Bush's "support" for immigration reform as secret plan to cement the conservative shift in America?

A great portrait as to where 'the Right' as conceived here seems to be at present -- start with this post in NRO world from yesterday and read upward (most Derbyshire v. Podhoretz, with later thoughts from McCarthy and Goldberg). The knives could well be out.

Bush supports cheap labor

I guess as a political strategy, whatever sense a pro-immigration policy might have over the long term for conservatives, it's just too lethal in the short term. Still, though, being at the end of his political career, Bush would have the luxury of considering those kinds of steps. (Although every time I try and picture him going through that kind of thought process, my imagination fails me.)

(I know, I know, too unrealistic to warrant discussion...)

although the cooperation of republican legislators seems out of the question.

Who's to say that it is? and why would Republicans be rewarded for overcoming nativists in their party to join the Dems when the Dems have always done that?

Republicans would be "rewarded" because they control Congress and the White House. I hardly foresee the Democrats getting credit for any changes to immigration policy made now. Perhaps credit for making a "principled stand" and stopping worse alteratives, but that's about it. (And even then...)

anyway, there are at best about 5 million illegal immigrants in America, and there are probably 15-20 million Republican voters who don't like Mexicans.

In a few decades journalists may not be able to write meaningless crap like this and get away with it. But I doubt it.

And I think the dynamic you outline would be near political suicide if he says/does that in Monday's speech, though I wouldn't be surprised to hear it anyway.

(Unless you mean talk of the National Guard deal, which I mentioned elsewhere. ;-) )

gabbneb, "from our own correspondent" is consistently great. usually it's reported from like, the ivory coast or the phillipines. the US has become just another exotic place in some ways over the past few years.

yes i DO think the left has cared about immigration FAR more than the right, if "caring" means spending hours, weeks and years working to organize immigrant poultry workers, farm workers etc, and linking up with lawyers to try and argue in the niches of the law about non-citizens' right to organize, among other things (like the seemingly tiny yet actually gargantuan issue of getting a driver's license). you just do not hear about these things because they are happening under the radar of what the media considers important: the "spotlight" is a consequence of group decision-making among coastal elites, and poultry workers are just not sexy to them

(plus the right-wing response is just "those people shouldn't even be here")

Also do the proposals for guest worker programmes strike you as something that would turn Latin Americans into our Palestinians? Not fair, not right, not all being created equal.

I'd say in 1992 the left ramrodded tax increases and absolutely controlled the economic debate (hilarious lies such as "worst economy since Hoover", alleging that Republicans want old people to eat dog food, starve people on the vine, etc.") And prior to that, when the Dems controlled the Senate and the House I'm sure there were some issues that were demogauged into legislation (or at very least, into trainwrecking Court nominees.) But honestly, I have to go make dinner for my tribe and don't have the time to seriously consider this. And also, I agree that the right is probably better at nationalizing issues, at least in the past decade.

Suzy, the vast majority of countries in the world deny you the "right" just to move into them, start working, go to school, etc. I understand your point, but it would be stronger if you used other lanugage, IMO.

if these are your goalposts, you're right, blount, but while the left is maybe at its lowest ebb in like forever in terms of quantifiable, visible effects on the D.C. establishment and the money spigots of congress, you are very out of the loop about grassroots efforts for immigrants' rights if you think many of the people involved are anything less than obsessed, or if you think concrete gains haven't been made TIME AND AGAIN in communities from california to tennessee. there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in the power corridors in washington, and if the atomized, busy left lacks identifiable national figures with heft and leverage to open those corridors for the people of america to use, they carry on doing what they're doing, despite the total lack of recognition from talkingpointsmemo or j blount

Mitya: That's not what I've said at all. PARSING LESSONS CALL 1-800-READING. I'm talking about people from an immigrant background that have so little awareness of history and migration patterns that they stupidly close the drawbridge to others down the line who are no different to their grandparents who were given free land if they could get to it. OH WAIT THEY'RE BROWN, NO SALE.

