United States if they pay a fine and meet other requirements," so putting together this immigration package could take immigration off the table as an issue for them (in the same way that the '86 tax reform package wasn't an issue because it was bi-partisan. Nobody ran on it). Meanwhile, the Republican base will start randomly lighting things on fire. Even if they get a candidate who opposes it, they still have to live with the fact that their party was complicit. It could cause trouble up and down the ballot for every Republican who supports it. Meanwhile, correct me if I am wrong, but this just isn't as big an issue for the Democratic base and potential Democratic voters.

What do you think?

[spotbird]

1. If Hillary is the nominee

there are very few Republicans who she could defeat.

Her negatives are just too high. I'm not even sure I'd vote for her.

In other words, there are just too many variables for any political issue to be determinative.

[soothsayer]

2. I'm not crazy about her, but I disagree. The repubs are in a heap of trouble.

[spotbird]

5. In general they should be,

which is why Edward's hair is at issue while Murdoch is holding fundraisers for Hillary. The Republicans, with the cooperation of the liberal media, are trashing the strongest Democratic candidates to insure the Democrats field their weakest possibility.

Even if Hillary won, an extreme improbably, there would be no honeymoon, no hope for anything but more bullshit.

[athebea]

3. You are missing it...

The MSM is solidly pro free trade, pro corporate globalism, pro open borders. They are here telling half truths.

True most Americans would accept legalization PROVIDED the borders were sealed tight as a drum. They remember how without that a 3 million problem turned into a 12 million problem and if this bill passes, will become a 50 million problem. The Social Security and Medicare systems will collapse under the weight of becoming Mexico's safety net at the precise moment the baby boom is about to retire.

When Americans are specifically asked about this bill, only 26% of the public supports it. 50% are opposed. Only 16% say it will stop the flow of illegal immigrants.

This bill will NOT take immigration off the table as an issue because its promises of border security are bogus and the public knows it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Social security is in trouble because there are fewer young

workers paying in to support older retirees. How does legitimizing several million new young workers, all paying into SS suddenly threaten it? In fact, as it is now, everyone with a phony SS number, whether made up or cloned, is paying into the system and will never collect payments - if that is 8 million undocumented, each earning only $10,000, paying into the system, that's $6.08 billion in SS revenue that will not be paid out to those who put in.

Now, if those undocumented are legitimized, and earning the prevailing wage rather than below minimum the amount paid in will be roughly doubled, but it will be 40 - 50 years befoe they are going to start collecting, long after the boomers are all dead and gone.

Immigrants can SAVE social security, whether legitimized or not. The problem is not illegal immigrants - it is illegal employers.

[Sapere aude]

8. Actually, they are paying into it now and getting no benefit from it.

The best thing for social security is to let them work illegally. That will be the result if nothing is done because there is no way to deport 12 million people.

[athebea]

10. You missed it again...

Because they are NOT going to be paid the prevailing wage.

Legalize 12 million and cheap labor interests will simply import another 30 million more illegals to replace them. The enforcement provisions in this bill are meaningless and flatly will not happen. What you will have is America importing Mexico's poverty problems (and the Mexican government is actively exporting its poverty problems to the American taxpayer) and becoming a net downwards social mobility society. Now you can become Mexico's safety net or you can provide Social Security and Medicare for the baby boom. Not both.

None of the people backing this bill have any intention of going after illegal employers or securing the border. They want a slave labor 'guest worker' underclass to drive down American wages.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. As I said, it is not a matter of illegal employees;

it is illegal employers. We could have completely open borders, but if nobody hired unducumented workers they'd not come. Enforce strict compliance on the employers, with severe penalties for violations, and they'd stop hiring the undocumented quickly enough. And which is easier? Policing 10 million immigrants, or a few thousand employers?

It would mean REAL enforcement, however. In the 80s, before they kind of forgot about the whole thing, a company charged with hiring undocumented workers might get fined $5000, max. Not per worker, either. It was clearly good business to hire them, then pay the nominal fine if caught.

