Skip to main content

THE PUSH BY President Obama for comprehensive immigration reform got a boost on Tuesday when a large group descended on the Capitol to lobby Republicans on the issue.
 Viewed in tactical terms, this could be seen as a stroke of genius by the president and his Democratic allies.
The GOP is riven with internal divisions on immigration. It’s well documented by the Pew Research Center, and has been widely reported.
We analyzed it this morning in
Coalition of conservatives, liberals pushes for action
Just as it splintered over the government shutdown, the Republican Party could suffer another humiliating defeat as its warring factions splinter on immigration proposals under consideration.
On Tuesday a huge group descended on the Capitol to advance the president’s agenda.
 We learn the details in The New York Times online story
G.O.P. Urged to Act on Immigration by Coalition of Its Allies
Ashley Parker reports:

“On Tuesday, the group of more than 600 leaders from roughly 40 states descended on the Capitol for meetings with nearly 150 Republican lawmakers.”
The issue was brought front and center by the president in remarks Oct. 24 in the East Room at The White House.
 “This is not just an idea whose time has come; this is an idea whose time has been around for years now,” Obama said.  “And this is the moment when we should be able to finally get the job done.”
But in the process of moving forward, there is likely to be serious strain within the GOP. It could quite easily be a re-run of the acrimonious internecine warfare that erupted in the aftermath of the government shutdown.

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

  •  Tip Jar (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MRA NY, Crashing Vor, skillet, a2nite, CwV

    In the (K)now blog Http://warrenswil.com/

    by Warren Swil on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 07:05:25 AM PDT

  •  Should be interesting, to say the least. nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, a2nite

    "Don't Bet Against Us" - President Barack Obama

    by MRA NY on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 07:12:36 AM PDT

  •  Too bad Romney didn't win......eh GOP?....... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    Get set for another Klown Kar Katastrophe.

  •  If You Don't Think It Will Split (0+ / 0-)

    The Democratic Party, I think you should probably think again. I think it will just take a little longer for the Democrats to catch on to what's happening.

    The so-called 'immigration reform' bill you are referring creates two more guest worker visa programs in addition to the ten that already exist, and will massively increase the supply of labor, with no increase in the number of jobs. And this labor will be generally suited to work low-skilled low-wage service jobs, the only type of jobs that are being created in the U.S. right now.

    So the Democratic Party passes a bunch of so-called 'free trade' agreements which allow everything that isn't bolted down to be shipped offshore, imports labor to do those jobs which can't be off shored, and somehow what results is all the fault of the Republican Party. Contrary to what members of the Daily Kos believe, I don't think that Democrats out in the hinterland are that stupid.

    On the sidebar right now there is a line under 'Recent Activity' with says "Tell McDonald's to Stop Buying Luxury Jets Until They Pay Workers a Living Wage"

    Why would McDonald's have to pay a 'living wage' (whatever the fuck that means to begin with) when they can avail themselves of a glut of labor currently in the U.S., and the promise of more coming?

    I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

    by superscalar on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 07:25:20 AM PDT

    •  McDonald's (0+ / 0-)

      At this point it's pretty obvious that the only way to get McDonald's to pay a living wage (defined here) is to raise the minimum wage to something people can live on.

      I agree that there are some people out in the hinterlands who will say, "The problem isn't with the people at McDonald's who set the salaries! The problem is that they're paying salaries to people who were born on the wrong side of an imaginary line on a map! What part of "wrong side of an imaginary line on a map" do they not understand?"

      The good news is that people who think like that are becoming less and less important electorally, so we don't need to cater to them. Besides, most of them vote for Republicans, and trying to out-xenophobe the Republicans would cost us more votes than it would gain us.

      As to a "glut of labor"...remember that there aren't a constant number of jobs. If you add new workers through birth or immigration, they'll want to spend their salaries on goods and services, which creates new job openings.

      The problem with today's economy is that it's set up to transfer wealth from the poor and middle-class to the rich. Poor and middle-class people tend to spend most of their incomes on goods and services, so it goes right back into the economy. Rich people are more likely to hoard money, which removes it from circulation and makes things harder on everyone else.

