Scapegoating Immigrants

Last year, when Bush introduced his temporary guest worker legistlation, it received a tremendous amount of press. It was also widely haeradled as part of a larger Republican effort to increae their support among Latinos. What receives significantly less press are other pieces of immigration related legislation supported by Bush and Republicans, such as the upcoming REAL ID Act:
Immigration reform is back on the table -- with a vengeance. Last month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner succeeded in attaching his Real ID Act to a must-pass Iraq appropriations bill. Now that spending measure is coming up in the Senate, and though it's unclear how the upper chamber will handle the congressman's proposal, members are girding for an all-out fight over immigration.

The Sensenbrenner legislation, tagged as a security measure, is a hodgepodge of provisions: one aimed at finishing a few miles of fence on the border near Tijuana, another raising barriers to asylum seekers who claim they are fleeing abuse in their home countries.

But the section likely to create the most controversy would make it more difficult for states to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Already under attack from both the right and the left, it has also provoked calls for still tougher measures, including a national ID card.

The bill's history in the House, where it passed on a 261-161 vote, holds crucial lessons for the debate ahead. It's no accident that only eight Republicans dared vote against it, or that even President Bush, who prefers a more measured approach to illegal immigration, ended up endorsing it. What Sensenbrenner grasps -- and his opponents ignore at their peril -- is that when it comes to immigration, what the public wants is control.

Clearly, the author of this piece has an agenda. However, all I could find on the REAL ID Act were editorials (including one by John Conyers, which you can read here). There wasn't a single non-ediotrial that specifically discussed this legislation on Google News.

Why isn't their more news about this piece of legislation? Why isn't there at least an equivalent amount of news about this as there was about Bush's Latino-wooing, conservative annoying, "temporary guest worker program?" The REAL ID Act, a cravenly act of draconian scapegaoting (unfortunately supported by around forty Demcorats), is far more representative of the contemporary conservative approach and attitude toward immigration than Bush's earlier program. The identity politics of contemporary conservatism on on full display with the REAL ID Act, and the media isn't even showing up to report it.



Display:


Its tragic that US corporations are exporting jobs (none / 0)

That is the biggest problem.

(Legal) Immigrants often come here to work. Many of them are very bright and if they stay, the benefit America. But we also need to be training Americans to do jobs..

US corporations right now seem to be falling over each other to export the remaining good jobs that are not executive-level..

Illegal immigrants come here because their home countries economies are in crisis.. The reality is that they provide a safety valve that prevents those countries from falling apart otherwise.. That isn't always good... Its a complex issue..

The US business establishment is hypocritical, as they look the other way and hire illegal immigrants.. and at the same time use them to lower wages andd bust up unions..

I dont know what to say except we need some honesty and less bullshit..

The goal should be good jobs and higher wages for Americans first, then a reasonable immigration policy that maintains border security and at the same time, treats immigrants like people.. previous guest worker programs were engineered to create a class of captive low-wage workers.. and to keep wages for legal (citizen) workers low..

by ultraworld on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:14:29 PM EST

The REAL SOLUTION: Repeal Corporate Personhood.. (none / 0)

If corporations weren't considered to be people, and given all sorts of special rights that people do not enjoy, without accountability, they would build infrastructure here instead of in the dollar a day countries, and train US workers to take those high skilled jobs so that the US could return to having a middle class like we had in the 20th century...

Otherwise, we will return to the situation we had before the improvements of worker conditions that came with the New Deal and afterwards.. a situation that will lead to a nightmarish situation in which the US becomes a Third World nation of rich and poor... That is what happens when corporations are given carte blanche to do whatever they want...and it was also a huge fear of the founders of this nation - which is why they restricted their power..

See these two web pages for more on the importance of repealing corporate personhood..

http://www.poclad.org/

and

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

This is a crucial issue..

Honestly.. Don't blame immigrants for a problem not of their creation..

OTOH, we need a sensible dialogue on immigration policy that puts the needs of the American PEOPLE before the needs of the corporate job-exporters..

by ultraworld on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Internal passports.. (none / 0)

Have a very sordid history - they are typically used by totalitarian nations to restrict travel - and in many places they have been used to starve people to death.. look at Russia during Stalin's forced collectivization of the Ukraine (20 million dead) China during Mao's 'Great Leap Forward' famine (30+ million dead, probably many more - probably the worst human-caused disaster of all time) and North Korea now.. (a disaster of unspeakable cruelty with millions dead, also of starvation)

(Internal passports are used during times of civil unrest to prevent travel from areas that may be deprived of resources by governmental policy to places where there is food/decent conditions/ etc.)

