WTF is going on today??? (Immigration)

Our party leaders are pressing full steam ahead with immigration reform, but there is not one single thread here for or against it. Does anyone care about this effort?

Or could it be that our party leadership is focusing (like a laser beam) on an issue that we don't care about, while neglecting the ones we do care about?

And why this issue? Its a big time loser with the public? Why go down with Bush on this one?

And if we can fight so hard and take such a huge risk for this one, why not fight just as hard and take the same risks to end this ridiculous occupation of Iraq?

They are whipping up a new issue (actually an old one).

The majority of Americans seem to be on the side of sensible immigration reform, not the drastic, draconian measures that the far RW fringes want to see implemented. Most Democrats seem to be there and, oddly enough, Bush and the business end of the Republican Party. So the issue gets replayed...and the wedge gets driven even deeper into the coalition of special interests that make up the Republican Syndicate.

Actually I think you are somewhat off base on this. Most of the country from the left to the right oppose this bill. Even many legal Hispanics immigrants are opposed. BTW there is a new poll on DU if you care to add your opinion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3341368&mesg_id=3341368

If you ever listen to CSPAN Washington Journal there are very few calls coming from the public supporting this immigration bill. By far most oppose it. this is a good indicator of how thoughtful Americans feel about this bill. Most of us believe that the USA has been very generous with its immigration policy.....much more so than Mexico and other countries. Google Mexican immigration policy sometime.

Do you believe those Mexicans in Mexico are real xenophobes against the brown Spanish speaking people? How about they just want to enforce their laws, something the USA doesn't because big business bribes politicians with big $$$$.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13006798/site/newsweek/from/RSS/

It's a divisive issue that's for certain but here in Texas it is a huge issue. If this bureacracy immigration system is set up nothing will be done....just as nothing has been done since 1986....empty promises. I'm for legal immigration...it has served us well but the invasion going on is real.....in time those of you with no interest will learn of its importance.

I sometimes think our congress is like Lemmings jumping off a cliff. They are so disconnected from the average American now that they have not a clue what it is to live without have millions in the bank.

Guess you've got it tough out there in The Hill Country. Here in Houston, we're doing OK.

Since you're a Texan, I'm sure you're familiar with The Handbook of Texas. Read up on "Mexican Americans & Repatriation."
www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/MM/pqmyk.html

Since it sounds like you're in the "Deport them all" camp.

like seeing people who had jobs here for years displaced by cheap, illegal labor. eom


Edit: I just read the linked article. Interesting but what does it have to do with today's U.S. immigration policy?

What, are you kidding?
$100 million last year was spent by Harris County Hospital District on illegal immigrant health care. Yea, that's doing just grand!
We don't even have an accurate account of how many hundreds of millions in school, and other hidden costs.

You obviously aren't part of my "we".

If this amnesty (and that's what it is, 1986 all over) goes through make no mistake there will be many in this country who will switch loyalties from both Parties to Independent. That has a big impact on political donations.

The proof of the importance in this bill is that many junior senators ( such as Claire McCaskill) are voting against it because they fully understand that most Americans oppose it and believe it to be a sell out of our country to big money and the Wall Street Journal.

I keep hearing pundits say that two Congressmen who strongly opposed illegal immigration (JD Hayworth is one) were replaced by Democrats in 2006. But they fail to say that both Democrats who replaced them had stronger anti-illegal immigration views than their GOP predecessors.

As soon as one side accuses the other of being racist, the discussion is pretty much over. A manipulative tactic was introduced, trust and integrity is broken, and things get unproductive really quick. We've actually been talking about immigration reform for months.

I hope you haven't lost sight of that. I understand that it may make political negotiations difficult. But racism is real. And there are racists involved in this issue. Plenty of them.

Do you believe everyone against illegal immigration is racist?

Because my original post was about people who do think that, that everyone against illegal immigration is racist.

So why add it now? That one word changes the whole conversation. We both know 'everyone' can't be racist.

What I was trying to get you to understand is that just because someone brings up the subject of race does not mean that person is a bad actor. There are such things as racists in this world. And its not wise to ignore that fact in the interest of getting legislation passed.

White supremacists are dead set against an immigration bill that does not focus on rounding up and deporting Mexicans. That's not the same as saying everyone who wants to round up Mexicans is a racist.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22white+pride%22+%2Bimmigration

I will grant that some people bring racism into this; I was complaining more about people who say that everyone against illegal immigration is racist, which you do see here.

racists but pragmatists. The U.S.takes in many, many legal immigrants per year. This influx, if that is less offensive, is beyond assimilating in any way that is not destructive to the American job market and to our culture and to our economic situation. Cheap labor is driving this bill.

