Sen. Reid fast-tracks revived immigration bill

[jefferson_dem]

Source: LA Times

Sen. Reid fast-tracks revived immigration bill
Proposal boosts funding by $4.4 billion for border security and workplace enforcement, a Bush-backed provision.
By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer
June 19, 2007

WASHINGTON — Senate leaders Monday relaunched a controversial proposal to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, offering a new version of legislation that faltered earlier this month.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) used his prerogatives as majority leader to reintroduce the bill and bypass the usual committee process, putting it on the calendar for quick consideration. A final vote is likely next week.

"I applaud Sen. Reid's action to bring the immigration bill back to the floor and the determination of so many of our colleagues to do the challenging work we were elected to do," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the bill's leading Democratic proponent.

The new version cleans up the legislation, which had been altered so much in the last year that it had become legislatively unwieldy. It includes a provision, agreed to in principle last week by Senate leaders with the support of President Bush, that would boost funding for border security and workplace enforcement by $4.4 billion.

"Republican obstructionists are going to have a very simple decision to make later on this week," said Jim Manley, Reid's staff director. "Are they going to stand for efforts to provide increased funding for border security along with comprehensive immigration reform? Or are they going to continue to block one of the top priorities of the president?"

<SNIP>

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-immig19jun19,1,1324846.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=1&cset=true

[Demeter]

1. Harry, Harry, Harry

The immigrants aren't going anywhere. Why don't you deal with the more pressing problems: putting crooks and traitors in jail. Pick one and get started!

[Egnever]

22. My thoughts exactly

While I think illeagle imigration is a problem. It doesnt rank nearly as high on my list as so many others we are facing at the moment.

I really dont understand the big push for this.

[radfringe]

46. on the other hand it forces the republics to make a decision

continue to obstruct the bill which would leave the door open for Dems to say "we tried to get it passed, but the Republicans blocked it"

or vote for the bill which leaves the door open for republic's constituent anger that will manifest itself at the voting booth

[pampango]

48. Looks like the Repubs in the House have already jumped ship.

Many here might get on board with many of the provisions in the bill they just introduced.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-immig20jun20,1,5396116.story?coll=la-news-a_section

"In a sharp rebuke to President Bush, House Republicans unveiled legislation Tuesday that would bar illegal immigrants from gaining legal status in the U.S."

"The measure's core principles include gaining control of the border and enforcing existing immigration laws. It does not provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as the Bush plan does."

"U.S. citizens would be affected by many of the changes proposed for work site enforcement, including mandatory checks of all employees' eligibility"

"The authors of the House bill also are pushing for a congressional resolution detailing ways in which they think the federal government has failed to enforce immigration law and has made it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S."

Other than a provision in this Repub bill making English the official language, which I think most on DU would oppose, the other parts seem seem consistent with the protestations of immigration opponents at DU, e.g. no legal status, much less a path to citizenship, for those in the US, mandatory checks of employee eligibility at all work places, and a resolution that the administration has failed to enforce existing law.

[sendero]

2. I lose faith in Reid..

... every day that passes. He has guts when none are called for and shrinks into the corner when they are needed.

I'm against this bill, for many reasons but most of all because Bush is for it. If he's for it, it cannot be good for America.

[jefferson_dem]

4. So your comfortable abandoning Kennedy and siding with Hannity, Savage, Limpballs, and Sessions?

:shrug:

[sendero]

5. Yes.

This bill is SHIT and if we pass it WE will lose votes. In addition, it is not a bill for immigrants, it is a bill to get slave labor.

And it will do JACK SHIT to stop illegal immigration.

I can be against this bill for reasons dissimilar to those of Rush et al, and I like Kennedy but he is not always right, especially when he wants to hand Bush another silver-platter victory.

There is no urgent need to pass this bill. It can wait until 2009.

[pampango]

7. Most of DU abandoned Kennedy a long time ago on this one.

Opponents of this bill can't, or don't want to, explain away Kennedy's sponsorship. He has been a liberal Democrat longer than most of us have been alive. He can win reelection in Massachusetts until the day he dies without a nickel of corporate money, so it is hard to portray him as a corporate shill. I guess they can portray him as out of touch with reality, but that is a RW talking point, so that's a delicate line to follow.