Americans already enjoy a really terrible situation with lack of privacy compared to the average European, for example.. and databases have a tremendous potential for extensive further abuse...

I am not saying we should not have an national ID, its almost inevitable.. HOWEVER, we are not discussing many of the issues that we DO need to discuss about these past and potential privacy and security issues..  And I don't trust Washington to deal with them honestly, now..

Maybe in the future, but lots needs to change..first..  We need more openness and a national dialogue on the complex issues involved..

by ultraworld on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dems need to get real (none / 0)

I think Immigration control is a huge issue, for many many people.

Illegal immigration is bad, bad, bad, for everyone.

It enslaves those illegals with low wages, poor living conditions, and working rights.

It drives down wages for low income Americans who are forced to "compete"

It depletes our revenues providing healthcare, and social services and education to illegals

It increases our vulnerability to attack to maintain porus borders intentionally.

It makes a mockery of our laws. If we are a nation of laws, good ones and bad ones, we must be duty bound to uphold them, and change them if necassary.

That all being said, Democrats need to get aggressive on this issue, this is the issue that wuold open up the south, and the south west to us finally.

We ought to have a comprehensive program to stop illegal immigration, including massive border security, substantive fines for employers hiring illegals.
And we must have an effective and policable immigration and worker program.

We need to stop pandering and start acting, the rewards are enourmous, and not just politically.

by Pounder on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:43:08 PM EST

Here's what I would do if I was president... (none / 0)

...and had complete control over congress.

I would greatly expand (quadruple, maybe more) the number of people allowed to legally immigrate.

Then, I would end or significantly curtail guest worker programs, H1B's, etc.  I want future citizens, not temporary migrants who will eventually go back to thier home countries.

Then, I would crack down HARD on the illegals already here-deport them in mass numbers.  They would be eligible to apply for the vastly increased numbers of legal immigrant spots-but they would have to apply for them at our embassies in thier home countries, and would have to wait in line with everybody else, with no favorism or anti-favorism given to them.

by Geotpf on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 01:28:06 AM EST

Immigration (none / 0)

Although good liberals are usally in favor of unrestricted immigration, this is one of the cultural disconnects that pull legions of formerly Democratic voters-many of them in the South and West, away from the Democratic Party.  Although in the Midwest, at least in Michigan, we are not seeing the huge influx of illegals other states on the border are seeing, we are also enduring a huge influx of "legal" immigration.

It is a complex issue-of course-the immigrants, as they always have, largely represent the most ambitious and hard-working of their countries of origin.  This, of course, is also a generalization.  So we have to look at, in today's America, what are the effects of immigration, both legal and illegal?  We must not look at this issue with nostalgic eyes, or as part of an elite liberal ideology of "how nice it is to have all this diversity here in America."

This is usually down by affluent suburbanites whose only dealing with immigrants is when they clean their McMansions, or nanny their bratty McKids.  The rest of the country is clearly suffering under a regime of unfettered immigration-both legal and illegal.  Despite all the talk that immigrants are only working at jobs that Americans won't do, that is untrue.  I myself have worked in restaurants as a cook and dishwasher, trying to bide the tough economic times out until things get better here in Michigan. I am a native-born American with a college education.

Millions more of us are struggling to get by-as corporate America which has bought out the entire Republican Party and over half of the Democratic Party through its lobbyists and special favors and bribes has trampled down the working class and lower-middle classes in this country.  Unions are busted, good paying blue-collar jobs are vanishing and almost extinct-now the so-called "knowledge" jobs which were supposed to take their place are being out-sourced.  The wages paid by the jobs remaining are being dragged down by the hordes of immmigrants willing to work for close to slave labor-just to get their foot in the door in America.  

Services denied to many Americans, Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, are being given to these people.  Churches and non-profits, oblivious to the suffering of the native population, are aiding in the enabling of illegal immigration.

If Democrats think immigration is a panacea to take back power, then why, during the 1990's, and with the first decade of the 21st century, when immigration is occurring at record levels, do we have all 3 branches of the government controlled by Republicans.  Why are Hispanics trending Republican, with Bush almost doubling his share of the Hispanic vote over 2000?