My husband is a home builder. For ten years he has been in "competition" with contractors who hire illegals. Since 1986 we see little of border patrol....a little more just lately though. At the same time we have more carpenters showing up at our door than we can hire....these are men who have lost their jobs to illegal immigrants. How do they support their families without work in what is for them their lifetime industry? These men helped to build, literally, this town and now they are being pushed aside so unscrupulous contractors can line their pockets by hiring cheap labor. We need to go after these employers. We have had illegals approach us and when we ask for documents they have none so consequently we do not hire them and tell them it's against the law....which isn't easy since they don't understand English....big clue along with no documents.

Talking about this "influx" that is "beyond assimilating in any way", that will destroy "our culture"--sort of blows your cover.

What sort of legisltation would you support?

This "influx" is overwhelming....it's a lot for the country to absorb. Yes, my culture is a bit destroyed. When men who have always had work are pushed out by cheap, illegal labor, yeah my culture is affected. Sorry. I support, as I said earlier, legal immigration. The laws are in situ.

BTW--What's with the repatriot article?

On previous attempts by Texans to deport the "illegals." Many were not illegal by the laws of that day. And others were children, born here. (Of course, many--even at DU--want to change the Constitution so that being born here does not "automatically" bestow citizenship.)

By the way--"in situ" is Latin. Shouldn't you be using English Only?

Please define American culture.

You get no argument from me. I get where you are coming from on all points.

I read it telling it like it is. Showing concern for your family and it's well being is of course ultimately pragmatic, and admirable, despite what any of the relatively small minority of mind readers here on DU might try to spin otherwise.

I think it is critical that this debate be settled BEFORE the 2008 election. It will rob the GOP of a cause celebre. The fact that Junior hasn't secured the borders, just like he has not in Iraq, speaks to their abject incompetence, and this national security breach should be used as a cudgel to pummel the GOP and this White House.

I'm for zero population growth, since scientists believe we reached a sustainable pop. relative to environment and resources in the 1960s! There have been many threads here on the subject, and some folks foolishly cry racism every time. Dems need to wise up ~ an "invasion" is exactly what this is, and our children and grandchildren will pay for our irresponsibility.

I agree with the basic idea that immigration should be our means of making up for a decrease in population, as we are currently seeing in many European countries. yet those who are allowed to immigrate here should be those who are currently flooding our borders.

it makes no sense to allow immigrants from Europe, Asia, or Africa because those individuals are not the ones making it across our borders. this policy was logical in the 19th and 20th centuries when a growing population was needed to industrialize our country, and when those who wished to come here were political refugees who needed our help. but now we live in different times, immigration shouldn't be a form of foreign aid or even a means of helping those whose political views forced them to flee. those who should become citizens are those who have worked here for years, but must compete with applicants from India or China to become citizens.

immigration can still help us in many ways. it can help keep entitlements like Medicare and Social Security solvent, as the babyboomers retire, by adding many young workers to the tax base. Secondly it can make many of those who cannot be stopped..those from Mexico, part of the legal process. in other words, those who come here from Latin America can become citizens. but only if we are willing to cut off all immigration from nations that don't touch ours.

we faced a similar problem a century ago, and were able to make it into part of the solution. I hope we can do this again, by understanding what countries these newcomers came from and by stopping immigration from nations that have the resources necessary to support their populations. but how does the legislation currently being debated accomplish this?

In light of this invasion, immigration should be halted entirely and our borders closed. Once we get that done, we can talk about whether the country actually needs more people, and what skills we need. This should be about what's good for this country ~ if we just want to be nice, we can export help instead of importing people.

In order to achieve zero pop. growth, I've heard that we need a birth rate of 1.4 kids per couple. It's absurd that this country still gives per child tax breaks ~ and it'll take one hell of a leader to get the U.S. to give up its addiction to the more-is-better growth model. Sigh...

when the founding fathers established the President as the leader of our military forces, I believe they wanted him to have the authority and flexibility needed to protect our borders from any form of invasion. I doubt they intended this military to be misused overseas..in countries like Iraq or Vietnam! even though Napoleon was a tyrant, his actions didn't effect our country enough for Jefferson or Madison to get involved.

however..I think some population growth will be necessary to keep entitlements solvent as the babyboomers retire. but I agree that immigration should be limited to only those who work in this country, and who can be required to pay taxes and be paid nothing less than the minimum wage! I think ending NAFTA must be part of this debate.

It's a travesty that our troops are stuck overseas in a rich man's faux war instead of protecting our borders here. Homeland security, my ass! :)

Many of the problems with the world today are based upon this unending growth in population. I've heard idiots like Rush Limbaugh say that we have all this vacant land and could support many more people. The idiots don't understand that pure natural undisturbed land is necessary to maintain an environment in equilibrium and so we can feed ourselves. The oceans are being fished dry. There are far too many of us now in the USA, and it disturbs me to see our business model turn our country into an overpopulated disaster. We need a business model that depends on zero or negative population growth.

some of the universal healthcare and entitlement programs are now in peril because of the aging populations in those countries. a growing percentage of the population in Europe is retiring, while younger taxpayers make up the shrinking percentage. this isn't a huge crises because they don't fund a worldwide police force, as we do with our tax dollars! but I think many of these countries should reform their immigration policies, so they can bring in enough immigrants to make up for the population lost during the last decade.