That the DU opposition to the bill will be happy if Rush and Tancredo get their way, while Kennedy gets swept aside, should make more people uncomfortable that it seems to. The opposition to immigration knows no bounds as far as political party is concerned. Perhaps a new political party can be formed to merge the interests of these opponents, but they will have to name the new party something other than the "Know-Nothing" Party. That name has already been used (by anti-immigrationists, no less) and didn't fare so well.

[underpants]

9. Look-not specific to this bill- we need to start dealing with this issue

we need a policy and we need to start working on it. The whole "all at once" "for it or against it" bs is just that bs-it is meant for nothing more than politics and it stinks. We DEAL WITH land management and Indian affairs and the military and farming and etc..... why not start dealing with this too?

This is, for lack of a better term, an inventory problem and we need to start DEALING WITH IT!

[jaybeat]

28. Don't be disingenuous

Rush and the rest of the rabid right wing (and the significant portion of mainstream America that they have whipped up into a frenzy) don't like this bill because it contains some meager provisions that would enable people who've been living and working here to continue to do so. Their opposition is racist and xenophobic and ignores the fact that these people are doing jobs *under conditions that* legal residents would not do them.

Many of us here at DU don't like this bill because, while it bestows a begrudging and punitive route to legality on 12+ million people we live and work with every day, it makes official and legal the second-class treatment of any and all of those who come after, ensuring that there will always be a steady supply of workers who will work for less, under worse conditions, than someone who's already here. This abuses *all* workers and generates a race to the bottom in which employers are the only winners.

What I think we need is neither of the above. We need to recognize that, on a level of fundamental human rights, that a human being is not and cannot be "illegal." That, unless you are of 100% Native American ancestry, than you should STFU about immigrants taking something from you. If we require all employers to pay a living wage, enforce proper working conditions, and provide affordable, accessible health care for all, regardless of employment, then we fix 2 problems: 1) there will no longer be jobs in America that legal residents won't want, and 2) it will not be possible for someone more desperate than someone else to lower the price of labor.

What it won't fix is something we can't "fix"--people everywhere will do anything they can to provide for their families--if they can't do it at home, they will go elsewhere. Until all countries are able and willing to provide a means to sustain their own people, and provide for their basic freedoms, there will be illegal immigration. To make a distinction between political and economic refugees is drawing a distinction where there is no difference. And as long as we lead the world in wealth and consumption, while our corporate masters do everything they can to maximize the profits they extract from workers everywhere, we will never be able to keep "them" away from "us" and "ours" because they *are* us, and we are much more in the same boat than we would like to think.

It is not sustainable to maintain your status as a "have" when that status depends upon others being "have-nots."

[earthside]

12. So you're comfortable allying with Bush and the Chamber of Commerce?

Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day ... even some 'conservatives' in this case are smart enough to see that this so-called 'immigration reform' is a direct assault on the middle and working classes of this country.

The bigger surprise/disappointment is that there are 'liberals' in the U.S. Congress so beholden to the corporations that they are willing to support this anti-labor, anti-environment, pro-transnational corporation, pro-globalization legislation.

Get on the telephone and try and get your Democratic representatives in Washington to kill this bad bill once and for all.

[pampango]

14. Again, I don't think that Kennedy is a corporate shill.

You may believe that he is. I believe that he is pushing this bill for ideological reasons. Other Democratic Senators may be sell-outs using Kennedy's reputation and ideology to cover their own corruption.

One thing on which we seem to agree. No matter which side of the immigration issue we come down on we have bedfellows that make us very uncomfortable - Bush and the CofC on one side, Rush and Tancredo on the other. ;)

[Red1]

17. Well Put!

I might add this country cannot get into a mode of supporting all illegals that enter.

We can support some, but it will take the will of the people to understand that.

[gulfcoastliberal]

6. Yeah, an "immigration" bill written by the Chamber of Commerce

probably doesn't help anyone. Ignore the cries of bigotry. Some people just do not get it.

[pampango]

20. Liberal/progressive thought continues to evolve and I have a hard

time keeping up.

