Immigration bill's demise suggests many are OK with status quo

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The collapse of the giant immigration overhaul in the Senate might demonstrate that the dreaded status quo -- 12 million people living in the country illegally and more arriving each day -- is not really so dreadful after all.

The multitude of interests involved in the immigration debate -- business groups, ethnic lobbies, politicians in both parties and the American public -- in the end proved unwilling to yield enough to support the bipartisan compromise.

As California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat who helped negotiate the failed deal, said, the current immigrant situation in the United States is a de facto amnesty. Even the most ardent advocates of a border crackdown concede that it will be impossible to apprehend and deport 12 million people living here illegally.

But as much as everyone complains about the situation, the enormous black market in labor operating openly in the United States serves the interests of many involved, however imperfectly. It is an amnesty without amnesty.

"Inaction, the status quo, is particularly helpful to employers of unskilled, undocumented workers, because they obviously aren't going to face the potential teeth of tougher employer sanctions," said Daniel Tichenor, a research professor at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University and author of "Dividing Lines: the Politics of Immigration Control in America."

Low-wage industries such as landscaping and nursing homes could fare better in the current freely operating black market than under a heavily regulated temporary worker program that would require migrant workers to leave the country after two years.

A technology company lobbyist complained at one point that Silicon Valley is the only business group that really couldn't live with the status quo, because tech companies rely on legal immigrants.

Peter Duignan, a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University who has written extensively about Latino immigration, observed that as angry as the public gets about illegal immigration, when it comes to deporting their nannies or housekeepers, people change their views. Economists frequently point out that the middle class benefits enormously from the wide availability of low-cost immigrant labor in restaurants, hotels, retailing, construction and many other service industries.

Unions complain of worker exploitation but are divided over whether the influx is a threat to wages or a large new recruiting pool.

Although everyone claims to want tougher enforcement, recent raids on employers have generated an enormous outcry, not just from immigrants' rights groups but from the same Republican senators who have been demanding a crackdown.

Five Republican senators, including Charles Grassley of Iowa, Wayne Allard of Colorado and John Cornyn of Texas -- all of whom helped block the Senate immigration reform bill -- called Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to Capitol Hill to complain after federal agents arrested 1,282 illegal immigrants at Swift and Co. meatpacking plants last year.

For Democrats, the failure of the Senate bill allows them to keep the immigration issue alive for the 2008 election, when they will be courting Latino voters. Among the urgent business items next week that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said needed to take precedence over the immigration debate is a "no confidence" vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Asian and Latino immigrants' rights groups wanted legalization for the 12 million undocumented immigrants but seemed unwilling to accept a major change in the immigration system that would have curtailed the migration of extended families in the future.

Republicans insist on shifting the current immigration system, which relies on family ties, to a merit-based point system that emphasizes job skills and education.

Ironically, the family migration system was designed in the 1920s as a means of keeping out "undesirable" immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, because newer migrants did not have relatives in the United States, Peter Salins, a political scientist at Stonybrook University, noted in a recent article.

The family migration system continues to heavily favor groups with established kinship ties in the United States, which today are Latinos and Asians.

Cecelia Munoz, a top Washington advocate for the National Council of La Raza, argued vehemently against opening immigration "to anybody in the world." Experts believe a point system could open new channels to African immigration, which historically has been heavily under-represented in the United States since the end of American slavery.

The day before the bill failed, supporters had narrowly beaten back Democratic efforts to add 833,000 green cards for extended family migrants -- a defeat that made the bill far less palatable to many pro-immigrant groups.

Those who are most hostile to more immigration, led by Sens. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., have railed endlessly about toughening the border. But in helping to kill the legislation, they also killed tougher enforcement and identification systems they say would help stop terrorists.

"They're not getting employer sanctions with teeth," Tichenor said, referring to lawmakers who brought down the bill. "They are not getting plans for border reinforcement. They're not getting the more uniform tamper-proof ID system that was to be put into effect with this."

Tichenor said that historically, the odds of enacting any comprehensive immigration reform are never more than 40 percent because a compromise on immigration always involves painful trade-offs among groups with very different vested interests.

"There are so many odd bedfellows, there are so many intra-party battles that end up forming around this issue, that it's always a long shot," he said. "The compromises require uneasy and fleeting alliances and often involve folks swallowing a bitter pill to get some of the reforms they want."

