Comprehensive immigration reform is dead --

[peejay 327]

Tuesday, May 17, 2011 07:01 ET

Comprehensive immigration reform is dead -- and the left is to blame

By Michael Lin

Comprehensive immigration reform is dead. For the foreseeable future, there is no chance that Congress will pass a grand bargain on immigration reform like the one that fell apart in 2007 including a mass amnesty or path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants already in the U.S. Nor is there any chance that the Dream Act, which would provide citizenship for many illegal immigrants as long as they attended college or served in the U.S. military, will be enacted into law. The Democrats could not pass the unpopular Dream Act even when they controlled both houses of Congress last December. Their cynical purpose in reintroducing it now is to play wedge issue politics with Latino voters in the run-up to the 2012 elections.

As in an old Perry Mason TV serial, or an Agatha Christie novel, the victim was murdered by multiple killers. The greatest wound may have been inflicted by the Great Recession. With mass unemployment expected to last for years to come, it is hard to imagine public support for an amnesty for the 12 million or so illegal immigrants in the U.S., particularly if it were not accompanied by adequate enforcement and encouraged a new wave of law-breaking by millions of foreign nationals in anticipation of future amnesties.

But even before the world economy collapsed in 2008, public opinion toward illegal immigration was hardening on both sides of the Atlantic. The backlash against mass immigration, legal and illegal, has contributed to the implosion of center-left social democratic parties in Europe. One unacknowledged goal of the war in Libya is to prevent enormous numbers of North African refugees from seeking asylum in Europe.

In the U.S., America's neoliberal globalist establishment has completely failed in its effort to persuade America's populist, nationalist citizenry that preventing illegal immigration is racist and retrograde in the age of global markets. According to a September 2010 Quinnipiac poll, "stricter enforcement of laws against illegal immigration" beat "integrating illegal immigrants into American society" by 68-24, with 9 percent answering "don't know."

Most Democratic voters are closer to the Republicans in their attitudes toward illegal immigration than to their own party's leaders and activists. A recent Pew Research Center poll about attitudes toward Arizona’s draconian anti-illegal immigrant law:

showed that 65 percent of Democrats support requiring people to produce documents proving their citizenship; 55 percent of Democrats would allow those who refuse to be detained; and 50 percent of Democrats would permit questioning based only on police suspicion. 45 percent of Democrats favored the Arizona law, while 46 percent opposed it. According to Pew, the more Democratic voters learn about the Arizona law, the more they approve of it.

The public opinion polls make it clear that there is no significant public support for what appears to be the consensus position of the American left -- yes to amnesty, no to enforcement.

Any attempt to identify, apprehend or punish foreign nationals or American employers who violate immigration laws is immediately denounced as a racist atrocity by the American left. Progressive opposition to the illiberal Arizona law that permitted police officers to question individuals who might be illegal immigrants was justifiable. That provision of the law (not necessarily others) was an incitement to racial profiling. But many progressives also denounce sensible and necessary laws enabling the police to check the immigration status of people who have already been arrested; the use of E-Verify to make sure that the Social Security documents of workers have not been forged; and workplace raids by ICE on employers suspected of hiring illegal immigrants.

In addition to denouncing efforts by the government to catch foreign nationals and U.S. employers who break the law, the left opposes any penalties for those who are caught. The deportation of illegal immigrants is denounced as an atrocity that tears apart families and communities. In some cases, hardship might justify prosecutorial discretion. But to listen to the loudest voices on the left, you would think that any foreign national who manages to elude the Border Patrol or overstay a visa for a couple of weeks becomes "rooted” in the American community overnight and immune forever to arrest and deportation.

The Great Recession has completely discredited the left’s practical argument against enforcement -- the "supply-side" theory that illegal immigration is an irresistible tsunami that cannot be stopped. Since the recession began in 2008, illegal immigration has dropped dramatically, proving that it ebbs or flows depending on employer demand in the U.S., not on the supply of poor people in other countries. If a recession can reduce illegal immigration by slashing the demand for it, so can demand-side enforcement measures, such as mandatory fines or jail time for scofflaw businesses that employ illegal immigrants.