If the enforcement provisions are in the law, we can see to it they are enforced. The law is the law, and if someone is not in compliance, all it takes is a letter to the local DA AND the local paper. They'll have to act. One or two high-profile cases, and suddenly everyone will be in voluntary compliance.

If enough people get angry enough about the REAL problem, the employers, we may even be able to repeal Taft/Hartly and start undoing the damage done to labor over the past 40 years. We need to reach out to legal immigrant workers as allies against the bosses, not continue to allow them to be used as scabs. As long as they remain non-legitimate, they can only be scabs.

[unlawflcombatnt]

22. Exactly

Furthermore, a majority of Americans are against giving immediate amnesty to all 12-20 million illegal immigrants. In the poll I've posted here at DU, 86% are AGAINST granting amnesty to all 12-20 million illegal immigrants.

[sandnsea]

15. Not exactly

SS is funded until 2042. That is 35 years down the road. I am 50, born in 57. I promise you, I will be dead in 35 years. Boomers are not creating any social security problem. We paid for our social security retirement.

The problem is that the $2 trillion dollars has been loaned to the government. Republicans don't want to pay it back. They are trying to convince people that that's a flaw with social security, when it's a flaw with Republican deficit spending to intentionally bankrupt the government and destroy social services. They gave the trust fund to the rich people, we need to go get it back.

[AzDar]

4. It's a big deal for me. I 'm much more concerned about the detrimental

effects of this legislation on our country than I am with it's ability to split the Republican Party.

Isn't it usually the GOP putting Party before country and not us?
:eyes:

[madrchsod]

6. the losers are the immigrants

the bill is a draw between the democrats and republicans.

[High Plains]

18. The losers are the immigrants?

Seems to me this bill will create at least 12 million winners.

[sandnsea]

9. reality of a global economy

Once this immigration bill is passed, and people realize they have to compete with foreign workers for good, then they'll conclude the best way to move forward is to unionize the foreign workers. That would open the door to a pro-union Democrat.

[athebea]

11. Unionize them ?

What's the point of 'unionizing' 12 million if 30 million more illegal 'strike breakers' are pouring across the border ?

This is about the investor class wanting to destroy the bargaining power of American workers by glutting the labor market.

[sandnsea]

12. We're 5% of the world

Do you honestly believe you're going to be able to put an end to global labor exploitation with a US law and a fence??

We either stand with labor, all over the world, or we get eaten by the investor class. Yes, unionize them here, unionize them there, unionize them in China, unionize labor everywhere. It's our only hope.

[athebea]

17. Unionize them ?

"Do you honestly believe you're going to be able to put an end to global labor exploitation with a US law and a fence??

We either stand with labor, all over the world, or we get eaten by the investor class. Yes, unionize them here, unionize them there, unionize them in China, unionize labor everywhere. It's our only hope."

Unionize labor everywhere ? Are you serious ? You think maybe their governments might have something to say about that ? You think you have that kind of power ?

There are two options.

1. A protectionist American labor market.
or
2. The American standard of living sinking to Third World levels.

Delusions about 'unionize them' ignore the fact that we live in a global glut of cheap labor. That glut isn't going away. China and India can produce enough white collar professionals to account for ALL American job growth. And they want our jobs. It is delusional to think that people who want your job are your brothers. They owe us nothing and are out for themselves. If they can improve their lot by underbidding the cost of American labor, they will. If they can improve their lot by being strike breakers of the investor class, they will.

There is always somewhere else where labor is cheaper. And that will always be true.

[sandnsea]

21. protectionism is what's delusional

You can't tell a company where to set up their manufacturing plant. The only leverage WE have is forcing our elected officials to change our trade agreements, and include labor rights and organizing rights in them.

There already is some unionizing in third world countries, people are losing their lives to organize. http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/04/10/floc-organizer-beaten-to-death-in-mexico

Here's a strike in China at a Japanese owned Walmart.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7713

If we had better news, people would be able to make better decisions about how to best influence the changing world. What we have is a media curtain, keeping us blocked from the outside world. It's worse than the Soviet Union, and is going to end just as badly.

