Skip to main content

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) addresses the American Conservative Union's annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, February 9, 2012.
Look for a lot of posturing from Sen. Marco Rubio
Immigration reform takes its next step toward being a reality or yet another casualty of Republican extremism this week, with the Senate Judiciary Committee beginning to mark it up. Amendments are due Tuesday afternoon, with dozens expected, many of them from Republicans who will never support a path to citizenship no matter what. The big question is what will happen with the Republicans in the maybe category—will support for immigration reform from the Chamber of Commerce, among other effectively Republican business interests, sway them in its favor? Or will opposition from figures like former senator and current Heritage Foundation president Jim DeMint push them into voting no? The sense is that immigration reform needs a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate if there's any chance of anything happening in the House.

The next week should begin to clarify how hysterical the opposition from conservative think tanks and talk radio hosts will become, which will in turn have a major influence on Republican senators whose votes are in question. And the elephant in the room is whether the much-touted Gang of Eight will become a Gang of Seven, i.e. if Marco Rubio will decide he's better off being a hero of the far right by bailing on the immigration reform effort.

“The key is Rubio,” said Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. “Without Rubio, this bill would not get anywhere with Republicans. He gives them the cover.”
So basically, here's what the next week is likely to bring: Republicans will offer a series of amendments that would make immigration reform more punitive, make a path to citizenship longer and more hazardous, and call for sharks with laser beams on the border. Meanwhile, they'll scream that Democratic amendments making it easier for families to be together are poison pills making Democrats responsible for Republican opposition to the bill. Everyone will be sucking up to the Republican maybe votes, while Marco Rubio will be trying to figure out which is more important to his political future, the DeMint crowd or the Beltway media reputation as a conservative who's nonetheless willing to get things done. And maybe occasionally we'll get a reminder that millions of people's futures are at stake here.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Mon May 06, 2013 at 08:12 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The American public wants immigration reform (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bigtimecynic, Pinto Pony, shoeless

    done?

    That's a sure sign it's got a tough road to travel.

    "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

    by Wildthumb on Mon May 06, 2013 at 09:10:48 AM PDT

  •  One thing is certain with any bipartisan reform (11+ / 0-)

    involving immigration;

    There will no doubt be a loosening of "restrictions" in the H-1B Visa program so that business can continue to dis-empower American workers by pitting them against foreign counterparts that will work for dirt and never challenge illegal or questionable actions of their employers.  All to address a labor and talent shortage that doesn't exist.

    Mark my words; while the public talking point from DC is the noble goal of a path to citizenship for people already here, the real corporate agenda will be to gut worker protections and drive down wages.  

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Mon May 06, 2013 at 09:13:41 AM PDT

    •  we could always strengthen labor laws so (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AlexThorne, judyms9, Hamtree

      NOBODY "works for dirt".

      But we'd rather bitch and moan about the damn nonwhite  forners who took yer jobz blah blah blah, instead.  

      The boss will ALWAYS go with the lowest wages. So we can either (1) raise their wages to match ours, or (2) lower our wages to match theirs. Which do you prefer?

      •  I prefer raising their wages and making them (0+ / 0-)

        citizens, not "guest workers" so we win and they win. ANY guest worker program is an anti-immigrant joke intended to pit workers against one another.

        So which do YOU prefer?  PS - Nice attitude.

        Oh, and my preferred program will never happen because it eliminates the real reason for the H-1B program; to get cheap labor and undercut American workers.

        Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

        by bigtimecynic on Mon May 06, 2013 at 11:21:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The corporate agenda (0+ / 0-)

      will almost certainly include a guest worker program as well, which will be the Bracero program which ran from 1942 to 1964 and was finally ended mainly due to the public uproar over mistreatment of workers.  There will be a couple of differences, though, as going back and forth across the southern border will be enormously difficult, and this time there is no way in hell Texas will refuse to endorse the program like they did in the '40s because they preferred an open border back then.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:08:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The "path" to citizenship (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      helfenburg

      The "path" to citizenship is a 13 year process that involves a fine and denial of any benefits for the whole period---little more than wage slavery for many.  How is that the "liberal" side of this debate?  