Is our position now that laws that disproportionately harm a racial or ethnic minority do not need to be examined for possible "bigoted" consequences and to examine if the law needs to be changed? As long as the law seems nondiscriminatory on its face, we can ignore complaints from minority groups who may feel that it harms them?

Perhaps I am just missing the point in this discussion that, while the primary target (if not targer, per se, the "affected group") of those opposed to this bill are a minority group, Hispanics, any pain or suffering that is cast upon them is acceptable because the larger goal here, the reason progressives oppose the bill, is a worthy one in DU's collective opinion. As you suggest, I will try to learn to ignore the cries of bigotry in situations like this.

Progressive thought has evolved and I just have to adjust. A few decades ago I believed that we were the ones who worked to bring the world closer together, tear down walls, and alleviate poverty both at home and abroad where it is even worse. Now it seems to be we've got ours (we'll not as much as we would like, but a hell of a lot more than you poor folks in the Third World) and we will do what we have to to keep your hands off of our stuff.

By the way, if the fickle finger of fate had put Haiti where Mexico is (let's say France got there first), do you think there would be a few cries of bigotry if this discussion was about 12 million Black illegal immigrants from our new southern neighbor, Haiti?

[ToeBot]

44. Does this bill alleviate poverty abroad? Does this bill address, in any way, the economic...

root of the problem? If it does then I will have to reconsider - it may be more than just a badly constructed facade, meant to appease the divergent agendas of two very disparate groups. I doubt it though.

[pampango]

47. You bet it helps alleviate poverty in Mexico, since immigrant workers

send a large percentage of their pay to family and relatives back home. Since the recipients are overwhelming poor, these remittances do help alleviate poverty.

Does this address the root cause of poverty in Mexico? No. Neither does any form of humanitarian aid given to Third World countries. It helps poor people survive and improve their lives modestly, but in the process buys breathing room for the rulers in any country. I suppose that cutting off the flow of money from immigrants here to their families back home would increase the pressure on Mexican society to change, just like the cutoff of funds to the Palestinian government increased the pressure on them. In any case, it is a harsh policy that makes poverty worse in the short run, though it can work or it can also cause an explosive reaction, as it did in the Gaza Strip.

[Kokonoe]

18. "the top priorities of the president" is to ruin the democrats

on the way out. IT'S A TRAP!! There I said it.

[pampango]

21. Kennedy is such an idiot. He has let himself be trapped by an idiot

like Bush. What is the world coming to?

(Of course, it is possible that this bill will explode the Repub party, in which case Kennedy has laid a trap for Bush and the Repubs.) ;)

[silverojo]

43. Of course Bush is for it

He wants his evil corporate cronies to have lots of Mexicans to work for slave wages and undercut the American worker.

The big question is why Ted Kennedy's selling out this country to Bush and his union-busting buddies....

[kurth]

3. Fast-track that piece of garbage into the dumpster

Why do we need a new law to enforce the border?

[watercolors]

8. I hope this bill is fast tracked to oblivion

not a good bill, it will never pass the house, if approved by senate!

[pampango]

10. Got to agree with you on the bill's prospects in the House.

Blue Dogs and RW repubs will sink this bill fast and be quite proud that they did it. I think they are hoping the Senate will pass something so they can get credit for shooting it down. They will be frustrated if the Senate can't send them a bill to kill.

[Mark D.]

11. Why Not

Pass the bill WITHOUT the amnesty provisions. Just boost funding
for border security (guards, you know, actual jobs for us legal
Americans, not fences they can climb) and...most of all, really,
really, go after employers. Make it so fucking scary for any to
hire an illegal (give THEM mandatory minimums, one bust, and a
business budget busting fine and 6 months, two and two or more
years in prison, whatever) they won't. And they'll have to hire
legal immigrants and Americans. Combine that with huge fees for
companies that hire overseas in place of here or send jobs over
we'd be able to do here, high enough to be more than any savings
they'd get in wages would be more than lost. You get the idea...
It's not isolationist, it's what Democrats used to stand for, all
kinds of things driven by protecting the little guy. The illusion
of protecting the little guy the GOP flies is working because of
so many Democrats wanting amnesty. Meanwhile, the GOP squarely is
putting all the onus on the illegals themselves, feeding meat to
bigots and still looking 'effective' while most are lax on real
employer enforcement. As I've said before, if you want to stop
prostitutes (illegals) stop the johns (employers)...PERIOD...

