New Immigration Proposal Creates "System of Modern Peonage"
Sunday May 20, 2007
See also: Immigration Reform Delay Could Help Democrats in 2008
In Monday's edition of my weekly newsletter (subscribe here), I argued that this week would probably be the last meaningful opportunity Democrats would have to enact humane immigration reform until 2009. Well, Democrats suggested a bill, and today the New York Times responded:
The bill would also change immigration policy in more subtle ways by, in effect, recruiting wealthy and skilled immigrants while cutting out the green card lottery and ending policies that make it easier for relatives of citizens to immigrate. So much for family values--never mind the fact that if these reforms were proposed in any other context, they would be seen as a subtle end-run attempt to reestablish national-origin quotas, a goal that was repudiated by the Immigration Act of 1965. And in any case, these ostensibly random immigration policy reforms have little to do with the issue of undocumented immigration, which was supposed to be the whole point of this legislation.
It is not clear to me whether the blame for this strange piece of legislation should lie at the feet of the president, who has apparently decided that the noblest thing he can do with his second term is destroy the Republican Party, or with Congress, which has sabotaged every opportunity it has had to enact meaningful civil liberties policy reform in other areas. Regardless, the inevitable failure of this legislation will make immigration reform a hot topic next year. That's great news for Democrats--you can expect that the Republican presidential nominee, whoever it is, will fall far short of the 44% of the Latino vote that carried President Bush to victory in 2004.
Legislators will get another crack at comprehensive immigration reform in two years. Here's hoping that a future president, and a future Congress, will approach this issue in a wiser and more practical way. The current proposal, while light years better than last year's monstrous HR 5537, is still misguided. Our leaders can, and must, do better.
Read more:
In Monday's edition of my weekly newsletter (subscribe here), I argued that this week would probably be the last meaningful opportunity Democrats would have to enact humane immigration reform until 2009. Well, Democrats suggested a bill, and today the New York Times responded:
The agreement fails most dismally in its temporary worker program. "Temporary means temporary" has been a Republican mantra, motivated by the thinly disguised impulse to limit the number of workers, Latinos mostly, doing the jobs Americans find most distasteful. The deal calls for the creation of a new underclass that could work for two years at a time, six at the most, but never put down roots. Immigrants who come here under that system — who play by its rules, work hard and gain promotions, respect and job skills — should be allowed to stay if they wish. But this deal closes the door. It offers a way in but no way up, a shameful repudiation of American tradition that will encourage exploitation — and more illegal immigration.I concur with the New York Times. This bill does not even qualify as comprehensive immigration reform. Comprehensive immigration reform implies three things:
It is painful, for many reasons, to oppose this immigration deal ... It is the nation’s duty to welcome immigrants, to treat them decently and give them the opportunity to assimilate. But if it does so according to the outlines of the deal being debated this week, the change will come at too high a price: The radical repudiation of generations of immigration policy, the weakening of families and the creation of a system of modern peonage within our borders.
- A relatively secure U.S.-Mexican border ;
- An effective way of preventing employers from unfairly exploiting undocumented workers ;
- A realistic and humane way of dealing with the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are already here.
The bill would also change immigration policy in more subtle ways by, in effect, recruiting wealthy and skilled immigrants while cutting out the green card lottery and ending policies that make it easier for relatives of citizens to immigrate. So much for family values--never mind the fact that if these reforms were proposed in any other context, they would be seen as a subtle end-run attempt to reestablish national-origin quotas, a goal that was repudiated by the Immigration Act of 1965. And in any case, these ostensibly random immigration policy reforms have little to do with the issue of undocumented immigration, which was supposed to be the whole point of this legislation.
It is not clear to me whether the blame for this strange piece of legislation should lie at the feet of the president, who has apparently decided that the noblest thing he can do with his second term is destroy the Republican Party, or with Congress, which has sabotaged every opportunity it has had to enact meaningful civil liberties policy reform in other areas. Regardless, the inevitable failure of this legislation will make immigration reform a hot topic next year. That's great news for Democrats--you can expect that the Republican presidential nominee, whoever it is, will fall far short of the 44% of the Latino vote that carried President Bush to victory in 2004.
Legislators will get another crack at comprehensive immigration reform in two years. Here's hoping that a future president, and a future Congress, will approach this issue in a wiser and more practical way. The current proposal, while light years better than last year's monstrous HR 5537, is still misguided. Our leaders can, and must, do better.
Read more:
- Editorial: The Immigration Deal (New York Times)
Comments
A fair immigration bill would limit immigrants from Mexico until other Nations immigrant levels reached that of Mexico.
What is most repugnant is that those who are illegally in this Country lacked the courage to protest in their own Country’s streets, they lacked the courage to make demands on their own Country,they lacked the courage to fight for change and human rights in their own Countries. Yet they do all these things here.
If the leadership of this nation was really compassionate they would help these people return to their home Countries with Honor and dignity. We would assist them in overthrowing corrupt Governments that treat their own people as slaves and gather the wealth for a select few.
Unfortunately, those who have came here for a better life are headed to that same corruption and treatment here if big buisness and GW Bush have their way. The North American Union benefits no one but the wealthy and will make slave labor of all of us legal or illegal.
I would love to sit down with a representative of the other side and see what kind of a plan we could come up with that would benefit all people, and join us in the fight against globalization and a One World Order.
Bill Strong writes:
A fair immigration bill would limit immigrants from Mexico until other Nations immigrant levels reached that of Mexico.
This would be unwise, I believe, because Mexico is our border nation. We should expect to see more immigration from the Americas because (a) those nations are close and (b) the United States provides more economic opportunities than can be found within those borders.
And marches are actually quite common in Mexico–much more common than they are here. There is little practical difference between organizing a street procession for the Day of the Dead, or the Flight to Egypt reenactment that occurs before Christmas every year, and organizing a protest. Most of these folks are old hands at organizing marches. The massive mobilization that occurred in 2006 shows, I think, that there was already present in the culture an ethic and tradition of political protest. The difference is that you can’t march yourself into full industrialization, and until Mexico has that, undocumented immigration will be an inevitable fact of life. We can either choose to accept migrants or choose to have a hostile relationship with them, but they will come to this country in either case.
Cheers,
TH
I have to disagree with Bill and agree with Tom on the situation in Mexico. The political left in Mexico has actually been quite strong, and there have been lots and lots of protests and even electoral successes. But changes in the Third World happen slowly — solving problems of severe poverty is no easy task, and doing so involves pursuing platform planks of both the left (worker protections, better wealth distribution and that sort of thing) and the right (industrial growth, increased trade and a certain amount of government fiscal discipline). But the situation is in many ways better than it was the first time I visited Mexico some 25 years ago.
I’m not sure what the immigration solution is for the U.S.; I tend to think, though, the compromise before the Senate is about as good of a solution as we’re likely to get in the current political situation. In any case, simply trying to shut the border and sending all the illegals back home is neither practical nor the right thing to do.