      •  It is the liberal side.... (0+ / 0-)

        because the status quo is that they get deported don't have access to drivers license, schools, police, or the courts etc etc.

        We only think nothing goes without saying.

        by Hamtree on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:38:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that is the status quo if you accept the Repub (1+ / 0-)

          idea of deporting 11 million people as what we're currently planning on doing right now. which is not true.

          that's not a "status quo" it's what the Republicans want to do, and even George W. Bush(!) told them it was never gonna happen. why do you accept that idea as "the status quo", especially since its the oppositions idea? did you think that actually shortening the process down to a couple years would have been absolutely impossible because of the "political reality"?

          a a decades-long, complicated, drawn out immigration application process is what the actual status quo is. keeping it a 10+ year process, plus fines and penalties, in exchange for Not Deporting Them All isn't really doing anything but barely staving off the Deport Them All obsession, and it can hardly be called "reform" of the immigration process.

          "not deporting them all" may be the "liberal" part of the reform but that's pretty weak sauce.

          Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

          by Boogalord on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:57:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  That's what I'm wondering. When does the path (1+ / 0-)

        to citizenship become so long, so arduous that it isn't even worth it?   It can't be justified on the grounds that it will take care of the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the country, because it won't take care of them really at all.  Or it will in 13 years and after they pay thousands of dollars.  I think everything about this bill is lousy.  It doesn't help anyone except businesses that want cheap, more easily exploitable labor.  As usual....

        The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

        by helfenburg on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:46:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Where is the sweet spot (0+ / 0-)

          Between penalties in fines and increased time to citizenship that is more than a slap on the wrist for breaking immigration laws and onerous penalties that are unfair?

          •  not so much money, as time (0+ / 0-)

            i'm sure most immigrants would gladly pay some sort of fine penalty to come and get this whole immigration thing sorted out in a couple years. a 10+ year application process is daunting no matter what, especially with fines and penalties and no benefits.

            just to pull a number out of my ass, let's say $500. a $500 fine over a two-year application process. the whole process is going to take alot of money, so it will be necessarily along with the "slap on the wrist" that isn't a ten-year ball and chain. plus increased border security, whatever.

            my point is, the "sweet spot" isn't so muddy and ambiguous that nobody has any idea what something reasonable would look like. something that would tackle an application process for current illegal immigrants, a reform of the actual immigration process, and protections for US workers

            Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

            by Boogalord on Mon May 06, 2013 at 11:24:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's 13 years just to apply for citizenship. (0+ / 0-)

              Then you have to wait while your application is processed.  That can take over a decade, from what I read.  You could die waiting to get citizenship.

              I think it's an incredibly lousy law.  Lousy for the undocumented and lousy for the rest of us who have to work for a living.  And I cannot see why I should support it or the party that is promoting it.

              The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

              by helfenburg on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:34:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  .... (0+ / 0-)

      You do realize that those foreign workers will be competing with American workers either way. A person in Mexico doesn't just disappear if they don't immigrate to America.
      The difference between the two is that if we allow that Mexican to come work in America then that person has access to our better infrastructure, and technology making him far more productive; he also would then be adding to our Economy instead of Mexico's. All the studies show that immigration even by the uneducated if anything has positive economic effects for natives.

      We only think nothing goes without saying.

      by Hamtree on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:36:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong. This is a massive blind spot for liberals. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WorkerInUSA, IT Professional

        The big corporations have already exported every damn job they can.  They are running out of ways to keep the unsustainable concentration of wealth going. Until now, that is.

        The next frontier of out-sourcing is in-sourcing, where if they can't export your job they'll just import your replacement.

        People who support these kinds of programs feel all fuzzy and warm about how enlightened they are, but they are destroying the American working class.  This isn't just about Hispanics, it's about Indian and Chinese technical workers being allowed to disrupt the market balance. Wake up people. Big business is using your anti-racist good intentions against you.