On the enforcement issue, a widening gap has appeared between the no-enforcement left and liberal politicians who must face the voters, like Barack Obama and Charles Schumer. Democratic officeholders have tried to position themselves in the moderate center between the amnesty-and-no-enforcement left and the enforcement-and-no-amnesty right by declaring that there needs to be a path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants already here, combined with strict enforcement to prevent future waves of illegal immigration, as distinct from tiny trickles.

In order for the enforcement-and-amnesty position to have a chance to succeed, however, Democrats needed to convince the American people that they are sincere about enforcing U.S. immigration laws forever, and not just for a short time, in order to lull the public into supporting a mass amnesty. And Democrats also needed to avoid politicizing the issue, in order to make it possible to win Republican support for a comprehensive immigration reform that would combine a path to citizenship with tougher enforcement that would eliminate the need for future amnesties.

The Democrats have blown it. In his speech last week in El Paso, President Obama mocked those who support stronger enforcement measures, to cheers and laughter from his mostly Latino audience:

THE PRESIDENT: You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. (Laughter.) Maybe they want alligators in the moat. (Laughter.) They'll never be satisfied.

In October 2010, the Border Patrol told the Government Accountability Office that it has secured only 44 percent of the southern border.

What about the other 56 percent? Would the president boast about a 44 percent success rate in any other area?

None other than Chris Matthews, as partisan a Democrat as there is, suggested last December that the present-day Democratic Party does not really want immigration laws to be enforced at all:

"The Democrats on the other hand have been pretty much weak in stating exactly how they’re going to stop illegal immigration, I don’t hear them giving me a clarity as to how they are going to prevent the continued flow of illegal people coming into the country, I don’t even think they want to stop it, that’s my belief so far, they like it."

Democrats have also damaged the cause of comprehensive immigration reform by crowing about how they will benefit politically. For more than a decade, Democratic strategists have prophesied that increased Latino immigration, legal and illegal, will create a permanent Democratic majority. Do these Democratic strategists think that their Republican counterparts are not paying attention to boasts that naturalization of illegal immigrants would instantly add 12 million Democrats to the U.S. electorate?

According to the monolithic propaganda of the corporate media and Democratic strategists, Latinos are a) single-issue voters who care chiefly about immigration and b) the new swing vote in American politics. But the polls show that the chief concerns of Latinos are those of other Americans: jobs and the economy.

It is true that nativists on the right have driven many Latino voters away from the Republicans. But that did not stop the Republican Party from recapturing the House and may not stop it from recapturing the Senate and presidency in 2012. Nor did it prevent the Republicans from electing two Latino Republican governors last year in New Mexico and Nevada and a Republican senator from Florida.

In any event, the Latino presidential vote is concentrated in big states that are either safely Democratic (California) or safely Republican (Texas). And while Latinos may make up a third of the population in 2050, the Latino vote was only around 9 percent in 2010. In contrast, the white working class continues to account for nearly half of the electorate, according to Democratic analyst Ruy Texeira in 2006:

Progressives' difficulties here are underscored by the large size of this group. According to the 2004 Current Population Survey (CPS) Voter Supplement data, white working-class voters are a larger portion of the electorate than indicated by the exit polls -- 52 percent, rather than 43 percent. Based on educational attainment trends and population trends by race, a reasonable guess is that the size of the white working class in another 10 years, even though it is shrinking, will still be around 46 percent to 47 percent -- a very large group among which to be doing very poorly.

In 2010 Texeira and Alan Abramowitz, who argue that Democrats will benefit in the long run from the growth of the Latino electorate, qualified their optimism:

For the Democrats, the electoral challenge will be to keep their deficit among white working class (non-college-educated) voters as close to single digits as possible. Allowing the GOP to run up super-majorities among these voters will remain a recipe for [Democratic] electoral defeat for many election cycles to come.

