Kennedy to announce immigration deal Thursday

FIRM, a national coalition of grassroots organizations fighting for immigrant rights, is reporting that Senator Edward Kennedy will announce tomorrow that a compromise has been reached with the White House regarding comprehensive immigration reform.

A press conference will be held with Senators at noon Thursday.

Details of the final compromise have not yet been disclosed, but various news reports have disclosed some of the particulars that are known so far.

Under the tentative deal, undocumented workers who crossed into the country before Jan. 1 would be offered a temporary-residency permit while they await a new "Z Visa" that would allow them to live and work lawfully here. The head of an illegal-immigrant household would have eight years to return to his or her home country to apply for permanent legal residence for members of the household, but each Z Visa itself would be renewable indefinitely, as long as the holder passes a criminal background check, remains fully employed and pays a $5,000 fine, plus a paperwork-processing fee.

A separate, temporary-worker program would be established for 400,000 migrants a year. Each temporary work visa would be good for two years and could be renewed up to three times, as long as the worker leaves the country for a year between renewals.

To satisfy Republicans, those provisions would come in force only after the federal government implements tough new border controls and a crackdown on employers that hire illegal immigrants. Republicans are demanding 18,000 new Border Patrol agents, 370 miles of additional border fencing and an effective, electronic employee-verification system for the workplace.

…snip…

Since 1965, migrants have needed a sponsor in the United States, meaning that virtually all immigrants have had family members or employers already here. The new proposal would augment that system with a merit-based program that would award points based on education levels, work experience and English proficiency, as well as family ties. Automatic family unifications would remain but would be limited to spouses and children under 21. The adult children and siblings of U.S. residents would probably need other credentials, such as skills and education, to qualify for an immigrant visa. A number of unskilled parents would be allowed in, but that flow would be capped.

Washington Post

Read More...

Summary only...

Towards a common sense immigration policy

After years of controversy and partisan infighting, we appear today no closer to any meaningful new national immigration policy than we were over six years ago when Bush first claimed he would make it a priority upon taking office. Much of the blame for this situation clearly rests on the shoulders of the President and his party, who during six years of essentially unopposed control of government, failed to reach any acceptable compromise. But, there have also been divisions within the Democratic Party that have helped stall the effort.

While stating a uniform policy of supporting "comprehensive reform", exactly what constitutes such reform can differ greatly within the Democratic Party.

The three core components of comprehensive reform presented thus far; Enforcement, Guest Workers, and A Path to Citizenship, have greatly varying degrees of support, and none appears to be universally accepted in their currently proposed incarnations legislatively. Even within the three major Democratic camps on this issue, which could generally be categorized as the "Immigrant-Rights/ Liberal" wing, the "DLC/Corporate" wing, and the "Lou Dobbs Democrat/Populist" wing, there are divisions. We are in fact nearly as divided as our Republican opponents.

But this need not be the case.

With the intelligent incorporation of some of the policies and ideas already advocated by organized labor, we could craft an immigration policy that would satisfy the needs of US workers, while still allowing for a reasonable flow of new immigrants wishing to seek a better life.

But there is division even among the leaders of the nations largest unions on this issue. So which policies and proposals would work best to unify the Democratic Party might not at first appear clear.

About two years ago, the country's labor unions split into two: a coalition of unions with millions of union members bolted from the ranks of the old AFL-CIO, and formed the Change to Win coalition.

The AFL-CIO that remained was about a third smaller than its former self.

This has had important consequences for immigration, particularly the Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) battle currently underway on Capitol Hill, here's why. Historically, the largest organized opposition to immigration in the US was big labor. This was true in the late 1800s, and remained true through almost all of the 1900s. The switch of the unions from the "anti" side to the "pro" side in the late 1990s was thus a momentous change and was spear-headed within the old AFL-CIO by the leaders of the unions that have since bolted to form the Change to Win coalition.
Link

The split has left a division in labor on the issue of immigration reform. The SEIU and UNITE HERE (members of the Change to Win coalition) are part of the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the coalition of immigrant-rights groups, labor, and human rights advocates pushing for immigration reform. Many Win to Change unions also support guest worker programs as a means to allow new immigration and hopefully fill their ranks with new members - the AFL-CIO on the other hand holds some different views. There is good reason why.

Generalizing a bit broadly, the Change to Win coalition unions largely organize occupations that cannot be globalized easily (e.g. waiters, hotel staff, laundry workers), while the new AFL- CIO unions largely organize occupations that are subject to strong global competition (e.g. steel workers, auto workers). Put another way, while we can import a car from Japan, dirty dishes cannot be sent to Mexico to be cleaned.
Link

This leaves the AFL-CIO playing a more traditional role in its attempts to protect American workers and jobs.

The fact that labor is divided between the "liberal" policies of the Win for Change camp and the more "conservative" policies of the AFL-CIO, is in fact a very good thing. Since no immigration policy can ever be crafted without the support the American people, and particularly American workers, the positions of the AFL-CIO might gain wider acceptance with American workers and help diffuse some of the more hysterical rhetoric that comes from the Republican right.

It is no small wonder that the self-described spokesmen for American's working men and women such as Lou Dobbs or, Bill O'Liely never interview representatives from labor on the issue of immigration reform.

For all their faux-populism and wanna-be workingman bravado, the loudest opponents of immigration reform hold views quite far from the mainstream of the American labor movement. As much as Lou Dobbs wrings his hands and sighs at the sorry state of our "broken borders" or the thought of comprehensive reform, his head would explode if he were to spend ten minutes listening to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney speak on the issue….Sweeney just makes too much sense for Dobbs. His ideas and policies are well thought out and practical … something that surely can't be said for Dobb's bloviating rants.

This week Sweeney spoke out in the LA Times on immigration reform in general and proposals to initiate a new guest worker program specifically.

In a joint editorial with Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Sweeney voiced his opposition to guest worker programs such as those favored by President Bush and instead believes that any immigrant admitted to work in the US should be put on an immediate track towards permanent residency or citizenship.

He went on to say that foreign workers should enjoy the same rights and protections as US workers, including the right to unionize and to collective bargaining. "Labor laws must protect all workers, regardless of immigration status. If we leave undocumented workers without any real way to enforce labor laws, as our laws do now, we are feeding employers' hunger for more and more exploitable workers, relegating them to second-class status. That hurts all workers."

On a guest worker program::

(It) will assure a steady flow of cheap labor from essentially indentured workers too afraid of being deported to protest substandard wages, chiseled benefits and unsafe working conditions.

Such a system will create a disenfranchised underclass of workers. That is not only morally indefensible, it is economically nonsensical. We’ve had plenty of bad experiences with such shortsighted answers to a complicated problem..

."The solution to the immigration crisis will require a new approach," Sweeney said. " First, everyone who is admitted to work must immediately be on a track toward permanent residency or citizenship."
Sweeney went on to list other key reforms:

• Employers who can prove that they tried and failed to find U.S. workers should be able to hire foreign workers, but not under abusive conditions that have a negative effect on the wages and working conditions.


