Congress unlikely to consider immigration legislation without Obama pushing for reform

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Pelosi: Obama must lead on immigration

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says President Barack Obama will have to lead the way on immigration reform if Congress is going to have any chance of passing legislation on the volatile issue this year.

In perhaps her sternest words on immigration thus far, Pelosi put the pressure on the president.

“As I said when President Bush was president, and I’ll say it when President Obama is president,” Pelosi said in her weekly news conference, “if there is going to be any movement in this regard, it will require presidential leadership … as well as the willingness to move forward in the Congress.”

Pelosi was responding to a question about Obama’s comments aboard Air Force One Wednesday evening, where he said that he knows “there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue.” Pelosi said she didn’t hear the comments but told reporters that the administration must take the lead.

Pelosi signaled that there is consensus on a handful of “shared principles” on immigration, including securing borders, protecting workers and enforcing American law.

Pelosi’s words do serve to raise the ante a bit on immigration reform. House Democratic leaders have put the responsibility of immigration reform squarely on the Senate. Now Pelosi is shuffling some of that pressure down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36569.html#ixzz0mWs7LjHn

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Pelosi signaled that there is consensus on a handful of “shared principles” on immigration, including securing borders, protecting workers and enforcing American law.

I'm sure there could be a bipartisan effort if this were the cornerstones of a first step in the effort. Take what Senators have worked out - Schumer and Graham, I believe - and scratch the amnesty out of that. Then, I think, we could actually get somewhere rather swiftly.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'm sure there could be a bipartisan effort if this were the cornerstones of a first step in the effort. Take what Senators have worked out - Schumer and Graham, I believe - and scratch the amnesty out of that. Then, I think, we could actually get somewhere rather swiftly.

The same political forces that have repeatedly shunted climate change to the back burner -- partisanship and its low rank on voters' priority list -- have made passing a bill a herculean task. It encountered another hurdle this weekend when Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of its authors along with Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), said he was abandoning it unless climate legislation moved ahead of immigration on the Senate calendar.

No cap and trade, no immigration bill. I guess, no immigration bill.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No cap and trade, no immigration bill. I guess, no immigration bill.

I thought Reid had meanwhile agreed to put cap and trade back into first place.

[Pooky 3,787]

Illegal Immigration - we don't need reform, we need enforcement.

[Ban Hammer 13,349]

Illegal Immigration - we don't need reform, we need enforcement.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I thought Reid had meanwhile agreed to put cap and trade back into first place.

You could be right. Whipping Senators is like herding cats.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Illegal Immigration - we don't need reform, we need enforcement.

Agreed. We need to cure the disease and stop trying to succeed by merely treating the symptoms.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Illegal Immigration - we don't need reform, we need enforcement.

How much more tax payer money do you think we should spend protecting the border and for what?

[Pooky 3,787]

How much more tax payer money do you think we should spend protecting the border and for what?

Protecting the border?

Prosecute the employers using illegal immigrants, to the full extent of the law.

When found, deport the illegal immigrants.

Tighten up and mandate E-Verify.

Enforce the laws currently on the statute books.

Enough for you?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

How much more tax payer money do you think we should spend protecting the border and for what?

Take away from other programs.

Protecting this nation and its borders is the JOB of congress. They don't have much more of a job than that really....

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I can point you right to where the illegals are working

Arkansas

, and for which employers

Tyson Foods

, but you would starve to death.

Edited April 30, 2010 by ##########

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Protecting the border?

Prosecute the employers using illegal immigrants, to the full extent of the law.

When found, deport the illegal immigrants.

Tighten up and mandate E-Verify.

Enforce the laws currently on the statute books.

Enough for you?

Our economy benefits from having undocumented workers in this country. While I agree the system is broken, reactionary measures driven by ignorance or bigotry isn't the answer. Deporting the millions of illegals that are already here would be a logistical nightmare, clogging up the courts and costing us hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars. The only rational solution is give those who are here the option to stay if they pay fines. If they want citizenship, make them go through the process. We also need to expand our guest worker visa program to allow employers to hire non-citizens when they can reasonably demonstrate the need. However, all these efforts won't completely address the real source of the problem - Mexico's economy. NAFTA failed to do what it promised in terms of lifting all boats.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How much more tax payer money do you think we should spend protecting the border and for what?

There are more effective ways to enforce immigration laws. Turn off the economic incentive to come and you won't have to worry about them walls that won't accomplish anything anyways.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Our economy benefits from having undocumented workers in this country.

No, it doesn't. The economy would benefit more if illegal labor wouldn't drive Americans and lawful residents out of work and if it wouldn't depress wages the way it does. How can you be supportive of unions and supportive of the single most adverse impact on labor rights and wages at the same time?