I'm perfectly happy with ANYONE moving to America - my principles wouldn't have it any other way - and what I want most is for those people to be able to join in and contribute to the society they want to join, by paying taxes and whatnot just like "good Americans" do. I was able to move to the country I wanted to, legally, but I have seen the way illegal immigrants are compromised by exploitative citizens on numerous occasions and it is that which must be stopped. Also this notion of there being some jobs too dirty/not good enough for US citizens is bollocks!

If you want to talk about exploitation of illegals, then certainly "rights" play into it. But I hardly think Irish (or Chinese) immigrants got much better treatment in the 19th century than Latinos do now. (Which is not to say either group were necessarily treated how they should have.)

just a week or so later, the workers voted for a union and got it - http://www.tnimc.org/newswire/display_any/7177

where was the nytimes followup on this story? oh yeah. nowhere. immigration wasn't "in the spotlight", apparently. really forward-thinking people, those timesmen. i mean, it's not like immigrants' work conditions are a hot-button issue now or anything.

The Equal Justice Center
and Southern Migrant Legal Services conducted workers' rights workshops, helped to
organize community forums and filed complaints with the Tennessee Occupational
Safety and Health Administration about the routine denial of bathroom breaks and
with the National Labor Relations Board for the illegal termination of two
maintenance workers who raised concerns about safety and health issues in the
plants.

The Knoxville Jobs with Justice Chapter and the Knoxville Interfaith Committee for
Worker Justice were also key players in mobilizing local support through area
congregations, community groups and the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
Additionally, letters of support for the workers flooded into Koch Foods's offices
from across the country.

The success of U.S. English taught Tanton a crucial lesson. If the immigration restriction movement was to succeed, it would have to be rooted in an emotional appeal to those who felt that their country, their language, their very identity was under assault. “Feelings,” Tanton says in a tone reminiscent of Spock sharing some hard-won insight on human behavior, “trump facts.”

and there we go, troops to the border

The events of September 11, 2001 have forever changed the world, but especially in the United States. It was hoped that the federal government would take the initiative to strengthen the positive identification of our fellow citizens and lawful visitors. When it became obvious this was not going to happen, it became our responsibility to ensure that our citizens were properly identified and accounted.

http://www.tennessee.gov/safety/driverlicense/newdlpolicyfaq.htm

"especially in the united states"??? (and that paranoid quashing of that final "for" ..)

Stepping intoo NROWorld today is like dipping your foot into a shark tank after having first slathered fish guts over it.

ZING ZANG ZONG

http://www.jeannieshouse.com/gift_shop/products/Stuffed%20Animal%20House/marmots_w.jpg

M, you referred to --

the idea that providing amnesty for the illegals (read: criminals) would somehow help them seamlessly conform to society's standards

-- so if you weren't trying to suggest that, as "criminals," they're somehow less likely to conform to society's standards, then ... you'll just have to forgive me and explain yourself better. Yes, coming here illegally makes a person a criminal; duh; how exactly is that relevant to this discussion? You admitted upthread to being a criminal yourself (dope!), but if we were talking about reforming our criminal-justice system to stop imprisoning people for minor marijuana possession, I seriously doubt you'd be clinging to principle and saying "b-b-but they're criminals."

As for the coddling/patronizing/insulting stuff, I want to respond, but I can't really sort out why you'd say that in the first place. Who's being insulted or patronized here?

And just to jump upthread again: you object to any system that fixes a legal status for these people. You seem to acknowledge that it's not feasible to round them all up and deport them. So what DO you suggest? Like I said, you're putting yourself in the position of just being an obstacle -- opposing any rational solution, but not advocating the one irrational plan you seem to approve of.

meanwhile:

The guest workers program is, more or less, the creation of an official servant class, one that'll serve to undercut the unionization of working class Americans and legal immigrants. By the way, the whole "guest workers" thing sound like we're gonna provide them with fresh towels and scones every morning. Why not just call them "shit detail workers"? The bill's filled with bizarre rules like if Jorge from Guatemala is a guest worker for two years, he's gotta go back to Guatemala for a year before he can come back here for another two years, for a total of six years. 'Cause no one's gonna break that law and stay, you know, illegally.