[pampango]

13. Republican leaders in the Senate complain that it is Kennedy and

other Democrats that keep insisting on "legalization". I am sure they would be happy for us to contact Democratic senators and convince them to go along with your suggestion.

[peace13]

15. Is this the bill that let's immigrants who have entered the US

in a 'non-traditional traditional way' (hate to use the word illegal)become US citizens if they survive the US military for two years? I heard that on MSNBC last night on the show that airs after KO. Sorry I don't have a link. This idea is bad on so many levels. I find myself exhausted by the crap these idiots dream up.

[leftchick]

16. good to see the Democrats concentrating on this important issue!!!

:sarcasm:

[High Plains]

19. Fine. I can live with the status quo. Can you?

Funny, all the people screaming about illegal immigration want to kill the only legislation that might begin to do something about it.

[pampango]

25. Many here seem to think that changing nothing will make things better.

You are right, if nothing happens, immigrants will continue to come here and work. They will be exploited by employers, landlords and others, but they will still prefer life here to back home.

If this bill doesn't pass, the immigrants had better hope that no other bill passes. With the support of Freepers and DU (although our support is for loftier reasons) the new bill would build high walls, back them up with serious firepower, go after employers with a passion and either actively deport the people or, better yet, hope that they deport themselves (much cheaper and fewer pictures of police hauling of poor Mexicans).

The status quo might not look so bad to these folks and their supporters.

[customerserviceguy]

40. I'd rather have an immigration bill

that was written by the NEXT Congress, that will not have to please war-mongering Repukes in order to get support, that will not have to be signed by Chimpy. I'd rather see President Clinton, President Edwards, or President Obama propose the way forward on immigration, to a Congress that is fillibuster-proof.

[pampango]

42. You are a genuine electoral optimist.

I expect good things in 2008, but I take a back seat to you.

Other than eliminating the guest worker provisions, I don't see that a new bill in 2009 would not differ much from this one. Hispanics are traditionally strong Democratic voters. Hispanic groups that have reservations about the current bill, because it is too harsh on immigrants, will have more sway with the new administration and congress. My reading of history is that Democratic control in DC, given the influence of corporations and Hispanic groups, will not be conducive to immigration legislation.

I think that we would end up with better immigration legislation in 2009, if we pass something resembling the current bill now, then come back in 2009, with Democratic control, and eliminate those provisions, like the guest worker program, that we don't like. That seems better to me than expecting the Democrats to start from scratch in 2009 and do anything like sweeping immigration reform (which is becoming a "third rail" in both parties).

[Zavulon]

27. No sarcasm intended, honest, but

do you seriously think any of the enforcement measures will actually be implemented to the point that they'll become common practice? We have tons of laws on the books that nobody enforces, so there is little reason to believe that the new ones would be enforced.

My predictions:

The first thing that will be waived is the fine.

The second: any law saying an illegal has to return home first. In early discussions when Bush first trotted out his "comprehensive" plan, Kennedy correctly mocked the idea.

The third: actual border enforcement. The MSM will spend some time reporting busts, after which the story will grow cold and enforcement will stop.

After that, little by little any actual change from the status quo will fade away.

In short, and I reiterate that I'm not trying to be confrontational: you ask if we can live with the status quo. I respectfully submit that within a year of passage, this bill will revert to today's status quo - expensively. Personally, I'd rather see no law passed than this crap.

[depakid]

35. "I'd rather see no law passed than this crap."

Agreed.

[rayofreason]

38. Your predictions are spot on.

[pingzing58]

23. The truth is that the illegals (undocumented workers) are here and working!

Otherwise how could they send $9.2 billion back to their
families in Mexico each year?  When you really look at it
these so called illegals are helping our economy.  Anyone
remember that Social Security needed more and younger people
paying into it to pay for the "baby boomers" who are
retiring?  Wouldn't it be ironic if the DUers who refuse these
hard working human beings "a path to citizenship"
(amnesty) may themselves need their financial help in their
retirement?  We'll wait and see.

[IsItJustMe]

24. This bill is a joke. Do you really believe anybody takes our borders or work enforcement seriously,

no matter how much money our government is throwing at it. If you do, I got some ocean property for sale in Arizona.