One of the wedge issues that Republicans can use to run up super-majorities among white working-class voters for years to come is the claim that Democrats care more about foreign nationals who violate American law than about hardworking American citizens.

All of this is a pity. The best immigration reform would combine a one-time, never-to-be-repeated amnesty with serious, permanent law enforcement effort that would include, at a minimum, the mandatory use of E-Verify, the identification of illegal immigrants by local police, workplace raids, border security including fencing, and, yes, arrests and deportations of illegal immigrants who sneak into the country following the end of the one-time amnesty period. This reasonable combination of enforcement and amnesty would have been difficult to achieve, even without recession-induced mass unemployment and conservative intransigence. But by telegraphing their lack of serious commitment to border and workplace control, the Democrats have contributed their own blow to comprehensive immigration reform.

Instead of a policy of enforcement first, followed by a path to citizenship, the U.S. is likely to end up with enforcement only, and a permanent population of resident illegal immigrants that will stabilize or grow much more slowly as a result of tougher enforcement. That outcome is unfortunate. But the alternative -- unchecked waves of low-wage, gray-market illegal immigration in economic boom times, followed by amnesties every decade or two -- would be worse.

http://www.salon.com/news/immigration/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/17/lind_immigration_left

[Saddle Bronc 124]

let the dead bury the dead!

(having suffered delayed aftereffects of Reagan's 1986 amnesty, I cannot help but cheer when a magnitude-orders worse one is killed)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Comprehensive immigration reform is dead -- and the Left is to blame

So, I take it that you'll be voting left from here on out. They delivered what you wanted - amnesty with a toe tag.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Pooky 3,825]

So, I take it that you'll be voting left from here on out. They delivered what you wanted - amnesty with a toe tag.

But left and right doesn't make much of a difference in Washington, when it comes to "comprehensive immigration reform", aka amnesty. Obama has sort-of tried and failed. BushBaby tried harder in 2007 and failed harder. The problem is Washington and the easy access of lobbyists, industry, unions and special interest groups.

The only group of people who don't really get heard is the ordinary American. Because, if they did, US immigration policy would be radically different to the sham we have now.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So, I take it that you'll be voting left from here on out. They delivered what you wanted - amnesty with a toe tag.

It would only make sense that politicians that support workers rights would be against illegal immigrants being exploited and abused for profit.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

But left and right doesn't make much of a difference in Washington, when it comes to "comprehensive immigration reform", aka amnesty. Obama has sort-of tried and failed. BushBaby tried harder in 2007 and failed harder. The problem is Washington and the easy access of lobbyists, industry, unions and special interest groups.

The only group of people who don't really get heard is the ordinary American. Because, if they did, US immigration policy would be radically different to the sham we have now.

IMO, it hasn't been heard since 1986--best evidence of it is Congress/Senate's rapid ratification of a 1988 Free Trade Pact (without bothering to study the ramifications and train INS/DOS personnel on theem) which morphed into NAFTA.

[peejay 327]

So, I take it that you'll be voting left from here on out. They delivered what you wanted - amnesty with a toe tag.

There is a whole lot of other offerings to dislike from the liberal Left other than their immigration policy. Such as their social agendas, big government, nanny government, etc.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Stereotypes. Some people never learn, no matter how old they get

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There is a whole lot of other offerings to dislike from the liberal Left other than their immigration policy. Such as their social agendas, big government, nanny government, etc.

Yeah, like the right doesn't have a social or big government agenda.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You'd think Peejay would have learned by now that nothing much seems to change regardless of who is in office, yet he always comes back to the stereotypes, as if he cannot imagine anything else. Strange.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Imagine there was a guy running for President on the premise to keep America safe from intruders. Imagine he would say

" . . . and I promise to you, the American people, that I will put my main focus on two things: the economy and consequently jobs, and enforcing the immigration laws we have currently on the books. Some say that it's impossible to deport 11 million illegal aliens; I tell you, nothing is impossible when we put our mind to it. We walked on the moon over 40 years ago, we spend a trillion dollars on the war in Afghanistan, we surely can find those who invaded our homeland and get them out of here. This is my promise to you, and you can hold me responsible to that promise. If I have not deported millions of illegal immigrants by the end of my first term as President, I ask you not to vote for me again."