SLAVERY REINTRODUCED VIA THE BACK DOOR shock horror Earth revolves around Sun probe.

Did you know that everyday, Mexican gays sneak in thru our back door and unplug our brain dead ladies?!

Bush to base -- drop dead:

President Bush attacked opponents of an immigration deal Tuesday, suggesting they "don't want to do what's right for America."

"The fundamental question is, will elected officials have the courage necessary to put a comprehensive immigration plan in place," Bush said against a backdrop of a huge American flag.

He described his proposal—which has been agreed to by a bipartisan group of senators—as one that "makes it more likely we can enforce our border—and at the same time uphold the great immigrant tradition of the United States of America."

...

"A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform, primarily because they don't think the government can fix the problems," Bush said.

"And my answer to the skeptics is: give us a chance to fix the problems in a comprehensive way that enforces our border and treats people with decency and respect. Give us a chance to fix this problem. Don't try to kill this bill before it gets moving," Bush told students and instructors at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

Bush repeatedly cast the matter as one of political courage.

"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like," the president said. "If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it.

"You can use it to frighten people," Bush said. "Or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all."

I like how he uses the exact same empty rhetorical argument for every single piece of legislation/policy he ever proposes - ie, if you don't agree with me, its because you don't want to do what's right for America.

shakey mo otm, though I really wish that leftists in general would make a big point of saying publically "wow, it looks like the President's kinda in the general neighborhood on this question" instead of just pointing fingers and goin' "lol winguts r mad, our enemies are fighting, now the glorious party can reassume its mantle"

J0hn when did you stop hating America

can you imagine the eating-own-tail frenzy of the right-leaning blogosphere if all the lefty blogs were like "we're pretty much with GWB on the immigration question"

I mean don't get me wrong, I do hate America in that I favor general amnesty (it sure as fuck didn't hurt California's economy last time; in fact it helped make us filthy fucking rich back then) but Bush does seem to have a more nuanced grasp of this issue than he does of pretty much anything else, and it'd be more becoming of leftists to give him credit for that as often as they can

"A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform, primarily because they don't think the government can fix the problems"

i wonder why that is, oh yeah you and your cronies have spent decades convincing them that government is the source of all society's problems

So anyway.

I must say that I do get tired of politicians who frame the immigration debate purely as a criminal issue or national security issue, as in "these people broke the law in coming here illegally", or "we must secure our borders to guard against the terrorists".

Immigration is an economic issue, end of story. That doesn't mean it is a small or unimportant issue, but it has nothing to do with criminals or terrorists pouring into the USA. Generally, all that these 'criminals' do is just work at menial jobs, eat, sleep, pay rent and keep their heads down. If they only spent money here instead of earning it, who would be complaining?

its not even an economic issue its fucking racist scapegoating pure and simple. no economy has ever been "destroyed" or even adversely affected by cheap immigrant labor, and I defy anyone to point me to a historical example demonstrating otherwise (refugees fleeing a war are a different story, btw)

the people who are most negativey impacted by the economics of illegal immigration are the illegal immigrants!

Ladies and gentleman, the most powerful man in the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH2QB7p7drQ

he looks depressed

good. I hope the fucker cries himself to sleep every night.

I drove by some people protesting illegal immigrants downtown last weekend and was half-tempted to yell, "DON'T YOU REALIZE YOU'RE SUCH A CLICHE?" at them. All white people, in their 30s/40s, only one woman out of seven or eight people, all wearing either american flag shirts or plain white tees and jeans.