• Caps on the number of employment-based visas issued each year should be set by the U.S. Department of Labor based on economic indicators that establish the needs of particular industries, not by political compromise.


• Employers should not be allowed to recruit abroad, a practice that invites bribes, exorbitant fees and potential abuse. Instead, employers should be required to hire from applications filed by workers in their home countries through a computerized job bank.


• Foreign workers should enjoy the same rights and protections as U.S. workers, including freedom to form unions and bargain for a better life.

The guidelines Sweeney laid out this week pretty much match those first put forward last year in the unions Executive Council statement on immigration reform.

Responsible Reform of Immigration Laws Must Protect Working Conditions for all Workers in the U.S.

Uniform enforcement of workplace standards must be a priority.
(The) exploitation of workers will continue as long, as it makes economic sense to do so, to the detriment of U.S.-born and foreign-born workers alike. Unfortunately, the lax enforcement of labor and employment laws has given too many unscrupulous employers the economic incentive to recruit undocumented workers…

The only meaningful way to remove that perverse economic incentive and to equalize the competitive playing field is to ensure that all those who gain the benefit of a worker’s labor, … abide by all labor and employment laws. That means that the immigration reform law must provide real and enforceable remedies for labor and employment law violations that are available to all workers, regardless of their immigration status…

Reforms must provide a path to permanent residency for the currently undocumented workers who have paid taxes and made positive contributions to their communities.
Legalization is an important worker protection. History shows that legalizing this population benefits all workers. … Without a legalization program, the economic incentive to hire and exploit the undocumented will remain, to the detriment of U.S. workers who labor in the same industries as the undocumented, because all workers will see their working conditions plummet.

We must reverse the trend of allowing employers to turn permanent, full-time year-round jobs into temporary jobs through attempts to broaden the size and scope of guestworker programs.
…Guestworker programs are bad public policy and operate to the detriment of workers, in the both the public and private sector, and of working families in the U.S. The abuses suffered by workers in the first such program, the post World-War II Bracero program, are well documented. The negative effects of the modern versions of the “guestworker” construct—such as the H1-B and H2-B programs—are all too evident today. Workers around the country are witnessing the transformation of formerly well-paying, permanent jobs into temporary jobs with little or no benefits, which employers are staffing with vulnerable foreign workers who have no real enforceable rights through the guestworker programs. These modern programs have had a major and substantial detrimental effect on important sectors of our economy.


In our view, there is no good reason why any immigrant who comes to this country prepared to work, to pay taxes, and to abide by our laws and rules should be denied what has been offered to immigrants throughout our country’s history, a path to legal citizenship. To embrace instead the creation of a permanent two-tier workforce, with non-U.S. workers relegated to second-class “guestworker” status, would be repugnant to our traditions and our ideals and disastrous for the living standards of working families.

Long-Term Labor Shortages Should be Filled With Workers with Full Rights
We recognize that our economy may face real labor shortages in the coming years, as the baby boomer generation retires. Instead of relying on a construct that guarantees the deterioration of working conditions in the U.S., we should focus on a meaningful solution that guarantees full workplace rights for all workers, both foreign-born and native, and also permits employers to hire foreign workers to fill proven labor shortages. The solution is simple: Congress should revise the permanent employment-based visas system and devote more resources to removing processing delays.

Employment-based admissions for permanent visas (commonly known as “green cards”) are subject to labor certification provisions…(and Congress has arbitrarily set the number of these visas at 140,000 annually. That approach should be changed so that the number of visas available responds to actual, demonstrated labor shortages, which will satisfy employers’ needs for workers, and will prevent the creation of a secondary class of workers and residents, because the new foreign workers will have full employment rights and the promise of a permanent future in our democracy.

Reform of immigration laws must consider the root causes of migration, and must take into account the global economic policies, as well as U.S. foreign policy that are pushing workers to migrate
Without rising living standards abroad for workers and the poor, the pressure for illegal immigration will continue. U.S. foreign policy, as well as trade and globalization policies, must be grounded upon a coherent national economic strategy, as described in An Economic Agenda for Working Families, adopted at the AFL-CIO’s 2005 Convention.

So in essence the AFL-CIO is already advocating positions on which the vast majority of Democrats could agree. They protect workers, both immigrant and native born, and set guidelines for future immigration that will not be exploitive.

• No guest workers


• Uniform enforcement of all workplace labor regulations


• A path to legalization for those already here


• Revise the green card system and devote more resources to removing processing delays


• All new entries come in on green cards, with a path to citizenship


• New caps on green cards set by DOL, economic conditions, and industry needs, not congress or political compromise


• No recruiting of foreign workers or use of brokers, but rather a computerized job bank


• Address the global economic policies, as well as U.S. foreign policy that cause migration

Ironically, these proposals would end up being easier to enforce and less costly to enact than the ones already being debated in congress. They contain no convoluted and complicated procedures to deal with the current undocumented population or future entrants. No "touchbacks", temporary status, fines, or waiting periods. It’s a plain and simple plan. Figure out exactly how many jobs you really have and workers you need, then let them in legally with green cards as full members of society.

With some refinement and tweaking they could easily become the groundwork for a unified Democratic position on immigration reform and eventually meaningful comprehensive reform .

In fact some of the framework for the more difficult areas of the legislation already exists in the current legislation.

For example in TitleIV, sec 410 of the Gutierrez -Flake bill there is a call for a bipartisan "Standing Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets." A separate agency to be set up within the executive branch, made up experts in "economics, demography, labor, business, or immigration who cannot be employees of the Federal Government or of any State or local government" and are charged with making recommendations on the annual levels of immigration. Although obviously a throw-away section in the bill, that gives the commission little more than an advisory powers, with modification, and some teeth, this commission could become a powerful regulatory agency to work with the DOJ in setting immigration levels going forward. This would take the process out of the hands of politicians and their business allies. If the proper levels of future immigration could be determined through economic guidelines that protected American workers while still supplying opportunity to those abroad, it would go a long way towards eliminating many of our current immigration problems.

Acceptance of these compromise positions by the "Immigrant-Rights/ Liberal" wing, and the "Lou Dobbs Democrat/Populist" wing of the party would allow for legalization, future regulated immigration, workplace enforcement, and an end to exploitive guest worker programs and labor recruiting practices.

Although not a complete answer to all the issues to be dealt with concerning immigration reform…they're acceptance as policy would leave us a lot better off than we are right now as a Party…and in far better shape than our Republican opponents.


tags: immigration, AFL-CIO , guest worker, amnesty, labor unions

Read More...

Summary only...

A comprehensive look at comprehensive immigration reform.

With the coming election, a new round of debate has opened up on the issue of immigration and immigration reform.

With both parties trying to define their positions on migrant and immigration issues, perhaps it is time to re-examine what needs to be done about this issue and perhaps re-define the goals and terms of the debate. With the emergence of a new growing populism within the progressive ranks, it is important that we not be drawn to solutions and proposals that run contrary to the basic progressive beliefs in human value and dignity.