The Senate might yet resurrect the bill. Feinstein and other supporters vowed Friday to press forward. President Bush is scheduled to meet Tuesday with Republican senators at the Capitol.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., threatened to attach the immigration overhaul to bills naming a post office if it comes to that. "We are not giving up; we are not giving in," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, the top Democratic sponsor.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a San Jose Democrat and former immigration attorney who chairs the House immigration subcommittee, outlined the many problems that both parties had with the Senate's compromise.

"The conservatives in the House feel that the way they dealt with the undocumented was amnesty," Lofgren said. "Nobody in the business community thinks this point system the way they've created it will work for the American economy. The family system they set up is really quite unworkable. The temporary program doesn't work. I mean, there's a lot not to like about this bill. Having said that, there are remedies for these things. ... I think they should pass something and allow the House to work its will."

But Lofgren said House leaders see no point in passing their own bill if the Senate fails to act.

"In the how-our-laws-are-made booklet," she said, "it says both the House and the Senate have to pass a bill for it to become law."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable

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

I know it's an unpopular view here on this site, but I think moving away from a family based immigration policy to an economic one makes sense to me.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I know it's an unpopular view here on this site, but I think moving away from a family based immigration policy to an economic one makes sense to me.

I agree that moving away from family based system is a good idea. I like the idea of a 'merit based' system very much, not sure what you mean by an 'economic' system. I think this country needs to do a better job of identifying, in a manner that is free of lobbyist manipulation, the areas of the workforce that are truly lacking a sufficient labor pool. I suspect this would include a mix of white collar and blue collar jobs. We need to attract people who are qualified and are willing to engage in those professions. To say that 16 year old Wii addict and overall bum Rahul Patel qualifies for a green card only because his fathers brother has one is silly. Leave Mr. Patel at home and let's bring in someone who will actually fill a void in the labor market.

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

I know it's an unpopular view here on this site, but I think moving away from a family based immigration policy to an economic one makes sense to me.

I agree that moving away from family based system is a good idea. I like the idea of a 'merit based' system very much, not sure what you mean by an 'economic' system. I think this country needs to do a better job of identifying, in a manner that is free of lobbyist manipulation, the areas of the workforce that are truly lacking a sufficient labor pool. I suspect this would include a mix of white collar and blue collar jobs. We need to attract people who are qualified and are willing to engage in those professions. To say that 16 year old Wii addict and overall bum Rahul Patel qualifies for a green card only because his fathers brother has one is silly. Leave Mr. Patel at home and let's bring in someone who will actually fill a void in the labor market.

That's what I meant by economic (labor trends, etc). I agree.

[GaryC 7]

More misleading BS. We are not OK with the status quo. This just isn't the law we wanted. We don't want any law that allows the illegals to stay (amnesty) but we do want a law that closes our border to illegal aliens, enforces our labor laws and then starts a guest worker program. The way the pro amnesty people twist things is disgusting.

[Scott & Lai 12]

The collapse of the giant immigration overhaul in the Senate might demonstrate that the dreaded status quo -- 12 million people living in the country illegally and more arriving each day -- is not really so dreadful after all.

It demonstrates that the proposed cure was worse than the disease, not that the disease shouldn't be cured

The family migration system continues to heavily favor groups with established kinship ties in the United States, which today are Latinos and Asians.

Cecelia Munoz, a top Washington advocate for the National Council of La Raza, argued vehemently against opening immigration "to anybody in the world." Experts believe a point system could open new channels to African immigration, which historically has been heavily under-represented in the United States since the end of American slavery.

Uh..so La Raza doesn't want people coming in who are not of "la raza"??

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable

I know it's an unpopular view here on this site, but I think moving away from a family based immigration policy to an economic one makes sense to me.

When you speak of moving away from family-based immigration, does that include fiancees/spouses and children of U.S. citizens and LPRs? If so, that's definitely not something I could support.

More misleading BS. We are not OK with the status quo. This just isn't the law we wanted. We don't want any law that allows the illegals to stay (amnesty) but we do want a law that closes our border to illegal aliens, enforces our labor laws and then starts a guest worker program. The way the pro amnesty people twist things is disgusting.

Edited June 9, 2007 by Scott & Lai

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Cecelia Munoz, a top Washington advocate for the National Council of La Raza, argued vehemently against opening immigration "to anybody in the world." Experts believe a point system could open new channels to African immigration, which historically has been heavily under-represented in the United States since the end of American slavery.

Uh..so La Raza doesn't want people coming in who are not of "la raza"??

Good catch, Scott. La Raza is a racist organization.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

yup. status quo. move along folks. nothing new to see around here.

Daniel

:energetic:

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

I know it's an unpopular view here on this site, but I think moving away from a family based immigration policy to an economic one makes sense to me.