I think immigration is useful to make up for any decrease we have in our population size, but unlike China..at least Americans haven't been forced to accept "a one child per family" limit. when our population becomes too large, all we must do is place some limits on our immigration policy. IMO, our country will never face the problems now seen in India and China.

with King George on this one. This bill needs to be addressed in 2 parts: securing the border and then all the rest. The main problem is that no one has any confidence anything will be enforced if this bill is passed. We've got a roster of other legislation from 1986 that's been ignored - why will this be any different? Democrats in Washington seem to be doing all they can to alienate the rest of the party and the left-leaning Indies, whether it's this bill or the failure to end Iraq funding or taking impeachment "off the table." Bottom line, no good can come from cozying up to George.

The Dem leadership can't get ANYTHING done re: the crimes of Cheney/Bush/Gonzo/Rummy, yet they'll follow Mr. 23 % down the rabbit hole with this horrible, horrible, legislation.


Going to make it VERY hard to EVER win another majority.

Its a huge risk with no gain. The legislation is not all the impressive in the first place. But on top of that, for the next 25 years, every time a Mexican commits a crime, no matter how seldom it occurs, the Dem party and GW Bush will be blamed.

so there's a plus since most Hispanics join the Dem party. Either we give the 12 million people SS ID's or they continue living in the shadows and not paying taxes.

What about the Dems who will bolt the party over this?
What about the people we could have converted who will now never ever vote Dem?

This net gain could kick in decades from now when the outrage dies down. Maybe. But for now this is a big time losing issue. It could cost us the majority.

Wouldn't that be something? We lose the majority because we got caught helping Bush screw up.

immigrant groups.

Their children will be citizens, but usually young adults don't vote in large numbers. It's not until they settle down that most young adults actually go to the polls.

It's the same for all ethnic and racial groups.

I think that it will be a long time before you see results.

Moreover, immigrants are concentrated in a few states, like NY, California, Illinois, that go Dem anyway. Perhaps Virginia, Florida, Arizona and Colorado will go blue, but I wouldn't count on Texas.

On the other hand, folks who don't like so much diversity could move to other states and turn them from purple to red, perhaps.

I don't think that legalizing 12 million illegals will necessarily change the political picture that much.

When the social security system is no more because amnesty will cost over a trillion dollar drain to the system, we'll be able to rule a majority over bankrupted pig!
NO THANKS

I do not support this bill. If Carl Levin votes for this crap he won't have my vote in his reelection bid. I am tired of bought and paid for Democrats who do not give a shit about the average worker. Screw Ted Kennedy as well!

taking the side of the Rushbot Freeper RW base. To the contrary, if I oppose Ted and Carl on the immigration issue, someone might consider me an honorary (dishonorary?) Freeper-for-a-day. Ted and Carl have proven themselves to me, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt on this.

As a Michigan ex-pat, I see this as a jobs issue.

You may call me an honorary Freeper if you wish.

This issue could be one to unite the country (against Bush and the Dem party).

For many different reasons, there are a lot of us who are against this particular bill.

For the record, I'd like to see some type of reforms. But its not a big issue with me, and I don't think this particular bill is an improvement at all. It will probably make things worse. Just my opinion.

There was also a poll posted in early May. I was curious if there was any change in support from then and now. There wasn't much support then btw.

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

there was a story of two now successful Latino businessmen who came here illegally and established themselves who claim to be die hard republicans. ronald reagan is their hero.

"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_go_co/immigration_congress;_ylt=ArD3e.WxSha5MQ_hMGn9gLqyFz4D

Reid set this vote up using the arcane "Clay Pidgeon", in which all amendments are voted on at the same time.

Assuming, this bill remains intact after all amendments are voted upon, can it still be filibustered?

Yes to immigration enforcement.

And no to H1-B visas.

Call me a Freeper; I don't give a flying fuck. Tired of being threatened by outsourcing and then having non-citizens undercut wages further.

Here's the young LBJ, when he was a teacher.

Too many of the politicians do not seem to care what we think about this. They want to ram this trough.

BTW this would have passed already if it had not been for conservative talk radio.

... if the laws currently on the books were actually enforced, there would be 2 million illegals here not 12 million.

The idea that if we just pass more laws that will be ignored is going to fix anything is ludicrous.

The Dems are making a HUGE mistake in supporting this bill. The majority is NOT for it.

How is it that they will put their political lives on the line for a bill that is unpopular, but will take no risks at all to stop the Bush administration? The answer is simple, and it is not pretty.

Common sense.