I don't think it's racism so much as resentment. When conservative talk-radio was at its most heated the other day I caught a Cuban-American woman who called into Schnitz's show. From the way she described her background it could be someone in my family, or any of the thousands of Cubans in South Florida: her family fled penniless when Fidel takes over, father and mother work menial jobs, put kids through school, etc. Her voice was shaking with anger; you could hear the spittle hit her cellphone. "IF MY FATHER HAD TO WORK HIS BUTT OFF WHY DO THESE DEADBEATS HAVE TO CUT IN LINE?" This attitude is very common down here – "we suffered, therefore every other group of immigrants must too."

immigrants who have "made it" can really be some of the most xenophobic people out there

Exploiting this resentment for political gain is exactly why conservative radio is so successful. Did Air America host any campaign last fall to force McCain, et al to pass the anti-torture amendment?

old immigrants be hatin on new immigrants shocker

lets revive the Know Nothing Party while we're at it

lol @ idea that illegal immigrants aren't suffering, working etc

(also lolz at "deadbeats" characterization - yeah, get my sheets whiter you lazy wetback)

Whenever Mom alludes to other immigrants, I ask her to change the subject – she's got no business talkign about it, I say.

But but but they broke the laaaaaaaaaaw! if we don't have respect for the rule of law, our civilization will be no better than that of the terrist middle east!

oh yeah, and pardon Scooter Libby.

This thread is not insanely biased and tail-spinning downward into group-think.

the people who are most negativey impacted by the economics of illegal immigration are the illegal immigrants!

Sorry, Shakey, I can't entirely agree with this. Most illegals in the USA come here to experience an economic benefit. The appropriate comparison is with their economic position in their country of origin, where they earn less and are not likely to have any greater protections from exploitation than they have here as illegals. The average impsct for them is positive, not negative.

The people who are most negatively impacted are US residents with marginal skill levels - meaning most high school graduates and dropouts - who must compete in a much larger labor pool for low-skilled jobs. Many of these people can recall a time (or have credibly heard about it) when there were unionized jobs on assembly lines, in construction, in meat-packing, or other employments where a high school diploma was plenty of qualification.

These workers have been hurt very badly by the busting of unions, the flight of manufacturing to Asia, and by the swelling of the cheap labor pool by immigrants. Because the official immigration policy has always been based on appearing to protect these people from immigrant competition, they resent the fact that the actual policy has been totally worthless in this regard.

It is an open question whether the official policy was ever workable, and whether illegal immigration has actually been much of a factor in their plight, compared to the flight of manufacturing and the loss of unions, but these folks do understand how the official policy was supposed to work, and how it has dismally failed them, and they are very angry.

This makes illegal immigration WAY more explosive as an issue than the WTO or NAFTA or globalization. The targets for the anger live in the same town, speak differently, look differently and are always there in front of their eyes. This makes them a much bigger target than those other, more nebulous enemies, like global finance, economic diplomacy or stockholders. The psychology is just too obvious and racism is often just a small piece of it.

This is also why the immigration debate is so touchy for politicians - because this constituency is easily big enough to count in elections, but they are also poor, not powerful, unpredictable, hard to win over and much easier to handle with cheap demagoguery than with giving them solutions to their problems. Trouble is, they are restive, and have been put off with demagoguery and no constituent service for a long time, so they need to be handled with kid gloves and this could quickly blow up in a politician's face if they mishandle this.

The targets for the anger live in the same town, speak differently, look differently and are always there in front of their eyes. This makes them a much bigger target than those other, more nebulous enemies, like global finance, economic diplomacy or stockholders. = racist scapegoating

The driving down of wages is a result of capitalism devaluing manual labor, no hapless immigrants are to blame - after all, since its inception capitalism has traditionally functioned using slave labor for these tasks, and the market is essentially continually trying to reassert this as the dominant economic model (cf. China). Blaming some poor Salvadoran dishwasher because the only job he's qualified to do isn't worth JACKSHIT because a) nobody wants to do it, and b) nobody thinks its worth paying for, is not the dishwasher's fault.