With that in mind, what follows is a proposal for how to address this issue effectively while still remaining true to the ideals of liberal and progressive thought… a policy paper if you must… but I'd rather think of it as a starting point for meaningful dialogue.

tags: immigration, immigration policy , guest worker,immigration reform

GETTING TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM: COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND WORKING AMERICANS

Introduction

After years of controversy and partisan infighting, we appear today no closer to any meaningful new national immigration policy than we were nearly eight years ago when President Bush first claimed he would make it a priority upon taking office. Much of the blame for this situation clearly rests on the shoulders of the President and his party, who during six years of unopposed control of government, failed to reach any acceptable compromise.

But, there have also been divisions within the Democratic Party that have helped stall the effort. While stating a uniform policy of supporting some sort of "comprehensive reform", exactly what constitutes such reform can differ greatly within the Democratic Party.

Currently undocumented immigrants traverse the borders daily risking their lives, and sometimes losing them, in order to find work and security in the United States. Perhaps upwards to a 500,000 undocumented people each year find a way, whether it be by overstaying a visa, or crossing hundreds of miles deadly desert, to enter this country in hopes of making a better life.

Americans of diferent political stripes seem concerned about this situation, but there is great division on exactly how to solve the problem. Some have advocated a tightening of security and closing of the porous border as a solution. Others have promoted a method to regulate the flow of new immigrants and legitimization the undocumented.

But there is one thing missing in both of these strategies.

Neither contains any analysis of why this problem exists, and more importantly, why at this particular time in our history the current influx of new immigrants is causing such great concern for many Americans.

Neither group seems concerned with root causes.

The number of immigrants has not really changed

Throughout our history we have encountered many waves of immigration. In fact, most Americans can trace our roots back to foreign shores one way or another, albeit for some, not of their own accord. The number of new immigrants who come today, both entering through proper channels and the undocumented, is no greater as a percentage of population than at many other times during our history. From the late-nineteenth century, through the first thirty years of the last, immigrants represented about 14.6% of the total population (1) ; today that number is 12% (2).

Certainly our earlier immigrants were not rich, and most had limited education, but they, like our current crop of immigrants, had the drive and determination to seek out a better life. This influx of new vitality and ambition has been a cornerstone on which the nation was build.

So why today do we find ourselves in the middle of what some would term a crisis?


What is different today then during past immigration waves?

Historically there have always been a number of protectionists who've opposed immigration for xenophobic or racists reason, but generally, as a nation, we have accepted new immigrants, and they have eventually taken their place in the American mosaic. This not to say that the immigrant experience has not been rife with tensions, or that they have always been welcomed with open arms, history proves diferently, but over time each group has found a place. Yet, today many seem to be finding it harder and harder to accept our newest arrivals. Why do so many believe the new immigrants are putting undo pressures on our economy, creating stresses on a tight job market, and stretching already taxed social services and education systems?

Why today do we find it so hard to absorb these new immigrants? Why at a time in our history, when we are still the richest nation in the world despite our current economic difficulties, and are more educated as a population and have a higher standard of living than during past waves of immigration, do many believe that these new immigrants are putting such great stresses on our society? Perhaps we need to look at some of the changes that have taken place over the last twenty-five or so years to find the answer.

THE SYSTEMATIC ASSAULT ON WORKING AND MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS

Over the past twenty five years there's been a systematic assault upon the working and middle classes of this nation which now leaves many vulnerable and in a position where they must compete for an ever decreasing pool of resources. At one time, a family could live comfortably on the income of one earner, but today it takes two just to make ends meet. A guaranteed pension for retirement is no longer the norm. A union card no longer guarantees a lifetime of job security. Health insurance costs have become an overwhelming concern for both workers and employers and forty five million Americans in fact go without any. A job with one of the nation's largest companies no longer means yearly raises and increased benefits; in fact it doesn't even guarantee job security. An advanced degree no longer means a career in your chosen field. Today, working and middle class Americans can expect plant closings and layoffs, pay cuts and increased hours, loss of benefits and outsourcing. They can expect economists to talk about "jobless recoveries" and increased productivity. It is no wonder that many working-class Americans are feeling the added stresses of our new modern global economy and are looking for an avenue to vent their frustrations.

Our nation is sick, and the perceived "immigration crisis" is not the cause of this national illness, but just another symptom of it.

Who is responsible for this situation?

The answer is simple ... the economic and social policies of those who claim to be economic conservatives that favor an elite class of the economically privileged over the vast majority of Americans.

Of course, many working class Americans might scoff at this idea. Certainly a philosophy of smaller government, personal responsibility and free-market economics sounds appealing to many, and on face value alone is quite in line with the principles on which our nation was founded. But in practice, what these so called Conservatives have done with this philosophy has been the antithesis of what the founders had in mind. These Conservatives have used this philosophy to consolidate economic and political power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. They have turned the ideals of fair play and Christian charity upside down and transformed them into grotesque parodies.

They have taken two hundred years of struggle to raise the standard of living for the average American and thrown it to the winds, all in the name of "fiscal responsibility" and "smaller government." All along being neither fiscally responsible nor providing smaller government.

How did they do this?

How did these self-proclaimed Conservatives wage this war on the working and middle class? In a nutshell, with two policies that came to define the Reagan era; deregulation and union busting. They've continued with more failed and flawed policies right up until our present day in alliance with business interests and the economic elite who benefit most from this agenda.

Union Busting

Starting with the firing of the air traffic controllers in 1981, Conservatives have set forth an agenda through legislation and judicial decisions to slowly disassemble the American labor movement. At the time, many Americans supported the idea, feeling that unions had become too powerful, corrupt and greedy, but the results of this policy have had devastating effects on American workers. Conservatives advocating "right to work" legislation under the guise that it allowed workers free choice whether or not to join a union, have in effect allowed employers to guarantee open shops and eventually drive the unions out of many sectors of the US economy. Ever since the eighties the number of union households has been steadily declining from a high of 20.1 % in 1983 to 12.5% in 2005 (3). Today Wal Mart, the nations largest employer, continually fights against the unionization of it's employees using laws and policies put in place by conservative legislators.

At the beckoning of corporate interests, Conservatives have managed to take what was once the bulwark of working class America, the very entity that allowed millions of American workers to move themselves or their children into the middle class, and rendered it powerless.

Deregulation

Under the guise of increased competition and lower prices through free-market forces, Conservatives began a campaign of deregulation. They would no longer allow the government to regulate business, but rather leave it up to the free market. Again, on paper this practice looked reasonable, but under their control we have ended up with the reverse.

Instead of government controlling business, we now have business controlling government.

We have allowed business combinations that rival any of those of the Robber Barons of the late nineteenth century. We have seen regulated monopolies in the energy, telecom, airline and other industries destroyed, only to recombine into unregulated monsters like Enron. We have seen the merger of mega oil companies that are larger than those of Rockefeller's Standard Oil, who make profits that would make King Midis blush, while the average American can't afford to fill up his gas tank.