Do you think a few people would vote for that guy?

Edited May 18, 2011 by Just Bob

[Vi-Jay 218]

Imagine there was a guy running for President on the premise to keep America safe from intruders. Imagine he would say

" . . . and I promise to you, the American people, that I will put my main focus on two things: the economy and consequently jobs, and enforcing the immigration laws we have currently on the books. Some say that it's impossible to deport 11 million illegal aliens; I tell you, nothing is impossible when we put our mind to it. We walked on the moon over 40 years ago, we spend a trillion dollars on the war in Afghanistan, we surely can find those who invaded our homeland and get them out of here. This is my promise to you, and you can hold me responsible to that promise. If I have not deported millions of illegal immigrants by the end of my first term as President, I ask you not to vote for me again."

Do you think a few people would vote for that guy?

C'mon c'mon!

Who's the guy?! Who's the guy?! Who's the guy?!

[justashooter 430]

Imagine there was a guy running for President on the premise to keep America safe from intruders. Imagine he would say

" . . . and I promise to you, the American people, that I will put my main focus on two things: the economy and consequently jobs, and enforcing the immigration laws we have currently on the books. Some say that it's impossible to deport 11 million illegal aliens; I tell you, nothing is impossible when we put our mind to it.

Do you think a few people would vote for that guy?

president eisenhower is dead some time now. so is general joseph swing.

doesn't mean that what they did in Operation Wetback is any less indicative of what 1000 (that's right, one thousand) border patrol agents can do when the government gets out of the way...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

n 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner...One of Swing's first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.

Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.

Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.

Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

The sea voyage was "a rough trip, and they did not like it," says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.

Mr. Coppock says he "cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today's] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox."

There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.

Border Patrol vets offer tips on curbing illegal immigration

One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States.

The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement.

General Swing's fast-moving campaign soon secured America's borders – an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.

Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.

"Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!" Edwards says.

Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, "they'd be on top of this in a minute."

William Chambers, another '50s veteran, agrees. "They could do a pretty good job" sealing the border.

Edwards says: "When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce."

While Congress debates building a fence on the border, these veterans say other actions should have higher priority.

1. End the current practice of taking captured Mexican aliens to the border and releasing them. Instead, deport them deep into Mexico, where return to the US would be more costly.

2. Crack down hard on employers who hire illegals. Without jobs, the aliens won't come.

3. End "catch and release" for non-Mexican aliens. It is common for illegal migrants not from Mexico to be set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Few show up.

The Patrol veterans say enforcement could also be aided by a legalized guest- worker program that permits Mexicans to register in their country for temporary jobs in the US. Eisenhower's team ran such a program. It permitted up to 400,000 Mexicans a year to enter the US for various agriculture jobs that lasted for 12 to 52 weeks.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Imagine there was a guy running for President on the premise to keep America safe from intruders. Imagine he would say

" . . . and I promise to you, the American people, that I will put my main focus on two things: the economy and consequently jobs, and enforcing the immigration laws we have currently on the books. Some say that it's impossible to deport 11 million illegal aliens; I tell you, nothing is impossible when we put our mind to it. We walked on the moon over 40 years ago, we spend a trillion dollars on the war in Afghanistan, we surely can find those who invaded our homeland and get them out of here. This is my promise to you, and you can hold me responsible to that promise. If I have not deported millions of illegal immigrants by the end of my first term as President, I ask you not to vote for me again."

Do you think a few people would vote for that guy?

I wouldn't.

The guy who says he is going to implement laws to make it economically unfeasible to employ illegals with HUGE tax penalties and incentives for business so that the illegals will SELF deport (i.e. walk back they way they came) and not waste my tax dollars trying to round them up and deport them....will get my vote.

When it is economically not feasible to employ illegals it will be economically not feasible to immigrate illegally.