[Vinca]

13. I think this is a much bigger issue for Democrats than you might think.

Another poll, besides having the large majority of Republicans opposed to the bill, had 50% of Dems opposed. I know I'm opposed to it for a number of reasons, the first being it won't work any better than the bill in 1986 worked. We'll just have more laws on the books that won't be enforced. Who, exactly, will be keeping tabs on 12 million people for 8 years making sure they learn English, assimilate into the culture, remain employed, stay out of legal trouble, etc., etc. The whole notion this might be a good plan is ludicrous.

[sandnsea]

16. Who keeps track of new citizens now?

Legal immigrants have requirements to become citizens now, you know that, right?

[Vinca]

23. Yes, I'm well aware of it since I'm married to a person who

was a legal immigrant and became a citizen by following the current rules. The point is, once a legal immigrant applies for citizenship it's a much shorter process than the Z-Visa, 8-year-long proposal in the current bill. Are we going to hire immigrant police to keep tabs on these people over an 8 year period to be sure they're keeping with the requirements? This is, essentially, a red tape bill. If any of these people actually obtain citizenship at the end of 8 years, it will be a miracle.

[sandnsea]

25. It's 5 years

Not much of a difference between 5 and 8. Are you going to hire immigrant police to round them up and deport them? They're here. They question is whether they're here with the protection of the law or as the victims of illegal employers.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. We don't need to track 12 million immigrants.

What we need to track are 10,000 employers, to be sure they are not hiring new undocumented workers.

When the INS comes calling, I want to see employers ducking out the back door into the hands of the waiting police, rather than workers scattering at calls of La Migra. Employers are the ones violating the law, and profiting by it. They need to be accountable.

Put the onus where it belongs.

[some guy]

14. No.

I don't think very many people would vote for a bag of frozen peas. :D

[athena]

24. Latinos are an important voting block for the Democrats.

What many at DU don't realize is that their opinion about "illegal" immigrants is not shared by the growing legal Mexican-American population. If Latinos continue to support the Democrats as they did in 2006, we may have decades of Democratic rule and a gradual shift to the left in mainstream politics:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061218/lovato

The roots of the Republican Latino debacle of 2006 lie in the launch of the immigration wars that began with California's Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative that denied education and healthcare to undocumented children. Bermudez's conversion and the fact that only 29 percent of Latinos voted Republican this past election indicate that the appeals to the lower instincts of the white base come at a steep electoral cost. And in this era of narrow victories and contested results, with black support of the GOP mired near the single digits of the post-Southern Strategy era, securing a significant percentage of the vote of Latinos, the country's largest minority group, is imperative for the GOP. In the same way that appealing to the desire among some whites to segregate the health, education and basic rights of blacks cost the GOP their votes for decades after Jim Crow, similar appeals to deny health, education and basic human rights to Latino and other immigrants may cost the GOP critical votes in the era of Juan Crow. The effects of such dynamics may be felt even more powerfully in the 2008 elections, in which 12 million new immigrant voters (303,600 in Arizona alone) could participate, according to a study by the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. These are especially bad omens for the Republicans when we consider that foreign-born Latinos were largely responsible for the historic increase in Latino support for the GOP engineered in the '04 elections by Rove and a now glum Sosa.

(snip)

But there's one important thing that Bendixen and Sosa agree on, something that could alter the fortunes of the GOP: The Latino vote is fluid. "The immigrant vote is a swing vote," says Bendixen, adding, "The question is, Will Democrats strongly support comprehensive immigration reform? If they don't, Latinos could turn against them." Sounding as if he's getting ready to launch GOP Latino vote campaign 2.0, Sosa concurs with Bendixen, arguing that Latinos won't necessarily respond to anti-immigrant policies in the same way that blacks responded when the GOP pursued its Southern Strategy by playing to the racial fears of whites. "I don't believe the damage is irreversible. The Latino vote is still in contention."

[Robson]

26. Is that what it is all about?

More votes for the Democratic Party in exchange for cheap labor for Americans and a bankrupt Social Security and Medicare? Sadly I think it is so.

I don't see this as helping the Democrtic Party, I see it as driving many disenfrancised voters and left and right to a third party.