Why compromise on immigration?

[pampango]

The way I see it freeper nativists prefer strict border enforcement (keep the brown people out). DU progressives prefer prosecuting employers of illegal immigrants (go after the rich guys/capitalists, not the victims). Most Repub politicians are pro-corporate, so they prefer immigration, though they have to keep the nativist wing happy. Most Democratic politicians are pro-corporate, are more sympathetic to the situation of illegal immigrants than Repubs (who prefer that they stay here but stay illegal, as well), expect that Hispanics will vote Democratic, but have to keep their eyes on the progressive wing of the party. (Of course, there are exception to these rules and those who agree with an "opposing" group's strategy, but for a different reason.)

It is my understanding that Repubs in the Senate would be happy with a bill that focused on border security and are willing to accept more severe employer penalties in order to get it. They also want the guest worker program and will accept the demand of Kennedy and other Democrats that there must be legalization of the illegal immigrants already here, as the price for that.

I know that many, probably most, here would prefer keep immigration law the way it is and enforce it. My opinion is that no Repub (extremely pro-corporate) administration will seriously go after illegal immigrants and their employers. No Democratic (still pro-corporate) has or will go after them, for the reasons listed above for Dem politicians. So keeping the law the way it is means keeping the immigration mess the way it is.

Republicans universally hate the idea of "amnesty" - the nativist wing because it allows millions of brown foreigners to stay and rewards "lawbreakers"; the corporate wing because making them legal gives them more rights and makes less pliant employees. They love the guest worker provision - the nativists because they aren't working in the fields anyway and it is alright for brown people to do that kind of work; the corporatists - well that is obvious.

For Democrats it is more mixed. Many oppose the presence of 12 million illegal immigrants not because they are here, but because they are here illegally. (I suppose an acid test of that contention would be support for a hypothetical new amendment to the legislation deporting all 12 million, but vastly expanding legal immigration by millions, so that a similar number of immigrants could legally replace those deported. The new 12 million would be legal, but they would still be unskilled and doing the same types of work that they do now.)

Most Democrats oppose the guest worker program as it exploits the workers and displaces American workers and reduces the wages of others.

Do we keep the immigration status quo which is not good for anyone except the employers? Or do we forge some compromise trading legalization ("amnesty") for enhanced border security and employer sanctions? At least in this area, our interests as progressives may largely coincide with the interests of the nativists in the other party.

[bryant69]

1. A few points

Just to clarify, the corpritist wing of the Republicans likes the Guest Worker program, but the nativist wing (i.e. Limbaugh and Cultural Republicans), hates it.

The truth is it's hard to say what Democrats want because to a certain extent we aren't really getting engaged with this issue. Harsh I know, but it seems like for most of us this isn't the end of the world, and the specter of the Republican Party tearing itself apart is more entertaining than actually engaging this issue.

I for one don't completely oppose a guest worker program; but would be curious to see how it is run. Obviously it could be an exploit-a-thon or it could be genuinely beneficial to all involved. Certainly a lot better than our current set up.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[pampango]

4. I did not realize that the nativist wing of the Repubs opposed

the guest worker program. (Can't force myself to listen to more than a minute or two of Rush.) I have read elsewhere that few Repubs work in the fields, so it does not bother them to have brown people do the back breaking work for them.

[Bridget Burke]

2. Proposals in the bill allowing a path to citizenship for those already here is NOT "Amnesty"

It's rather stringent. (In fact, the "regular" legal path to citizenship is becoming more expensive.)

Why are you offering to sacrifice that particular possibility just to make the Nativists happy? Do you propose to deport millions of undocumented workers? Or just let them remain illegal forever--still subject to exploitation?

I'm glad you admit that many of the immigrant haters don't give squat about "the American worker."

[pampango]

3. Sorry. I didn't make myself clear.

By "trading" amnesty, I meant supporting the idea. I only consider it "trading" it, because so many here seem to oppose it.

My hypothetical amendment is meant to distinguish those who oppose the 12 million because they are illegal from those who oppose them because they are "here." Some oppose these immigrants because they are illegal (the "rule of law" group). For them support for vastly increased immigration limits should be consistent with their beliefs. If so, it is a short leap from acceptance of increased quotas to acceptance of "amnesty" for those already here, especially if it is combined with enhanced border enforcement and employer sanctions.

For those who oppose the 12 million because they are "here" increasing legal immigration is not acceptable. They are members of a long tradition of Americans who oppose immigration whether from Ireland, China or Eastern and Southern Europe.