Globalization and outsourcing

The next logical step after domestic deregulation for Conservatives was globalization and the taking of their idea of the free market economy, without any government regulation, to a global scale. Conservatives passed legislation and trade agreements that allowed huge multinational companies to operate with impunity throughout the world. Believing that free markets, free trade, and the unrestricted flow of capital would produce the greatest social, political and economic good, Conservative policies have left our nation with record trade imbalances (4) and a national debt of over 8 trillion dollars (5) , much of it underwritten by economically rival nations like China (6,7). Hundreds of free trade agreements have been signed that have in many cases had devastating effects not only for US workers, but decimated industries in foreign countries. In Mexico in particular, free trade agreements have destroyed large sections of the agricultural sector (8), leading to increased immigration to the US. They have allowed companies like Halliburton to set up shadow entities on foreign soil to avoid paying taxes.

They've allowed American businesses to sell American jobs to the lowest bidder on the global market all in the name of free market economics.

Rewriting the tax codes and starving the beast

Conservatives often say that the only thing wrong with government is government, and promise to lower taxes, reduce the size of government, and be fiscally responsible. Yet, after years of Conservative leadership we have the largest government in US history, a record federal deficit and a record national debt of more than 8 trillion dollars. The only part of their philosophy they seem to be able to stick too is tax cuts.

They have systematically worked over the last twenty-five years to shift the tax burden from both big business and the top 1% of the nation's wealthiest people and place it on the middle and working class.

They have consistently rewarded corporations and the rich with larger and larger tax breaks. Through cuts in funding to education, health and human services and many other state and local programs they have managed to shift the tax burden down to the local level so that average Americans now pay more in real estate, state and local, use and sales taxes than ever before. They have not given the American people "back their money" as they claim, but rather forced them to just pay more to other government agencies.

The other aspect of the Conservative tax cutting agenda has been to use cuts as a means to, as they term it; "starve the beast". It's been conservative policy to try to assure that social programs for education, childcare, healthcare and the poor are "starved to death" due to the lack of available federal funds.

Their philosophy has resulted in huge benefits for the rich while programs that poor, working and middle class Americans rely on are cut. The best example of this is public education, where Conservatives have consistently cut funding while placing ever more increasing demands upon the system.

Healthcare

Another big concern for average Americans is healthcare and its skyrocketing costs. Conservative deregulation and free market philosophies have influenced this also. While fighting vehemently against any form of a national healthcare program, they have through legislation and governmental agencies, allowed large pharmaceutical manufactures, insurance companies, and healthcare conglomerates to set the agenda.

National health policy has been written by insurance companies and other corporate interests rather than physicians and medical professionals. A policy that has left 45 million Americans without basic health insurance and millions more grossly under-insured and paying a large percentage of medical costs out of pocket

.

But What Does All This Have To Do With Immigration?

These Conservative policies that favor the economic elite have had devastating effects on the working and middle classes, yet in order to remain in power they have tried to shift the blame. Every problem that is claimed to be a result of the "immigration crisis" can be seen to have its roots in Conservative economic and social policies.

Conservatives and power elites have been trying to convince the American people that it is immigrants who have put all the stresses on education, social services and healthcare institutions and that they take jobs from American workers and drive down wages. But it must be understood that while immigrants highlight the problems of working class Americans, they haven't caused them. Those who have caused these problems have played upon race, bigotry and ignorance to further muddy the waters, and distract the American people away from the real reasons for their economic concerns and discontent. History is ripe with examples of scapegoating those not in society's mainstream, and this time it is no different.

All these problems can be seen as direct results of twenty-five years of Conservative policy. This is obvious when you look at the root causes. The Republican controlled Congress for the last ten years has exacerbated the situation by rubber-stamping every Conservative policy that has come down the pike. With each passing year they have taken more and more from working Americans and given it to their corrupt corporate masters. Now there is nothing left, and the American working man and woman knows it.

What can we do?

We, as a nation need to stop letting those who don't have our best interests at heart control the agenda. We must not allow them to divide us along lines of class, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender. We must not allow them to misdirect us or mislead us with appeals to our patriotism or national pride. We must not allow them to fan the flames of racial or ethnic bigotry to distracts us. We must not let them blame the symptoms rather than the disease.

The so called "immigration crisis" is just another symptom of a far greater disease ... the disease of an agenda that favors the rich and big business over average Americans. The influx of new immigrants certainly highlights the problems of the now decimated social programs, education and health care systems, but they did not cause the national illness.

How do we "fix" immigration?

Fixing our broken immigration system will not be easy, and it will be a long hard process. Again just as in the case of working Americans, one key must be to look for the ROOT CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM. We must look at the reasons why millions of people every year risk their lives to come here? What is it about their countries of origin that make them so desperate to leave? Take the the case of Mexico. It's a nation that has the 13th largest economy in the world, ahead of 167 other nations. They also are the second largest recipients of direct investment by US companies in the hemisphere. On top of that Mexico has vast amounts of untapped natural resources and oil reserves that rival those of any Middle Eastern power. So why do so many live in poverty? Why must they come here simply to survive? Could it be precisely because they are the second largest recipients of direct investment by US big business? Could it be because US trade and economic policies have been crafted to favor the business elite and the ruling classes of Mexico, just as they favor them here? Could it be because US policies help perpetuate a system that leaves 55% of the countries wealth in the hands of 20% of its people? These are all things that need to be addressed when looking at the "immigration crisis".

WHAT SHOULD MEANINGFUL IMMIGRATION REFORM LOOK LIKE ?

Despite what many claim, support for some sort of comprehensive immigration reform is not tantamount to calling for "open borders" , unrestricted immigration" or as Lou Dobbs like to claim, "importing half the population of Mexico into the US." While some from the left, and both the Libertarian and Free Trade right, favor open borders and the total unrestricted flow of people, goods and services between nations, most pro-immigration advocates don't. They see our current "immigration problem" as a failure of our system to live up to its historical duty to allow for the reasonable flow of people from all over the world to come to this nation to make a better life, add vitality and diversity to our national mosaic, and join in the great American democratic experiment. The key phrase being: "reasonable flow".

Two economic facts must be taken as givens in any discussion of immigration reform if we are to make any real progress towards meaningful reform:

• 1. We need immigration. Currently there are an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the US of which 7.5 million are in the workforce, with approximately a million more joining them each year. Additionally, we allow for roughly a million "legal" immigrants to enter each year. 98% of all undocumented immigrants eligible to work (excluding children and stay-at-home mothers of young children), do so, and the US unemployment rate floats around 5% or roughly 7 million people. We need these workers, it's just a fact





• 2. Undocumented immigrants can keep wages artificially low in a few select industries that rely on them for the bulk of their workforce, particularly effecting legal-resident and natuarlaized workers. Employers in these sectors, able to pay undocumented workers less, take advantage of a severely broken immigration system to exploit the most vulnerable members of society. The solution to this problem is not to eliminate the immigrant workforce in order to force wages up due to a lack of needed workers. The solution is to put these workers on a path to legalization in order that employers can no longer exploit them. Numerous studies show that once an immigrant attains legal status his wages and benefits go up and his employer begins to adhere to federal and state workplace regulations. It's a self policing system.