This is nothing more than one more bill for the corporations.

[AzDar]

26. This 'reform' is a DISASTER...for U.S. workers, for the undocumented immigrants,

and for Harry Reid and Democrats in the next election cycle, if they don't do something to stop it.

[High Plains]

29. How is this a disaster for undocumented immigrants?

It offers them a path to citizenship.

[AzDar]

31. The 'touchback' provisions; the 'z-visa' (which effectively creates

a slave-wage labor pool:not quite legal, yet not deportable...ripe for abuses of all kinds); the prohibitive fines.
Do you really think Dubya cares about the plight of 'illegals'?
He cares ONLY about enriching CorpAmerica.
Perhaps try reading the bill, then let me know if you still think it's good legislation.

[High Plains]

32. I don't see how people on a path to citizenship are worse off

...than being undocumented and subject to deportation. How is having a Z-Visa "not quite legal"?

Okay, you don't like the bill. So what do we do?

[AzDar]

33. We HAVE laws. We HAVE a 'path to citizenship'. The EXISTING laws aren't being

enforced because there is simply too much profit for a select few in not enforcing them.
The rest of us (citizens and non-citizens) pay for it, in all sorts of unpleasant ways.
Giving aid to those countries whose citizens seek to flee would be a good start...

[pampango]

34. What about the Z-visa? It is my understanding that the immigrants

would be perfectly legal, allowed to stay and work in the US. Is that not true? There is only a fine if someone decides to pursue citizenship, not for the Z-visa.

I certainly agree with providing help to the Third World. I just hope that it is not sending money or rice or corn (other than for special humanitarian situations), but by helping them build up the human capital they are so rich in. China and India are reducing poverty, not because anyone is sending them money or food, but because people there are working to make it happen, just like Taiwan and South Korea did in decades past.

You are right that existing laws are not being enforced, except perhaps very sporadically. Is the way to change this, if that is possible, to keep the law unchanged and really "insist" that Bush listen to what the common person wants the government to do? Or is it more likely to change if everyone wins a little; the liberals (Kennedy) get "legalization", the corporations (Bush)get guest workers, DU gets employer sanctions, and Rush and the Freepers get more walls and guns to back them up. Maybe each group can hold the others' feet to the fire to ensure the each aspect is enforced.

[High Plains]

36. Hey Pampango, I think it's time for that Husak quote again.

You know, the one about unenforceable, symbolic laws.

[pampango]

39. I had to look up the Husak reference, but I got it. n/t

[pingzing58]

41. pampango, what is the Husak quote, i don't understand. thanks.

[bluestateguy]

30. Enforce the laws on the books!

And throw this bill in the trash can.

[youngdem]

37. I am disgusted by Dem Leadership complicity in this digusting bill

This bill fucks everything up it touches, as does the Chimperor.

HEY HARRY, FOCUS ON GETTING US OUT OF IRAQ, FINDING BIN LADEN, PROSECUTING BUSHCO, EXERCISING OVERSIGHT, REDUCING FORECLOSURES AND DECREASING OUTSOURCING. EVERYTHING ELSE, YOU DON'T HAVE TIME FOR!

[ShortnFiery]

45. Yes, they're giving a big wet kiss to the large corporations as well as Dear Leader's disgusting

legacy.

What does it take to get Reid and Pelosi OUT of our Democratic Congressional Leadership? :grr:

Are they clueless as to their approval rating tanking below the Unitary Executive (23%) because they are GUTLESS and seemingly Pro-Corporate every damn thing?!?

On a Political Scale, I'm getting the sinking feeling that it's much like politics in Iraq and Palestine: Keep the worthless "little people" fighting among one another while we destroy The Middle Class and rape The Treasury. :grr:

It's all one big fraternal WALTZ to far too many within Our Congress, both democratic and republican. http://voidnow.org

[paulk]

49. if I was a cynic, I might think that Reid is setting a trap for Bush

and the Republicans.

He knows this bill will fail in the House. It puts the Democratic Party on the side of the Hispanic community (the largest and fastest growing minority group in the country). It divides the Republican Party from their President.

Politically, it's win/win.