        The only thing "race" has to do with it is that you are being tricked into supporting a race to the bottom.

        Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

        by bigtimecynic on Mon May 06, 2013 at 11:30:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm split. (0+ / 0-)

    We need action on this.

    OTOH, I'd love to see this as one more issue that diuvides Democrats from Republicans. We need to keep Latino and Asian voters.

    •  Don't worry (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40

      There are enough xenophobes in the Republican caucus that even if they do pass something bipartisan, it's not going to help any Republican that didnt vote it, and it will not help the party with Latinos and Asians. The most it will do is staunch the bleeding.

    •  What if immigration reform takes many (0+ / 0-)

      immigrants who are here illegally and gives them a path to being voting citizens?  That might help the Democrats.

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

      by bigtimecynic on Mon May 06, 2013 at 09:17:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not might, will (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40

        It will be several years down the road, but the right wing is not going to suddenly stop saying that immigrants are somehow less than American. They'll still push English-only legislation and set up artificial barriers to integration into American society. They'll enact economic policies that hurt immigrant communities hardest and ensure that they do not have access to jobs to provide for their families. A vote for immigration reform isn't the silver bullet that Republicans think it is. They have to change the entire culture of their party. And they should probably start by not calling all Latinos 'Mexicans".

      •  bingo (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        judyms9

        That's why it will never happen.  The Rs will blame Dems for the failure, thinking Hispanics will be gullible.  Sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing.

        Apres Bush, le deluge.

        by melvynny on Mon May 06, 2013 at 09:37:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, in two decades it might help somebody. (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe.  

        It's a new political version of all talk, no action.  Craft a bill you can pass today that won't have any effect on the lives of those it's supposed to help for another 15 years.  But you can campaign tomorrow on the basis that you did something!

        They know all the tricks, don't they.  

        The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

        by helfenburg on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:49:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Can't see an image of this dickwad… (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2

    …without thinking of this:

    Drinking/carrying rethuglican water since 1971.

  •  immigration reform is going much better (0+ / 0-)

    than 2007's.

    The establishment, karl rove, and evangelicals are being very powerful.

    Immigration reform will happen.

    Nancy Pelosi says it will.

  •  depends (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bmcphail, judyms9

    To depend on Rubio is a sign of weakness.  The provision to put up a Berlin Wall across the border gives the crazies an out--this is a sham.  I don't hear enough from Dems touting--"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses"  Immigration made America great--today's politicians need to take history and economics courses.

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Mon May 06, 2013 at 09:32:03 AM PDT

  •  so do the rightwingnuts consider Rubio to be (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bmcphail, mconvente, judyms9

    an honorary white guy, or don't they.  That is the real question.

    •  No they don't. He's been discredited (0+ / 0-)

      because he's been slinging bullshit about triggers and border security.

      Rubio seems to want this so bad he's been making promises publicly, but those promises do not match what is in the bill.  Conservatives are on to him and he has lost all credibility.

      That quote is wrong.  Rubio is no longer key.  Immigration reform (in a comprehensive form) is dead and Rubio is simply going through the motions for his run for President.  Immigration reform will take place as a result of smaller steps.

  •  Sharks with laser beams sounds good (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    achronon, judyms9

    Some of the other stuff not so much.

    I can see wanting people to be right with their taxes, driver's licenses, all the good stuff we expect somebody to be.

    I can see requiring people to go through the naturalization process.

    At some point we have to accept (and spread) a certain complicity:

    We did not clamp down on the major attraction: the chance for employment and better lives.

    The desire to make a better life for your family is a powerful thing and anybody who says we haven't know that all along is lying through his or her pearly whites.

    Had we enacted and enforced proper immigration policies, there is every chance we would have made legal immigration available to most, maybe all, of those who came into the country illegally, just to keep the economy cranking.  Hard as it is to remember now, we haven't always been in the Great Recession/21st Century Depression.