Liberals need to get out of their little comfortable cocoons of affluence in academia and government or whereever it is they still exist, and start to speak for the American people again-the ones born in this country, whose parents died in its World Wars, often at the hands of nationals who are no flooding into this country in record numbers, yes, taking away jobs from American citizens.

by MichiganDemocrat on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 06:11:38 PM EST

Unrestricted immigration? (none / 0)

Where on Earth did you get the idea that good liberals are usally in favor of unrestricted immigration? The distinction I see is that liberals think that immigrants, illegal or otherwise, deserve to be treated like human beings once they're here.

So tell me, if this is such a liberal issue: Why is it that with Reeps in control of all three branches of the federal government, our borders are as porous as ever? Why is nothing being done? Why was Wal-Mart recently given the right to advance warnings before any labor inspections, allowing them to dodge future prosecution for employing undocumented workers?

Personally, I think we need to acknowledge that the reason Reeps are for depriving illegal immigrants of rights, but against taking measures to actually keep them out or keep companies from hiring them, is because they want to create a permanent underclass of cheap labor, wholly dependent on their employers' largesse to survive. This depresses wages for the fast-food and dishwashing jobs you're talking about, bolstering profit margins at the expense of the American worker.

I've talked to Reeps who think that illegal immigrants should be denied access to US courts -- apparently not realizing that an employee who can't sue you is much more attractive than one who can.

Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 07:32:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MichiganDemocrat (none / 0)

This has to be quick, I have an appointment, but saw Catastrophe's comment and wanted to respond.  I know that Republicans have also allowed massive immigration, both illegal and legal. I also acknowledge that liberals want to treat immigrants like "human beings" once they're here. All well and good.

The point I was making is that the liberal ideology in charge of the Democratic elites has since the 1960's at least favored massive immigration.  This has been hugely detrimental to working class, poor and lower middle-class Americans whose votes they used to get.

If by treating illegal immingrants like "human beings" you mean giving them the full array of social welfare benefits, rather them giving them the boot they so richly deserve, I disagree with that.

Illegals should be deported and forced to apply for entry to this country through legal channels.  Anything else is unfair to the millions of immigrants who have stood in line, often for years, waiting for their status to be legal and allowed to enter this country officially and legally.

I stand my my statements, the hordes of immigration, both of a legal and illegal variety, is a detriment to poor and working class and even middle class native born Americans. Not to mentio the national security issues in a post-9 11 era.    

by MichiganDemocrat on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:50:01 PM EST

You're right. (none / 0)

By definition, those who are here illegally should be deported. Their presence here erodes the quality of life of those who are here legally. We are in agreement on those points. As far as I can tell, however, there's a truce on that issue. Dems are afraid of being seen as anti-immigrant, and Reeps hate the minimum wage. And everybody loves those cheap maids and nannies.

The fact is that it has nothing to do with principles or sentiment. Importing cheap labor has always been a pillar of our economy, from slavery, to Irish and Chinese laborers, and today the economic refugees of our Latin American colonialism. Since both major parties grew out of the American economic establishment, it's wholly unsurprising that both major parties are willing to give a wink and a nod to the continuation of the practice.

As long as that's the case, I'm opposed to encouraging the exploitation of undocumented workers by treating them as second-class citizens. That's what I mean about treating them like human beings. If illegal immigrants are entitled to the full range of benefits and protections that other workers are, but subject to being grabbed up and deported at any moment, there's no longer an advantage to hiring them, is there? In fact, there's a disadvantage.

On the topic of "social welfare benefits" -- how many illegal immigrants do you suppose are going to give the government their name and address, as they'd need to do to start receiving state services?

Sure, send 'em home. But before we can do that, we have to create real political pressure for it by explaining to America why both parties only ever pay lip service to the idea.

Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Immigration (3.00 / 1)

Catastrophe:

You make a lot of fine points.  One suspects that we are largely in agreement on this issue.  I am not hard-hearted enough to deny any human being the chance to be seen at a hospital, have their kids educated and fed, etc.  Yes, the two major parties are largely corporate pawns.  Its too bad that treating the immigrants decently only encourges more of them to come, and the more that come the harder it is on the rest of American workers-since the demise of the labor movement and worker-friendly Democrats like FDR and LBJ, since they have no one in power to protect their interests.

A sad state of affairs, but  that is what the Repulicans always do, divide and conquer.

by MichiganDemocrat on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:51:00 PM EST

I am very interested in this (none / 0)

I am very interested in this
尖锐湿疣 性病 尖锐湿疣 咪喹莫特 明欣利迪 疣迪 尖锐湿疣 咪喹莫特 咪喹莫特 疣迪 明欣利迪 疣迪 艾达乐 咪喹莫特 尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣 尖锐湿疣
by hpvv on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:53:04 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.