With these two basic premises accepted, it becomes clear what the goal of any rational immigration reform should be: Allow for a reasonable flow of new immigrants and figure out a way to allow them to enter the country legally.

What is a reasonable flow of immigration?

How do we determine what the "reasonable" amount of immigrants to allow each year should be?

For those immigrants admitted for employment reasons, the number should be determined by a floating scale that takes into account the number of available jobs, the current unemployment rate, the number of green cards issued the previously year measured against the number applied for. In other words use simple supply and demand. As long as there is a demand for increased immigration, there must be a legal way meet that demand.

At the present time we have no legal means to supply needed workers, or allow for families to remain intact, hence they are forced to enter the country illegally and live in the shadows.

Obviously we must first raise the quotas to more accurately reflect the realities of what is actually going on.

We must also eliminate the per-country cap that favors smaller nations with fewer immigrant applicants over those countries that have long traditional ties to the US.

We must raise the 5000 maximum cap on unskilled worker green cards issued each year to reflect the true needs of the national labor pool.

We need to ease restrictions on family reunification and rework the diversity "lottery" and refugee policies to better serve the needs of those who face a clear and present danger in their countries of origin.

One possible solution

Perhaps there is a better way to formulate such important and complicated policy. Perhaps we should institute an independent "immigration policy board" that is free of elected officials, made up of experts in immigration, economists, labor and immigrant advocates, that could be charged with the responsibility of formulating certain aspects of immigration policy.

At present it's basically a decision made by politicians.

As we saw during the debates over Comprehensive Immigration Reform, legislators seem to pull numbers out of thin air, check with "business" leaders, take some foreign policy considerations, think about sound bites, spin, and firing up the base, then put it all in a big bowl and mix it up and serve it to the American people as policy.

This is politics as usual, but it doesn't have to be.

There needs to be something set up independent of elected government, something similar to the way the Federal Reserve is set up, and sets interest rates. An independent "immigration policy board", charged with setting the immigration levels and working out policy. They could be the ones to determine how many of each visa class to issue each year or how many green cards etc. rather than our elected officials.

This seems to be a logical alternative to the current system. We do not allow elected officials to set the Fed interest rates because they lack the necessary expertise to do so, and we know they'd set them at 0% in election years, and 30% in off years.

The same should be true with immigration policy. Between pressure from big business, the natural tendency for politicians to pander for votes, and other political calculations, perhaps elected officials are not the best choice for formulating the nuts and bolts of immigration policy.

This policy board's mission would be to gather information, listen to testimony, call in experts, listen to lobbyists, immigrants advocates, etc., then make their recommendations for the following years "quotas". Each year they would then adjust them according to economic conditions, world events, the previous year's successes and/or failures, unemployment rates, etc.

This way the whole affair is taken out of the hands of both the politicians and the business interests that control them.

The AFL-CIO advocates a similar process in theory. They instead have called for all caps on the number of employment-based visas issued each year to be set by the U.S. Department of Labor based on economic indicators that establish the needs of particular industries, not by political compromise.

Once we have determined what reasonable levels of immigration are, then and only then can we begin to look at border security. Once we remove millions of would-be undocumented immigrants from the mix by providing them a legal path to immigration, we can formulate an effective border security plan. To do the reverse, and try to secure the border before reforming the immigration system is like trying to fix a leaky pipe without turning off the water. We need to channel our immigration through legal points of entry, before we can plug the holes in the border.

ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES OF MIGRATION

We need to take a complete and comprehensive approach to immigration reform, and this includes something none of the present legislation accounts for. We need to look at the reasons why millions of people each year are compelled to risk their lives to enter this country illegally. This includes an examination of the effects of US foreign policy and trade policies that have fostered poverty and political upheaval throughout much of the third world.

Why is it that Mexico, a country with the thirteenth largest economy in the world, has large portions of it's population living in abject poverty? How have we allowed US corn exports to decimate local Mexican economies? How come NAFTA and WTO trade restrictions have been allowed to cause of the collapse of the coffee industry throughout much of Central America?

The US has power to do both great good and great harm throughout the third world with its economic and foreign policy decisions and we must start to look at the long term ramifications of these policies. Rather than allowing US business interests to dictate trade and economic policy, we need to view these policies in light of their long term effects on both foreign economies and our own.

Let's look at what globalization has done to both the US and Mexican economies. At first, under NAFTA US companies outsourced American jobs to Mexico where they could find cheaper labor and less government restriction. Over time these jobs have now been outsourced from Mexico to Asia, where even cheaper labor and less government interference can be found. As long as US economic and trade policy is based solely upon the interests of big business, and the exploitation of the current cheapest labor force, this race to the bottom will continue. Until we begin to address the true causes for the mass migration of people who live in abject poverty in countries that have more than enough resources to provide a reasonable lifestyle for its entire population, we will never get a handle on the "immigration problem"

RAISING STANDARDS FOR ALL U.S. WORKERS

Many Democrats, and particularly Progressives, look at increasing the penalties for hiring undocumented workers as a panacea for solving the "immigration crisis". This of course stems from a natural distrust of corporate America by working people ....and rightfully so. Many corporations benefit greatly from our current ineffective immigration system. It allows for abuses and exploitation of workers both immigrant and native–born.

But once again we need to look at ROOT CAUSATION when addressing worker abuse.

The problem with the exploitation of workers is at its core not a problem of lack of enforcement of immigration laws in the workplace, but rather the lack of enforcement of LABOR laws in the workplace. Unfair labor practices, failures to adhere to wage and hour regulations, unsafe working conditions, lack of employee protections, harassment or obstruction of efforts to organize ...these are not immigration problems, but rather labor problems.

In order to raise the standards for all workers, both US-born and immigrant, the labor and employment laws of this country need to be more strictly enforced.

Currently "workplace enforcement" revolves around the government rooting out unauthorized workers and deporting them. The businesses rarely receive any punishments and when they do they quickly pass those costs on to consumers through higher prices as part of the cost of doing business. But the terrible working conditions that have relegated those jobs to ones that only undocumented immigrants will accept remain the same.

This paradigm needs to shift. The government needs to shift its focus from attacking the symptom of unfair labor practices, to attacking those practices themselves.

Instead of swat teams of ICE agents storming factories and meatpacking plants looking for undocumented immigrants, we need armies of inspectors from the Department of Labor, OSHA, and other agencies, looking for labor violations and evidence of unfair labor practices. This is how you raise the standards for all US workers.

Reforming immigration policy to benefit all workers

Allowing for reasonable rates of immigration and the legalization of all current undocumented immigrants would in fact start a process by which all US workers could begin to reverse the thirty-year decline in real wages and benefits. The inclusion of 7.5 million newly legal workers to the workforce would go a long way to stem this tide. This is why the immigrant's rights movements has the support of the largest unions in the country. The Services Workers, Laborers International and the AFL-CIO have all backed comprehensive immigration reform and the legalization of workers already living in the country. They realize that if they could unionize the current immigrants already in the country and add ½ million or so new members each year from new immigrants, they could possibly revitalize the workers movement, and regain much of the power they have been lacking for the past thirty years.