    The best argument for rational immigration reform is this:

    People want to punish folks who want a chance to work hard and take care of their families?
    Folks who are willing to take a chance by pulling up roots and moving to a foreign country?
    People want to punish folks who want to be a part of our country instead of blowing it to pieces?

    How freakin' STUPID is that?

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Mon May 06, 2013 at 09:44:27 AM PDT

    •  Laws were enacted. They were not enforced. (4+ / 0-)

      40% of illegal immigrants are visa overstays.  These people flew in for a visit, or legally for temporary work.

      They never left.

      And, now we want to throw out the red carpet for them to come and bid for our jobs that they will gladly take for half the salaries.  The only thing stopping them til now was a company could not legally hire them.  Immigration "reform" will fix that!

      It is a myth that illegal immigrants are not a threat to existing workers in higher paying jobs in America.  Yes, a good portion of those workers are uneducated and work in low paying jobs.  But there is a very large number of people in this country who will instantly become a threat to existing American workers - especially in high tech fields.

      And there is still no mention of visa overstay reform as part of these bills.  It is more porous than our southern non-fenced border - even more so.

      •  There are definitely class biases going on. In (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dinotrac

        the end most issues get down to class issues.

        Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

        by judyms9 on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:39:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Immigrants.. (0+ / 0-)

        are only a threat if you're a bigot who dislikes people because of their location of birth. Try thinking for 1 second. Immigrants will accept lower wages REGARDLESS of where they live. The difference is that if they move to America they contribute to OUR economy and have access to better infrastructure and technology resulting in a net benefits for natives (all research shows this).
        The richest 10% are the only ones to see wealth and income gain (others saw losses), resulting in you being poor and jobless; the fact that your solution to your problems (which are pathetic problems compared to those in 3rd world countries) is to scapegoat and bash good people who are worse off make you a total ass hole.

        We only think nothing goes without saying.

        by Hamtree on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:43:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  logic fail (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WorkerInUSA, dinotrac
          The difference is that if they move to America they contribute to OUR economy and have access to better infrastructure and technology resulting in a net benefits for natives (all research shows this).
          No.  While that MAY be true in a thriving economy, it is patently false in an economy where 12 million are out of work.

          When you replace an American citizen with a lower paid newly minted legal immigrant who accepts half the wages, you have a net NEGATIVE contribution to the economy.  The difference goes into the coffers of the corporation savvy enough to fire the American worker and hire the new immigrant.

          And, since many immigrants send earnings directly out of the country back to their country of origin, it gets even worse.

        •  perhaps what he was laying the blame on (3+ / 0-)

          the US employers who will lay off workers in skilled fields and hire immigrants at lower wages, and how the bill has no protections against that

          Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

          by Boogalord on Mon May 06, 2013 at 11:05:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There is not need to be stupid on either side of (0+ / 0-)

          this issue.

          I wonder how many roofers, electricians, carpenters, dry-wallers, etc would agree with you after being frozen out of post-Katrina work in New Orleans by contractors who hired (tons of) illegal workers on the cheap.  Worse: many of those didn't even get what they were promised.

          One also makes an asshole of him or herself when dumping on folks who have been out of work, lost homes, etc in the current economy. It's really damned stupid to expect us to enjoy our situation.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Mon May 06, 2013 at 11:20:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not even so sure that it is only about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WorkerInUSA

        the uneducated and unskilled anymore.  What I hear, and it largely goes unreported in the media, it's education (teachers), lawyers.  Certain professions are erecting walls, e.g. medicine.  Others not as effective.

        The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

        by helfenburg on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:52:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The J-1 visa brings in 10s of 1000s of doctors (0+ / 0-)

          Every Indian doctor in this country is one less opportunity for an American kid to become a physician. It's a zero-sum game.