      •  You're Living In 1965 (0+ / 0-)

        they'll want to spend their salaries on goods and services, which creates new job openings

        The goods and services they are spending their salaries on are not made here. Why do you think there isn't any inflation? Why do you think rates are so low? The inflation is occurring in the countries where the goods and services are created. Do you plan on all of us just selling pizzas to each other at some point?

        As to the whole 'wrong side of an imaginary line' crap, it strikes me as odd that you would go ballistic if somebody wants to change the 14th amendment, but you want to effectively gut the entire U.S. Constitution. What does "We the people" mean when there are no immigration laws?

        "raise the minimum wage to something people can live on"

        You effectively destroy the economy with your open borders 'we are the world' bullshit, and then you have the balls to come back and say "I've got another great idea, let's institute wage and price controls"

        This is why I have pretty much stopped posting on this blog after being here for ten years. You believe you're different then the bat shit crazy Republicans, you aren't, you're just a different kind of bat shit crazy.

        I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

        by superscalar on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 12:37:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't understand (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not sure what your objection to immigration is.

          If it's economic I don't think you've made a good case. Increasing the number of workers - whether by birth or immigration - doesn't hurt the economy. What hurts the economy is a lot of people having low-paying jobs.

          There's a little bit of overlap in that immigrants tend to be part of the underclass that's forced into low-paying jobs. But getting rid of part of the underclass won't magically turn low-paying jobs into decent jobs. The wealthy and powerful can always manage to shove more people into the underclass if we let them get away with it.

          Or maybe you have a cultural objection - that We-the-People Native-Born Americans are somehow "superior" to immigrants, and allowing immigrants in will weaken the country. If so I'd disagree; my experience is that the average immigrant is just about as good as most natives and better than some.

          I can see some value in making immigrants jump through a few hoops to make sure that they're serious about wanting to be good citizens, but the set-up we've got today is just completely petty and mean-spirited. Our refusal to pass something as simple as the DREAM Act is a national disgrace.

          •  You've Never Heard Me Say Or Write Anything (0+ / 0-)

            I'm not sure what your objection to immigration is.

            Against legal immigration to the U.S. For you to imply that I have, or I am, is and insult.

            Eight years ago, on this blog, when Senator Kennedy's aide posted up the trail ballon to S2611 I posted this.

            Quick Guide to Kennedy- McCain Immigration Bill

            Look, I am not against a full amnesty for all illegal aliens currently in this country. Do it. But at least go into the process with some intellectual honesty i.e., no illusions as to what the result will be. Kennedy can talk all he wants about American workers' rights and wages, we have the evidence as to what the result will be, because it was done in 1986, and has been perpetuated with 245(i). Our newly minted American citizens will be put out of work by new illegal aliens, just as they put out of work those whose jobs they took

            I live in San Bernardino County, CA which is, and has been, ground zero for illegal immigration in the U.S. My neighbors are illegal immigrants. How do I know? They've told me.

            You don't seem to understand why you've been losing the argument on amnesty for almost ten years now. It's because you twist words and terms around to mean what you what them to mean, not what they really mean. To whit, when you say

            I'm not sure what your objection to immigration is.

            What you really mean is "I'm not sure what your objection to my open borders agenda is".

            Our refusal to pass something as simple as the DREAM Act

            What then do you do with the parents? The DREAM Act was originally introduced in the Senate in 2001 by Orrin Hatch, a Republican. As I remember it's been before Congress 11 times since then. Ethnic hucksters like Frank Sharry and Luis Gutiérrez grabbed ahold of it precisely because it fit right into their agenda of stopping deportations from the U.S. altogether. Why do you think it hasn't been passed in twelve years now?

            These hucksters also know that the best way to win a debate is to control the terms of the debate. What they fail to understand is that other people know this too.

            If so I'd disagree; my experience is that the average immigrant

            Without my knowing anything about you or your background I would be willing to bet you money right now that I have a lot more experience with the 'average immigrant' than you do.

            The wealthy and powerful

            Unfortunately I don't hate people with money simply because they have money. You on the other hand seem to.

            I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

            by superscalar on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 06:57:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  This would thrill me more (0+ / 0-)

    if S. 744 were actually good law, but it sucks and barely qualifies as reform. Anything in the House that doesn't start with S. 744 is even worse.