At the polls, these new Americans would have a voice in formulating policies more favorable to working families. Things like universal health care, education, a living wage and an equitable tax code would move to the forefront. This is one reason Bush and his big business buddies are so enthralled with his "guest worker" program. It supplies businesses with workers, while keeping them from unionizing and more importantly eventually voting. The last thing the economic elite want is a larger working class voting block to contend with. This is why they push so had for guest worker progrmas, they want them to enter as temporary workers, to be shipped back home before they can gain political clout. Contrary to what the right-wing would have Americans believe, immigrants are not the enemy of working men and women, but rather natural allies in the struggle for a better life.

CONCLUSION

While this is far from a complete analysis, or comprehensive plan to address all the aspect of this complex issue, it does represent a starting point for understanding what a plan for meaningful immigration reform entails.

• *Formulate a reasonable, humane, fair and practical method for determining the levels of immigration going forward. Perhaps by an independent policy board free from the pressures of political expediency and business interests.



• *Address the root causes of immigration, and change US policy so that it doesn't foster and produce conditions that force millions of people each year to leave their countries of origin in order to simply survive. Tie all future trade, military, and foreign aid agreements to not only worker protections both here and abroad, but also to their ability to foster economic progress for the working class and poor in sender nations.



• *Provide a path to legalization for all current undocumented immigrants living and working in the US.



• *Secure the border by first ensuring that the vast majority of new immigrants have the ability and opportunity to legally enter the country through a legal port of entry. This would curtail the flow of immigration through illegal channels, then work to physically secure the border could take place where necessary. Only after that, interior and workplace enforcement could begin to ensure compliance.




• *Opposition to a "guest worker" program on the grounds that it provides no benefit to the American people or the immigrants themselves. It only provides big business with a disposable work force that holds down real wages and prevents immigrants from becoming a viable force in the workplace or full fledge members of society.



• *Foster an immigration policy that strengthens the middle and working class through unionization and participation in the electoral process.



• *Strict enforcement of all labor and employment laws



• *Modernize and streamline the immigration process and eliminate the backlogs for those already in the queue



• *Recognize that immigration is a vital part of maintaining a healthy and vibrant America. It is what has set this nation apart from all others since its inspection. To close our borders to new immigrants is to cut off the lifeblood that has always made this nation grow and prosper.

This, I believe, is a reasonable starting point to proceed from.

FOOTNOTES


1 "From 1850 to 1930, the foreign-born population of the United States increased from 2.2 million to 14.2 million, reflecting large-scale immigration from Europe during most of this period.1 As a percentage of total population, the foreign-born population rose from 9.7 percent in 1850 and fluctuated in the 13 percent to 15 percent range from 1860 to 1920 before dropping to 11.6 percent in 1930. The highest percentages foreign born were 14.4 percent in 1870, 14.8 percent in 1890 and 14.7 percent in 1910."
US Census Bureau; "Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Population of the United States: 1850-1990"; http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/twps0029.html

2 "The Census Bureau estimated that the number of foreign-born people living in the United States topped 33 million and accounted for nearly 12 percent of the population in 2003--its highest share since 1930…. The foreign-born population, as defined by the Census Bureau, refers to all residents of the United States who were not U.S. citizens at birth, regardless of their current legal or citizenship status."
Congressional Budget Office; "A Description of the Immigrant Population", November 2004; http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0

3 "In 2005, 12.5 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, un-
changed from 2004, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. The union membership rate has declined from a high of 20.1
percent in 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available."
US Dept of Labor News, January 20, 2006; http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

4 "The U.S. Department of Commerce today reported that the international deficit in goods and services trade reached a record level of $726 billion in 2005, an 18% increase over 2004. The U.S. merchandise deficit alone, which excludes services, was $782 billion, also an 18% increase."
Economic Policy Institute, February 10, 2006, "Rapid growth in oil prices, Chinese imports pump up trade deficit to new record" http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_tradepict20060210

5 National debt as of June 21,2006: $8,309,177,355,316.66
National Debt Clock; http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock


6 "The growth of the trade deficit with China, which reached $202 billion in 2005, was responsible for the entire increase in the United States’ non-oil trade deficit. The trade deficit in manufactured products (net of refined petroleum) increased $46 billion, to $655 billion (an 8% increase)."
Economic Policy Institute, February 10, 2006, "Rapid growth in oil prices, Chinese imports pump up trade deficit to new record"; http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_tradepict20060210

7 Major foreign holders of US treasury securities as of April 2006; Japan – $639.2 B, China -$323.3 B, UK-$166.8 B
US Dept. of Treasury/ Federal Reserve; http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

8 "Mexican farmers say hefty agricultural subsidies in the United States give American white corn and beans an unfair advantage over the Mexican market, which depends in large part on small-scale and mostly subsistence farmers… Mexico's agriculture minister pleaded with Canada and the United States this month to reconsider the removal of the corn and bean tariffs, but U.S. Undersecretary for Agriculture J.B. Penn flatly rejected the appeal."
ABC News, "Mexico Hopeful Takes Hard Line Vs. NAFTA", June 21, 2006; http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2089345

Read More...

Summary only...

What's the deal with "guest workers" anyway

Like many other phrases that have sprung from the oxymoron rich mouth of George Bush, the term "guest worker" has entered the American political lexicon relatively unquestioned. The Boy King first uttered the phrase back in those heady days after his first electoral mandate in 2000 as part of his big plan to overhaul the nations failing immigration system. Long before his Solomon-like decision about stem cell research or his brilliantly executed "War on Terror," there was his guest worker program. Cooked up on his first official state visit with his long-time compadre, Vinnie Fox, it was to be his first great initiative, that is until a few months later when the real world came crashing in on him as he read his little goat book.

The term has been accepted by the American people to mean a group of people from foreign nations who come here for a short period of time to work. Then when their term of employment is over they are expected to return back to the hovels from whence they came. Not exactly how one is supposed to treat a "guest."


tags: immigration, Guest worker

Yet, as a new Congress is poised to begin under Democratic control that might be taking up the issue of immigration reform, a question now should be asked...."What's the deal with guest workers anyway."

As one who has advocated for comprehensive immigration reform from the start, I am fully cognizant of its power as a bargaining chip in the debate. But I can't help but think it's time is near an end.

Obviously Bush, Fox (the twin lame ducks) and the corporate crowd want their "guests" because they're good for business.

But the real question should be, who else is served by this kind of program? Certainly not the majority of our "guests" who under the Senate's plan would still have numerous restrictions placed upon them, have no additional wage or workers rights protections and face the possibility of being forced to return home after three years. As for native –born workers this plan offers little protection outside of employers attesting that they can't find workers at the prevailing wage, tying "guest" workers to the unemployment rate, and some protections for those without a high-school education.

Bush often claims his plan will allow "willing employers and willing workers to come together to do the jobs Americans won't do." But like all Bush-speak, when examined closely, the phrase means absolutely nothing. If in fact there is a job an American won't do, and an employer needs a foreign worker to do it, how is it that after an arbitrarily set amount of time that foreign worker will no longer be needed.? Outside of seasonal agricultural work or a particular project that has a finite end, what kind of jobs end after a set period of time? What kind of jobs are there that would require 325,000 un-skilled "temporary guests"?

While immigration activist look at the temporary guest worker program as a concession they are willing to make since at least it provides an eventual path to LPR status and green cards to large numbers of immigrants, upon careful consideration one must ask why is the program needed at all. It only leaves open a door to abuse and misuse of the system.

If an employer needs a worker today to fill a job, how can he, the government or anyone else, possibly know that the job will no longer exist in an arbitrary amount of time like three or six years. That is the premise this program has to work on in order to make any logical sense. If not, and the job is in fact available after that time, why would there be any reason to have a "temporary" guest?

It comes down to a question of logic.

If in fact the labor market dictates that a given number of low-skilled workers are needed every year to fill jobs in this country, and these jobs can not in fact be filled with native workers, than the solution is to allow people from other nations to come and fill them. Not as temporary, disposable workers to be replaced as soon as they gain economic privileges, but as full-fledged new members of society who can enjoy the fruits of their labor without fear of possibly being uprooted.

It seems very simple to me: Would American workers sign on to a plan by which there was a possibility that they could never stay at one job any more that three years? Would they accept a plan that assured they could never qualify for a pension, pay raises, extra weeks of vacation, medical benefits, a 401K, and all the other perks that go with long-term employment? Would American workers accept that they would have to uproot their families and move every few years?

Of course not .... We believe in free will and economic autonomy.

How we are to determine the levels of immigration going forward and how many workers are needed are questions for another day, but for now I would just like to see an end to the whole notion of temporary guests coming to work. We either need workers or we don't, that situation is never temporary.

Read More...

Summary only...

Immigration Reform and the Catholic Church

This post gives a round-up of the support being offered by the Catholic Church calling for dignity and respect towards undocumented immigrants in American society.

First, there's a new poll out trying to make sense of the dynamics being played out between the GOP and the Catholics.

The national immigration debate is muddying Republican relations with Roman Catholics — coveted swing voters who comprise about one-quarter of the electorate.

While Catholic bishops and many Republican politicians share opposition to abortion, they're often split over the specifics of immigration reform. Church leaders are challenging — and in some cases even vowing to defy — the tougher enforcement proposals by GOP lawmakers.

[snip]

Catholics in AP-Ipsos polling were more likely than Protestants and white evangelicals to support allowing immigrants to be temporary workers and to oppose making it a serious crime to be in this country without documentation.

The article examines the rightward trending that has occurred over the past 30 years from a decidely Democratic affiliation among the laity to George Bush winning a majority of Catholic voters against a Catholic nominee (Kerry). The tilt has been felt in the pews as we still deal with the backlash against the Second Vatican Council.

(more below the fold)

Regarding immigration, the U.S. Bishops are virtually united in solidarity with those seeking a better life. Here's an excerpt from the Justice for Immigrants webcenter outlining myths in the debate.

Today’s immigrants are different than those of 100 years ago

• The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20^th century it was approximately 15%. Similar to accusations about today’s immigrants, those of 100 years ago initially often settled in mono-ethnic neighborhoods, spoke their native languages, and built up newspapers and businesses that catered to their fellow émigrés. They also experienced the same types of discrimination that today’s immigrants face, and integrated within American culture at a similar rate. If we view history objectively, we remember that every new wave of immigrants has been met with suspicion and doubt and yet, ultimately, every past wave of immigrants has been vindicated and saluted.

(Source: Census Data:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kprof00-us.pdf,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf )

Most immigrants cross the border illegally

• Around 75% of today’s immigrants have legal permanent (immigrant) visas; of the 25% that are undocumented, 40% overstayed temporary (non-immigrant) visas.

(Source: Department of Homeland Security (http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/index.htm)

Weak U.S. border enforcement has lead to high undocumented immigration

• From 1986 to 1998, the Border Patrol’s budget increased six-fold and the number of agents stationed on our southwest border doubled to 8,500. The Border Patrol also toughened its enforcement strategy, heavily fortifying typical urban entry points and pushing migrants into dangerous desert areas, in hopes of deterring crossings. Instead, the undocumented immigrant population doubled in that timeframe, to 8 million—despite the legalization of nearly 3 million immigrants after the enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. Insufficient legal avenues for immigrants to enter the U.S., compared with the number of jobs in need of workers, has significantly contributed to this current conundrum.

(Source: Immigration and Naturalization website: http://www.ncjrs.org/ondcppubs/publications/enforce/border/ins_3.html)

Those are government websites backing up the mythbusting Who knew that facts were so important?... [raised eyebrow]

Social justice movements within the Church are also firmly planted on the side of immigrants, as they should be. Here's the link and an excerpt to the policy paper issued by Catholic Charities, entitled Justice for Newcomers.

Just and comprehensive policies addressing the needs of newcomers – as well as the security and economic health of our nation – should be a priority as Congress seeks to reform our nation’s immigration laws. The positions of Catholic Charities USA are deeply rooted in Catholic social teaching and our local agencies’ experiences in providing services to nearly half a million immigrants. Our agencies have been working with immigrants for more than 100 years, and experience first hand the economic and political forces that cause people to seek a better life in the United States, as well as the impact of current immigration policies that keep an estimated 11 million undocumented persons in the shadows, separate families and disrupt family life, and cause undue hardship to those who are working hard and building their own American dream.

The fact that the Church is siding with *gasp* the political left on this issue has sent people like Bill O'Reilly into frothing mad tantrums. Who knew that choosing to be non-partisan was such an issue? (I kid, I kid.)

Anywho, two more links that I think are relevant for understanding why the Catholic Church has more power in this discussion than most people realize. The first is a .pdf from the Arizona Catholic Conference, which is comprised of the Bishops in the state as well as Gallup, NM which extends into parts of northern Az, aptly titled You Welcomed Me.

The last linkage is to an interview with Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of the Diocese of Washington D.C. (soon to be retired) and probably the most powerful prelate in the country, with Cardinal Mahoney of L.A. not far behind. My favorite part, for obvious reasons (it discusses economic policies):

What, to you, are the most essential changes to make?

First of all, we need to cooperate with other countries so people can stay where they are. The most important right people have is the right to make it where they have roots planted. If that doesn't happen, often because of economic policies of well-developed nations, that's something we have to look at. We [should] help other countries develop economically themselves, so people aren't forced to look around [for] a place to find a better life.

I applaud the bishops and cardinals for taking a stand for human rights. For far too long, the pulpits have been used to divide and condemn, rather than empower the people in the pews to treat everyone with the dignity and respect that is deserved and mandated by the teachings of Jesus. Here's a prayer and a candle-lighting from someone who wishes to see a resurgence of the Catholicism that was practiced by admirable human beings like Dorothy Day and Óscar Romero.

Paz y amistad para todos.

Tags: catholic church, immigration, Cardinal McCarrick.

Read More...

Summary only...

Why immigration reform failed in the Seante

Editors Note: The following appeared over at myDD. It contains one of the best rebuttals I’ve seen so far of the Republican talking points on the Senate’s failure to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package.

Boehner, Not Reid, Killed the Immigration Bill

by Jonathan Singer, Sun Apr 09, 2006
Reprinted from myDD

Yesterday I went to great lengths to debunk President Bush's claim that Democratic Leader Harry Reid was to blame for the failure of the Senate's immigration compromise, noting that it was the Democrats who stuck by the original agreement while Republicans attempted to back out by watering down the original language with amendments. One key player entirely overlooked in my post, and by the traditional media yesterday, was the United States House of Representatives.

(more below the fold)

tags: immigration, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, Frist bill, Securing America's Borders Act, S. 2454

As prescribed by Article 1 of the Constitution, the legislative branch of the federal government is bicameral, with two separate chambers playing a role in the enactment of laws. While this is something that many Americans have known since they were just kids, it is a concept that is underattack by the current Republican leadership in Washington, with President Bush attempting to sign into law a bill passed only by the Senate (the House had narrowly approved of a similar, though fundamentally different, piece of legislation). Not withstanding recent actions by Republican leaders, the idea of bicameralism is inherent to the American democracy.

With this in mind, I couldn't figure out why the media bought into the meme that Congress was on the brink of passing immigration reform earlier this week (I even seem to recall an AP article bearing a headline to that effect). Make no mistake; regardless of claims that Senator Reid killed the immigration reform legislation, it is the inherent differences within the Republican Party that make immigration reform all but impossible. Just look at what John Boehner had to say on ABC's "This Week":

House of Representatives Majority Leader John Boehner on Sunday rejected efforts to establish a guest worker program in the United States, despite calls from President Bush to make provisions for millions of current illegal immigrants.

-snip-

"You can't begin to talk about a guest worker bill until you secure the borders," he said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" program. Otherwise, he said, "We're going to have an endless parade of illegal immigrants here in our country."

-snip-

Allowing illegal immigrants to stay and work "sounds too much like amnesty for most Americans," he said.

Given Boehner's current stance -- and indeed the stance of the Republican House of Representatives, which passed an extremely regressive anti-immigrant bill last session that would make providing services to undocumented immigrants a criminal activity -- why would anyone believe that they would sign on to a Senate bill that "sounds too much like amnesty"?

Even if Harry Reid buckled to Bill Frist's presidential ambitions and allowed some of the more regressive elements of the GOP caucus in the Senate to gut the bipartisan compromise, would Boehner and the House Republicans -- led in part by the rabidly anti-immigrant Tom Tancredo -- really sign off on the Senate bill, as bicameralism would require?

The Republican House of Representatives refused to pass the President's guest worker program in December, at a time when George W. Bush's approval rating was actually on the rise, if slightly, so I find it extremely difficult to fathom a situation in which they agree to his framework today, when he is politically radioactive. Consequently, the only individual or individuals to blame for the breakdown of the immigration reform package sought by President Bush are members of his own party -- the Do Nothing Republicans

Read More...

Summary only...

Strange Bedfellows

The old adage that politics makes strange bedfellows was proven true on Thursday when a coalition of business, labor and religious groups vowed to fight the 'Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005" ( HR4437) on the grounds that the bill, which was approved by the House in December, would bar illegal immigrants already in the United States from achieving legal status.

Representatives of the alliance, made up of the US Chamber of Commerce which represents over three million business, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the 1.8 million member Service Employees International Union, the American Health Care Association, and the 400,000 member Laborers' International Union, said they generally favored the alternative immigration bill co-sponsored by Senators Kennedy and McCain that would permit undocumented immigrants to obtain work visas for up to six years, with the opportunity to apply for permanent residency.

"We are extremely disappointed with the proposal that passed the House last month. It is anything but comprehensive and balanced," said U.S. Chamber CEO Tom Donohue.

The business leader went on to say there weren't many issues where business and labor see eye-to-eye, yet, "We have decided that this is a fundamental and essential issue for the future of our economy and our society….We support legislation that would provide a step-by-step process in which an undocumented worker could qualify for permanent legal status."
more below the fold
Tag: immigration


This from the coalition's press release:

Today, leaders from the business community, labor unions, and the Catholic Church are uniting to express their support for comprehensive immigration reform as the legislative agenda on this issue turns to the U.S. Senate.

-snip-

Often identified as a divisive issue, sensible reforms to our immigration laws are actually well within reach. The key will be for the Senate, starting with the Judiciary Committee, to craft from the various proposals on the table a plan that is both bipartisan enough to pass and comprehensive enough to actually fix what ails the current dysfunctional immigration system.

Any plan that fails to address the 11 million immigrants already living in the U.S. illegally is doomed to fail. We will not, cannot, and should not deport these 11 million family members and workers. Nor can we follow the current plan of making life miserable for them in hopes that they may someday deport themselves. That approach, still favored by some after a decade or more of trying, is already a demonstrable failure.

Most undocumented immigrants have been here for a long time; 70% for more than five years. Realistically, we have to entice them to come forward, make themselves known to authorities, and then ask our permission to stay. Therefore, we must create a process by which they can earn their way to the right side of the law. Simultaneously, we must fix our family and employment visa systems to create legal avenues for immigrants coming to join family members or to participate productively in America's economy in the future. Such reforms must maintain American's long history of immigrant assimilation and eventual citizenship for those who choose to make the U.S. their permanent home.

The only way to get control of our borders and put immigration on a legal footing is to create a legal regime more closely fitting the realities of the supply and demand for legal immigration. This will enhance security, elevate the rights of all workers, allow employers to compete on a level playing field, allow for meaningful enforcement, and protect the basic rights of immigrants, whether they come permanently or temporarily.

Donahue's sentiments were echoed by the labor leaders.

"Most times we're on opposite ends of the issue on Capitol Hill, but on this one we are in agreement," Eliseo Medina, executive vice president of the service employees' union said of the alliance. "We agree that to fix this immigration system that is completely broken we need to legalize the people who are here and find a legal way for workers to come in the future."

President Terence M. O'Sullivan of the Laborers union said, "To be sure, our borders must be secure ... [But] it is not honest or fair to simply ignore the 11 million undocumented workers who are already here. It is not honest or fair to ignore the severe working conditions too many immigrants in our country face."

The coalition remains divided on one issue. There is not agreement on whether to support a broad guest worker plan that would allow hundreds of thousands of new arrivals to work in the United States as temporary employees. The chamber and the service employees' union support the plan, as outlined in the Kennedy-McCain bill.. The Laborers' union opposes it.

The president of the Laborers' union, Terence M. O'Sullivan, said he thought the coalition could play a powerful role, even if his union opposed the guest worker plan.

"We will not agree point on point on immigration reform," Mr. O'Sullivan said. "But the majority of the major components we do agree upon. And there's strength in numbers."


Sources:

NYT
AP
National Immigration Forum
AP
Market Watch

Read More...

Summary only...