        •  That's never been more than talking points. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WorkerInUSA, helfenburg

          Forcing the conversation to the poorest and most poorly paid jobs is a nifty way to avoid the complexities of the issue -- not to mention a complete disdain for American workers that really should bother the Labor Leaders (and their union brothers land sisters) who contribute so much to the Democratic Party.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Mon May 06, 2013 at 11:24:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, but SEIU (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dinotrac, Bon Temps, helfenburg

            has decided that contribution from non-citizen members which pay their salaries is more important than the rights of American citizens to jobs.

            In some cases, unions are cheering for non-Americans to get jobs.

            And I have a serious problem with that.

            •  I guess they figure it might be good for their (0+ / 0-)

              union.  Another special interest group operating on the
              basis of what's good for them, but not for us.

              The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

              by helfenburg on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:32:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  From what I read, brother Richard Trumka, now (0+ / 0-)

            appearing in another place on this website, has given it his seal of approval.  Go figure.

            The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

            by helfenburg on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:31:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  We blew this in the 1990s (0+ / 0-)

      One of the things Mexico wanted desperately in NAFTA was easy immigration to the US.  (And they wanted NAFTA desperately in general.)

      Clinton had a huge negotiating edge and he didn't use it (give Mexico what it wanted on immigration, in return for labor and environmental standards -- including a US-level minimum wage -- that are enforceable in U.S. courts).

  •  Why do I have a sinking feeling that any reform (3+ / 0-)

    coming out of the U.S. Senate will have huge breaks for employers of the H1-B and undocumented immigrants... and lip service for the non-citizens who've been living and working here for decades?

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing
    he was never reasoned into” - Jonathan Swift

    by jjohnjj on Mon May 06, 2013 at 09:49:30 AM PDT

  •  sharks.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mconvente

    with frikkin' lazer beams on their heads!?

    Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

    by Boogalord on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:00:01 AM PDT

  •  also Rubio has no future (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, mconvente, Aquarius40, judyms9

    in this Republican party. no future at all.

    they'll go with Cruz, he's got the crazy, but it's an articulate crazy.

    Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

    by Boogalord on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:05:05 AM PDT

    •  Correct. Rubio's narrative of success as the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Boogalord

      son of immigrants has been eclipsed by the brittle authoritarianism of Cruz, a quality cherished by the rightwingers.

      Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

      by judyms9 on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:44:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The bill sucks, bigtime (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IT Professional

    The H-1B provisions are going to increase #s by 2x, 3x, and possibly more. It will entirely remove the cap on green cards.

    This is going to destroy hiring for students. My daughter graduated in 2012, and my son is graduating now. They know many hundreds of other graduates, and very few have full-time jobs.

    Since when is it written that we must sacrifice our own children to this Moloch of immigration reform?

  •  Requiring employers to verify legal status (0+ / 0-)

    Tends to poll almost as well as background checks for guns, typically coming in at 80% or more in support.

    Can Democrats come up with an alternative to e-Verify to satisfy this demand of the public?

  •  The whole debate is silly (0+ / 0-)

    There is a lot of moralizing, for example, about having undocumented workers "earn" their right to be citizens, or legal, or whatever.  Even if you put aside the moral bankruptcy of that philosophy, at least think about the border security the Tancredo/Brewer crowd think is so important.  Just legalize everyone already in the country and be done with it.  Now you've got that huge pool of resources available to enforce immigration laws.

    We all know that, at the end of the day, conservatives don't give a shit about stopping illegal immigration.  What they want are "illegals" who can be exploited.  The rest of their positioning is so much prolefeed for dumb neo-Confederates.

  •  What passes for serious work in D.C. these days (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boogalord

    What's so frustrating to me about this (and the gun control debate, too) is this assumption that if only we can get the Senate Republicans to agree to some sort of bill, however bad but bipartisan, then we'll be making progress. All the pundits and media agonize about how if we can just get a bipartisan bill done in the Senate then we'll have "immigration reform" or "gun control" legislation.

    For my problem with all this, see: Legislative branch, bicameral.