don't get me wrong, "high school graduates and dropouts who must compete in a much larger labor pool for low-skilled jobs" have been completely fucked by global capitalism. They can either blame their fellow workers, or they can blame people at the top who perpetuate this system for their own gain and actually call the shots (ie, the people who determine "hmmm, yes yr 8 hours of backbreaking labor are only worth $1.50 to me. And I wouldn't even pay you that if I could get away with it")

sorry to get all Marxist

1) Just because "we" were immigrants first doesn't entail anything about what our laws should be. So, this country was taken by force. So what? We're a country now, and we have to make laws based on being a country. We can't spend all of our time being guilty for things in the past and just saying, O, do whatever, we don't really belong here.

2) The argument that illegal immigrants don't cause economic negatives is far too simplistic. Why else would governments want to encourage high-skilled people? Because they pay more into the system than they take out. If we can bring immigrants into who perform cheap labor I have no problem with that at all, but it's not like a free flow across the border is without disadvantage. I may be wrong, of course, but to paint this reasoning as 'racist' is counterproductive.

Why else would governments want to encourage high-skilled people? Because they pay more into the system than they take out.

This is highly, highly debatable, particularly in America.

Well, then debate it. But this issue is too mired in platitudes on both sides that are completely unproductive toward coming up with a reasoned solution.

x-post

I don't understand your first point really - so you're okay with blatant hypocrisy? You're against advocating for the equal treatment of people in directly analogous and similar situations? You don't understand how treating others as you were treated is simple fairness?

As far as the highest paid people paying the most back into the system, um, you ARE aware of who pays the bulk of the taxes in this country?? (hint: its not the wealthiest 1%)

and frankly I don't think there IS a reasoned solution - you either accept that global capitalism requires near-slave-labor conditions to function and you're okay with that, or you think that's deeply fucked up and would like to see the system drastically restructured. I don't really see any logical in-between position.

Shakey, these straw-man statements are a waste of time. I'm not going here if it's going to get all pissy. Rather discuss marmots.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/movies/38497/38497_ab.jpg

what strawman where?

so you're okay with blatant hypocrisy?

You're against advocating for the equal treatment of people in directly analogous and similar situations?

You don't understand how treating others as you were treated is simple fairness?

MARMOTS

1) Just because "we" were immigrants first doesn't entail anything about what our laws should be. So, this country was taken by force. So what? We're a country now, and we have to make laws based on being a country. We can't spend all of our time being guilty for things in the past and just saying, O, do whatever, we don't really belong here.

seriously I have no idea what you're saying here. Why shouldn't past immigration policy inform current policy? Are we not supposed to learn from history, or treat others as we wished to be (and in fact were) treated? No one mentioned this country being taken by force (is that what you mean by a strawman argument?) When was the US not a country... who brought up pre-Declaration of Independence immigration policy (you couldn't even call it a policy, it was a free for-all...?) No one mentioned Native Americans or slavery or the colonists or whatever... Alfred's references to old immigrants hatin on new immigrants was in reference to his parents' coming here in the 20th century, which is totally relevant...?

I'm not trying to be pissy, it just seems we're at total cross-purposes here, I can't make heads or tails of your point.

OK. I am back again.

= racist scapegoating

This is too pat. Scapegoating implies that there is no logical connection between the presence of immigrants working in low-skill jobs and the economic problems being experienced by the low-skilled native born segment of the population. There is a connection and it is a connection that is obvious to the people who are saying they have a problem with so many illegal immigrants being here.

Next, I will quickly acknowledge that there can be a racist component to this. It is more evident in some people than in others, but it is there. But, again, the presence of racism does not imply the absence of a legitimate complaint. They coexist.

Next, the people who are rallying against immigrants might better spend their time pushing for greater regulation of capital, or other measures that would improve their situation more rapidly or more fundamentally. But, again, because there are bigger fish to fry doesn't imply they do not have any reason to fry this particular fish. They have a reason.

Next, just because the immigrants are the source of the problem doesn't mean the immigrants are to blame in some sense of their being immoral or criminal. Their desire to better themselves is not perverse or criminal and they show no signs of depravity, but on the contrary are hard working and law-abiding in general. What they have done is to act contrary to the stated policy of the US government regarding who may live here and who may not. As crimes go, this is non-existant.

In view of all this, the political debate now going on is mostly a smokescreen and filled with red herrings and distractions from the fundamental facts, but those facts are indeed being stated by some participants in this debate. If they were not, then there would be no good reason to pump out so much smoke.

The facts are that the US government repeatedly promised this segment of the population that it would act in a particular way (limiting immigration) and then has deliberately failed to act that way. The reason it failed to act was that it never intended to fullfill its publically-stated policy. It has failed to act in order to serve the interests of another segment of the population (employers), covertly and in collusion with them, as the real policy of the government.

This is obvious enough to anyone who looks at the facts. Twelve million 'illegal' immigrants do not live and work here because the government has taken effective action to enforce its intentions. They are glaring proof that not only did the government fail, not only did it not care to succeed, but it intende to fail. What other conclusion is possible?

So the low-skilled segment of the population is hopping mad about this. They were lied to. They know it. They are being lied to again. They know it. They want blood. The politicians will do whatever they can to offer them the blood of the immigrants rather than their own.

That is what the smokescreen and scapegoating is all about. Not everyone is buying it. But it won't help at all to dismiss the low-skilled working class as a bunch of racists for being mad and wanting action over this. They deserve some respect and they deserve the truth being stated to them and about them. The truth is the best way to defuse the anger and lead them to think more clearly about what to do.

Give them that much, Shakey. They've got a legitimate beef here.

While I agree with your model about how it affects the lower classes here, what is missing is how it also could potentially affect other classes (all classes). Now, this is open to debate, but without proper reference knee-jerk reactions are useless as responses, so get your research hats on.

Here is a new component to the model. Employers want workers, and since politicians respond most to employers, you are right that the intended policy is indeed in place (and is contrary to the stated policy). However, these workers, being low-skilled, are given wages that does not cover things like medical costs, etc., and as a result they take more from the social welfare system than they put in. This is particularly true if they are paid in cash and therefore are not taxed. Moreover, not only do healthy workers cross the border, but other people do as well, some with significant health problems (tuberculosis is a frequent example).

Do the employers care? No, because this is a pure externality to them. But it does affect the larger society as a whole.

Now you can debate whether this is wrong. Perhaps on balance immigrant workers provide more benefit to society than harm. In point of fact, illegal immigrants can still be taxed without declaring their status, and so they are funding the social security system in that way (a benefit).

The point? It is very reasonable to try to implement a system that allows the benefits whilst trying to reduce some of the costs. And therefore there is room in the middle somewhere - which is why I regret this bill not being passed.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=6722&sortBy=1&edition=1&ttl=20070629032048

Yeah. This whole "no Amnesty deal" (like second comment down) is pissing me off. It's not feasible to throw everyone out. But if it can't be their way, it's no way. Fuckers.

It's depressing reading the BBC HYS page pretty much all the time, but now every nutjob who has ever posted is on that topic.

I'm just surprised the Daily Mail reading uk types aren't on it.

They are just doing what political entities do, which is try to leverage their power to the max and broker the best deal for themselves. Because they are a voting bloc with very little power aside from their votes, they can't apply pressure in back rooms or out of public view, so they come off as petulent and demanding, when making petulent demands is what employers do constantly, but with less publicity.

True, but the reality is that as long as "they" are so adamant about not allowing any amnesty, nothing at all will get done, which defeats "their" very purpose.

Spontaneous grassroots movments from the working class are not often very sophisticated. This yet another reason why politicians hate dealing with this sort of thing. They want a few leader-types they can sequester in a backroom and cut a deal with. There aren't any. This is more of a quasi-revolutionary uprising (though pretty reactionary - which genuine revolutions oftentimes are).