When you speak of moving away from family-based immigration, does that include fiancees/spouses and children of U.S. citizens and LPRs? If so, that's definitely not something I could support.

For fiancees/spouses and their children - no. I'm not sure about specific limitations, but if we moved to a labor based immigration policy and overall immigration numbers became an issue, I think it would be reasonable to place a cap on the number of visas granted.

The Migration Policy Institue has some numbers that are worth looking at:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FS16_U...tion_051807.pdf

LPR's from 2002-2006

Employer Sponsored 163,000

Family Sponsored 648,000

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

make love, not visas.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Sofiyya 1,687]

There's a lot of simple minded rhetoric coming from pro-illegal venues, and the argument that those who are against this porous bill are for the status quo is one of them. The staus quo is that we don't enforce the law, and I'm against that. One of my idiot senators and a sponsor of this lame-brained bill, Ken Salazar (whince!) used that talking point just the other day in his repudiation of his opposition. His staff is sick of hearing from me; I call them every day to remind them that, unlike their illegals, I consistantly vote.

The problem with Congress is if they aren't debating and passing new laws, they look like they're not doing anything, so they want to look like they're doing something. They're quickly bored by the laws they already passed. This is what we get for that dicotomy; do-nothing laws by two-faced, do-nothings.

Edited June 9, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For fiancees/spouses and their children - no.

Because that would affect you. Gotta ask: Have you shared with Jinky yet that you would oppose her maybe wanting to sponsor her parents down the road but rather give that now existing opportunity to some business that is just looking to turn larger profits? Interesting.

The collapse of the giant immigration overhaul in the Senate might demonstrate that the dreaded status quo -- 12 million people living in the country illegally and more arriving each day -- is not really so dreadful after all.

It demonstrates that the proposed cure was worse than the disease, not that the disease shouldn't be cured

Zackly!

Edited June 9, 2007 by ET-US2004

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

There's a lot of simple minded rhetoric coming from pro-illegal venues, and the argument that those who are against this porous bill are for the status quo is one of them. The staus quo is that we don't enforce the law, and I'm against that. One of my idiot senators and a sponsor of this lame-brained bill, Ken Salazar (whince!) used that talking point just the other day in his repudiation of his opposition. His staff is sick of hearing from me; I call them every day to remind them that, unlike their illegals, I consistantly vote.

The problem with Congress is if they aren't debating and passing new laws, they look like they're not doing anything, so they want to look like they're doing something. They're quickly bored by the laws they already passed. This is what we get for that dicotomy; do-nothing laws by two-faced, do-nothings.

"amnesty amnesty amnesty" is all we here from the so called "conservative" anti-illegal crowd. not simple minded rhetoric.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

There's a lot of simple minded rhetoric coming from pro-illegal venues, and the argument that those who are against this porous bill are for the status quo is one of them. The staus quo is that we don't enforce the law, and I'm against that. One of my idiot senators and a sponsor of this lame-brained bill, Ken Salazar (whince!) used that talking point just the other day in his repudiation of his opposition. His staff is sick of hearing from me; I call them every day to remind them that, unlike their illegals, I consistantly vote.

The problem with Congress is if they aren't debating and passing new laws, they look like they're not doing anything, so they want to look like they're doing something. They're quickly bored by the laws they already passed. This is what we get for that dicotomy; do-nothing laws by two-faced, do-nothings.

"amnesty amnesty amnesty" is all we here from the so called "conservative" anti-illegal crowd. not simple minded rhetoric.

Daniel

:energetic:

us conservatives like to leave that to the liberals

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

There's a lot of simple minded rhetoric coming from pro-illegal venues, and the argument that those who are against this porous bill are for the status quo is one of them. The staus quo is that we don't enforce the law, and I'm against that. One of my idiot senators and a sponsor of this lame-brained bill, Ken Salazar (whince!) used that talking point just the other day in his repudiation of his opposition. His staff is sick of hearing from me; I call them every day to remind them that, unlike their illegals, I consistantly vote.

The problem with Congress is if they aren't debating and passing new laws, they look like they're not doing anything, so they want to look like they're doing something. They're quickly bored by the laws they already passed. This is what we get for that dicotomy; do-nothing laws by two-faced, do-nothings.

"amnesty amnesty amnesty" is all we here from the so called "conservative" anti-illegal crowd. not simple minded rhetoric.

Daniel

:energetic:

us conservatives like to leave that to the liberals

"just say no", "mainstream liberal media", "fair and balanced", etc ...

Daniel

:energetic: