Why illegal immigration will NOT be a wedge issue in 2006 for the Dems

The Republicans will not be able to make illegal immigration the wedge issue that gay marriage was in 2004 for one reason: they themselves are divided over it. Almost every Republican supported state-wide refferendums on banning homosexual marriage. But the Republican Party has pro-illegal immigration and anti-illegal immigration factions.

The pro-illegal faction is primarily the corporatocracy elites who spout the bullshit of how illegals are doing jobs that others won't do. They tell us that if we enforce the laws and tighen our borders, that our lettice will be expensive and our consumer lifestyle will be DOOOOOOMED! The bigwigs in the Cato Insitute, and Grover Norquist himself want a libertarian-style immigration policy because it helps in their efforts towards union-busting a driving down wages. Bush wants a guest worker program that will create an underclass of low-skilled workers that can't vote or can't unionize.

The anti-illegal faction is strongly opposed to the Bush policy. They're correct in opposing illegal immigration, but they do so out of xenophobia, while progressives who oppose it did it in the name of economic fairness for American citizens regardless of race, and for the unions and the right of organization. I would say that the majority of rank and fiel conservatives who live in red states and blue state alike are opposed to illegal immigration. The "Country Club Republicans," are some of the same elites that want to break the backs of working stiffs, some of whom vote Republican because of the social issues or national security issues.

This DU thread on Free Republic's reaction to the Bushs proposal is telling:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x764341

Ultimately, I believe that the pro-illegal faction will win out, either by compromsing with the xenophobes in creating a bill that will have loopholes, or they will outright kill it.

I think the Repugniks will read the writing on the wall, and go with thier majority, which of course will take the racist tact.

Expect that the Repugniks will pass sweeping immigration reform, and don't be surprised if they declare it a National Security priority. Even the Corporate Elite will go along, after they decide where to export the jobs to. Probably China, after all the Chinese workers make less per day than one of our Union workers makes on their breaks.

But every time Bush opens his mouth about guest workers, and ever ingle time Cato or Norquist do so, they hurt their chances.

throw some raw meat to the xenophobes, and create a degraded, marginalize class of immigrant workers

The fewer rights immigrant workers have, the cheaper and more pliable they become to their corporate slave masters.

this is a fair assessment of the situation i believe.. I think the the fundelmental problem with the current debate is that it is framed with such a narrow construct, in black and white and does not address all of the policies that have created the problems that are legitimate and need to be addressed..

The anti-illegal faction is strongly opposed to the Bush policy. They're correct in opposing illegal immigration, but they do so out of xenophobia, while progressives who oppose it did it in the name of economic fairness for American citizens regardless of race, and for the unions and the right of organization.

Again, the issue isn't black and white, and i know Progressives are are on both sides of the "legal vs illegal" question, though progressives are in general agreement as to the actual issue of concern from the workers point of view, and correctly takes a critical look at the policies and the policy makers.

The wedge between the corporatists who want cheap, unregulated, powerless labor and the racists who don't believe in the words on the Statue of Liberty.

NGU.

But I'm afraid that if our most vocal anti-illegal voices speak up, they'll get swatted down by accusations of xenophobia or racism. I've heard a small group of people on this board say so far that because the southwest was once part of Mexico, that they are entitled to live there, and that this is "Montezuma's revenge." Rhetoric promoting "Aztlan" and sympathizing with pro-secession from the U.S. Chicano nationalism needs to be ignored, and anyone advocating it and simultaneously calling you a bigot for supporting upholding our existing laws shouldn't be paid attention to.
We as a party, should oppose blanket guest worker programs, AND oppose actions that make pastors and priests into criminals. Neither measure will solve our problems. You are right in that this issue of illegal immigration is very nuanced.

It's about playing the two factions of Cons against one another.

NGU.

When formulating opinions and positions on issues, it behooves us all to understand why the pov of those that see this not only as xenophobic and racist, but actually about White Colonial Supremacy...

that's the point of bringing up the history.

The other point of bringing up the history, is because it matters and people are not thinking the issue through.. instead, people are re-acting in the very manner which is perceived as fundelmendally racist and xenophobic to the core. And furthermore, i've heard it repeated in this debate, that this is about "political correctness", and I warn those who would rather dismiss the issue as one of PC is on the wrong track completely .. it will pay to learn and understand more about this from a perspective that is one of the disenfranchised rather than one of the priviledged - if there continues to be a failure to probe into the real issues, i fear there will be more negative consequences..

someone recently said that when we wage wars on other countries, without knowing anything about their culture and their history, we lose everytime. the panel subject was on Viet Nam and Iraq.

The wars in Iraq and Viet Nam (and many others) are symptomatic of the core underlying principles of the xenophobia and racism that is being exhibited in the current debate around the southern borders.

i think it's important that people took a deep breath, and think this through a bit more before jumping on the exact same emotional (and irrational) bandwagon of the likes of David Duke... who was first to lead this vigilante crusade against "illegal immigrants" back in the 1980's.

To the extent anyone knows what to do about it.