Proponents alter immigration legislation in the face of tough economic climate

[The Northerner]

Source: The Hill

House Democrats are making changes to their immigration legislation to reflect the nation’s high unemployment rate.

The move comes as recognition that the 10.2 percent jobless rate – which is expected to rise and remain in double-digits for much of 2010 -- has altered the political landscape for an immigration bill.

“Each bill is reflective of a time. And with unemployment over 10 percent I think we need to have language that is very carefully tailored,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.).

....

“People will look at the unemployment numbers and say; ‘Well, why are we focusing on this?’ So, yeah, I think the hill’s a little steeper.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/69059-dems-alter-immigration-bill-in-face-of-tough-economic-climate

---

With 10.2% (17.5%) unemployment I really don't see any use for any bill that grants amnesty.

I might be supportive if the unemployment rate was lower and there were plenty of jobs present but we need to ensure that our citizens are employed first and foremost.

[nomorenomore08]

1. Well, as long as things are even worse in Mexico, you're not gonna stop people coming here.

I mean, if someone's willing to risk dying of thirst in the desert - because their only other option is to stay in their own country and starve - then no amount of "enforcement" is gonna make a whole lot of difference.

[pampango]

2. Repubs defeated reform when unemployment was low in 2007. "The nation’s unemployment rate was 4.5%

when legislation sponsored by Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2007 stalemated in the Senate." Republicans defeated reform then. They adjust their stated reasons (in 2007 it was "amnesty" which will be part of their spiel again in 2010, I"m sure), so now they are concerned about "job security". The one constant is their opposition to reform.

"General anxiety over job security likely will continue to drive Republican opposition against House and Senate immigration bills."

"Smith and King (both republicans, of course) argue Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was wrong in suggesting last week that the recession has triggered a significant decline in immigration (even though that is a fact) and the best opportunity to enact reform.

“How can they allow 12 million illegal immigrants to take jobs that should go to citizens and legal immigrants?,” he asked in a statement announcing the forum. “And how can they claim that enforcement is ‘done’ when there are more than 400 open miles of border with Mexico (gotta finish the Great Wall of the Rio Grande), hundreds of thousands of criminal and fugitive aliens (are you scared yet? - republicans make sure we are scared and then pass their legislation, sounds familiar) and millions of illegal immigrants (us vs. them - damn foreigners!) taking American jobs?”

What I never see the republicans address is the question of which word from "illegal immigrant" scares them more. If it is "illegal", then they should either support reform to allow the "illegal" to become "legal" (and less exploitable by unscrupulous employers - which is why unions support reform) or the reform of immigration laws to make immigrating legally realistic rather than so impossible that sneaking across a desert and hiding for years is preferable.

I suspect that it is the "immigrant" word that scares repubs more, but they are smart enough to realize that basing their opposition on the "illegal" part is more acceptable and still accomplishes the same goal of getting rid of "them" and keeping them out. And that is why they support neither reform for those who are already here nor of the entire immigration system. But then the "law and order" party of decades gone by knows that "just enforcing the law" can blunt efforts for change, reinforce the status of the powers that be, and keep others in their place.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Unvanguard]

4. Denying amnesty will not improve the labor market.

As a matter of fact, it will probably only do harm, because it will leave a class of undocumented workers with no standing to challenge illegal exploitative practices.