    From a policy viewpoint--and people's lives are at stake here--I'd prefer immigration reform to fail during this civil war. Then with pressure from immigrants' rights groups, Obama should do more unilaterally, including announcing a genuine amnesty during the SOTU and blaming it on GOP intransigence. Then get REAL reform in '15.

    But I know many people think "now or never" and I understand that feeling. If only I didn't worry that passage of S. 744 would take immigration off the agenda: "Well, we did immigration reform back in '13, why should we do more,  now?"

    "I was not born for myself alone, but for my neighbor as well as myself."--Richard Overton, leader of the Levellers, a17th C. movement for democracy and equality during the English Civil War.

    by SouthernLeveller on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 08:26:42 AM PDT

  •  we can help by being anti cheap labor (0+ / 0-)

    Bubba in the trailer park, the skilled blue collar worker, and the college-educated glibertarian all have something to fear from cheap labor: be it of the undocumented variety, the Asian sweatshop variety, or the H1-B variety.

    Only the rich want cheap labor.

    Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

    by Visceral on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 09:14:40 AM PDT

    •  So we should oppose immigration reform then? (0+ / 0-)
      •  depends on how you define "reform" (0+ / 0-)

        We can and should use reform - yes/no as well as the specifics - as a wedge to break Republican unity.  The difference is that we should focus on the economic arguments - cheap labor is bad for American workers and professionals - and let them drive our own positions because it's "bread and butter" arguments, not "liberal" arguments about the inalienable human right of anyone who wants to come to America to do so, that can actually sway working class conservatives.

        The teabaggers think "open borders" and refugee resettlement is de facto librul biggubmint policy in order to build a Democratic voting base of non-white welfare dependents.  To fight that, we need to tell the uglier truth: it's the rich who won't do anything about the physical borders - never mind round up and deport 8 million people - because they want undocumented immigrants that they can pay and treat like crap, driving down wages and working conditions for citizens.  That's an argument for giving these people legal status: so they can come out of the shadows and demand minimum wage, organize for better conditions, sue abusive employers, and so on.

        The rich also want dime-a-dozen foreign engineers, grad students, and PhDs coming over on student and work visas given for the asking in order to drive down the price of their American counterparts.  That's an argument for significantly restricting the supply of visas.

        Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

        by Visceral on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 01:39:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Immigration is not going to divide Republicans. (0+ / 0-)

          They are simply going to do nothing. Your approach to immigration is really not very different from Tea Party: restrict it as much as possible. You're essentially trying to rearrange the politics based on class issues and align (at least rhetorically) with lower classes. It might work but Republicans are quite good at doing it already.

        •  The Teabaggers Think This (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Visceral

          The teabaggers think "open borders" and refugee resettlement is de facto librul biggubmint policy in order to build a Democratic voting base of non-white welfare dependents

          Because this is what the Democratic Party is saying.

          Go look at virtually any Daily Kos diary on immigration, and you have the obligatory, "we're going to use the Latino demographic to build a permanent Democratic majority".

          What's so freaking crazy is that most probably the majority of these individuals, including Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, were big supporters of NAFTA and so-called 'free trade' until it became unfashionable in the Democratic Party (notwithstanding that Barack Obama and Bill Clinton together passed more so-called 'free trade' agreements then the entirety of the Republican Party history).

          Barack Obama practically speaking won the election by saying:

          1.) If you like your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan.

          and

          2.) Mitt Romney ships jobs to China

          This is notwithstanding that number 1 is not true and was never true and, two, that Barack Obama had just signed so-called 'free trade' agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea a year before, and it was Bill Clinton, not the Republican Party who signed NAFTA, destroyed the ejido system in Mexico, and flooded Mexico with American agricultural products subsidized by a bloated U.S. farm bill.

          There's a reason that 62% of all illegal immigrants are from Mexico, but nobody wanted to stand up and mention that while they were all cheering Bill Clinton at the DNC in 2012.

          I won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right - Genesis 9:3

          by superscalar on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 02:21:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  That's unlikely. It won't even come up for the (0+ / 0-)

    vote in the House. The real problem for them will be plunging support from Hispanics.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site