    What does anyone think the House is going to do about EITHER of these issues? Boehner can't even hold his caucus together on the most basic of right-wing agendas because it's still not been radical enough for the crazies in his party. And that's for economic/budget bills that HAVE to get passed somehow. Does anyone honestly think now he'll be willing to violate the Hastert Rule again on legislation that is "optional" in his caucus' eyes and try to pass Immigration Reform with Democratic support just because "the nation" or "the wise minds in D.C." or Karl Rove or anyone else wants him to? This won't even get a vote in the House. Period.

    So D.C. will agonize for weeks on Immigration and, maybe, if Democrats appease enough, some form of bill will pass the Senate. And then it will go nowhere in the House but the D.C. types will celebrate "bipartisanship" in the Senate. Whoopee.

    Instead, why can't Senate Democrats push for better, more progressive legislation, knowing full well it will then fail in the Senate but at least that it will offer the public a very clear choice of priorities and agendas on which to run in 2014? The way they're doing it now, Democrats are bargaining away their souls, leaving Republicans cover to both pretend to be similar to Democrats when convenient and bash them when convenient during future elections,  and we're still no closer to any meaningful legislation ever making it to the President's desk from our BICAMERAL legislature.

    •  paging "political reality" to the thread (0+ / 0-)

      .......no one? okay, just me then.

      the answer is that the Political Reality makes it so this was the absolute best we could do. the Republicans hate us and want us to fail while in power no matter what, which makes it very important for us to compromise with them.

      as recent elections have showed, Rush Limbaugh and the Super Koch Bros and their hordes of Tea Partiers, evangelicals and other assorted white people are simply unstoppable.

      um, let's see, what else... you don't know what it's like to work in D.C. and how hard it really is to Get Things Done. that's usually how it's phrased.

      i think i may be missing something.... oh right. if you have a better idea of how to Get Things Done you must leave a detailed plan of it right here right now, or your opinion is invalid. also you're the reason we lost in 2010 because filthy progressives were running their mouths and gave strength to the enemy, just like they did in Iraq.

      i think that about covers it. i don't blame you if you don't respond.

      Banking on the American people to be able to sort all this out and declare the adult in the room the winner is a very big bet. -Digby

      by Boogalord on Mon May 06, 2013 at 11:46:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  as a legal immigrant, i want some fairness too ... (0+ / 0-)

    First of: I welcome the comprehensive immigration reform. It is sad that 12M folks have to live in the shadows - 2M US citizens have siblings/parents without legal status.

    My concern is that there are lots of legal folks who are currently awaiting patiently in a broken system. I want fairness to their patience as well.

    My PoV is this:

    1. $2000 fine+processing cost is too little a fine and too little to cover processing cost. I think a $3000 fine paid over 3 installments should be minimum. Also, the processing fee should be based on actual cost. I think it will be in the range of $2000-3000. Most immigrants can afford this. Where immigrants cannot afford this, we can have a goodwill reduction in cost but a majority of immigrants can afford $5000+ for legalization of their status and hence should be charged likewise.

    2. The wait period has to be tiered. Those who arrive after they turned 30 should wait at least 2 years longer that what it takes legal immigrants who applied in their base country. Otherwise, there is no dis-incetivization for the future

    3. I think those who complete their masters/PhD/serve 5 years in army should get it sooner than others. Those who serve in defense should get citizenship on the first day of 6th year in service. Those with Ph.D & masters should get citizenship after 1 years and 5 years of completion of their courses.

    4. I am OK if the wait is between 8-12 years to get GC and 5 years after that to get citizenship. May provide a strong disincentive to future non-adherents

    5. To cover cost, govt can also provide fast-tracking at premium costs: $20,000/family for 1 year fast-tracking. Eg: If someone wants 5 years of fast-tracking, they have to shell $100,00. I am sure that there are many folks who wouldn't mind that kind of money to receive GC/citizenship faster

    That's my POV. Wonder what others are thinking?

  •  It won't (0+ / 0-)

    even get a vote in the House.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site